Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #100 on: April 12, 2017, 03:08:18 AM »
There is a link in the video of the Turning Torso that has the data in a chart along with the still pictures:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/138443523@N08/32177485004/

Interesting how at the last location he was able to climb up to a higher vantage point and see more of the building again....kind of like what you might see going from the deck to the crow's nest on a ship :)

geckothegeek

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #101 on: April 12, 2017, 03:23:22 AM »
The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days.
It doesn't matter how many times you'll state this - it will continue to be a lie, and one that's trivially tested. All you need to do is look at the horizon.

Of the horizon is a vanishing point at which the atmosphere becomes too dense to see through, we should never be able to see anything recede behind it. We would never see buildings or ships disappear from the bottom up, like the sun as it sun is below it at sunset.
It's not a lie - it is a fact observed by billions of people every day.

Quote
Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.
I've been to the sea. The atmoplane's effects are clear even to the naked eye. Again, your lie is laughably easy to verify.

Then verify it.

The horizon is a sharp line between earth/sea and sky obscuring the lower halves of objects that recede behind it, down the curve of the Earth.
If atmospheric density were the cause for it, it would fade out in a measurable way, eventually blurring indistinctly at the limits of perception. Objects approaching this limit would fade like it were moving into a fog bank even in the clearest of conditions.
This is not the case.

If you'd like, I can show you how the phenomenon we are referring to is observable from any point on the ocean looking towards a city with skyscrapers.

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.html?m=1

In fact, even a cursory Google search will bring up plenty of examples of this - plus the testimony of anyone who has ever stood on a ship watching a city or even another ship.
Yknow, the kind of people you would have met if you'd actually been to sea.

Or maybe you'd like to do this experiment for yourself in a larger scale. Show us all how it's done, Warrior. Bring us some pictures of a city skyline in its entirety, from the top of its tallest tower to the waves lapping at it's lowest docks, from a distance greater than, say, the width of Lake Michigan?
Especially if you can get a series of them showing the city at exactly the same height but fading slowly being the increasing density of the atmosphere.
I think that will suffice to prove your point.


It's either that or admit that the Bishop experiment isn't able to be replicated on sufficiently large scales to prove anything and its results are effectively meaningless.

Novarus makes quite a few good points.
I am in agreement, with most, if not all of them.

I don't know what kind of ship SexWarrior was on, but the horizon could be clearly seen from all the ships on which I sailed.

I will admit that my experiences were few in comparison with more seasoned veterans.
They only included three trips from California to Japan return and return via Hawaii and Guam.

They were on ships of medium size :
A troop transport passenger type ship- USNS General Daniel I. Sultan (TAP-120) - to Japan
An Escort type Aircraft Carrier USS Sicily (CVE-118) - return
Two cruises on a Seaplane Tender USS Kenneth Whiting (AV-14) - to Japan and return

The atmosphere is not so dense as to make land before, on and over or beyond the horizon not visible to the naked eye. This is noticeable as a ship sails out to sea from a seaport such as San Diego or San Francisco.
The beaches are the first to pass from view, and finally the tops of hills or mountains such as Point Loma.
When nearing Honolulu, the peak of Diamond Head is first sighted, and finally the shore when the ship is within a few miles from land.

The ship passing over the horizon is another flat earth fallacy.
Ships gradually pass out of view, hull first.
After the ship has passed over and beyond the horizon, the last parts of the ship to be seen are the tops of the tallest masts on that ship.
And once a ship has passed over the horizon and completely out of view there is no way that it "can be restored to view with a telescope."

Also.If the horizon was obscured by the atmosphere, it would be useless as a reference point.
Lookouts are trained to estimate distances to ships and other objects in relation to their locations from reference to the distance to the horizon.
There is a simple equation to estimate the distance to the  horizon based on the heights of the observer above the sea. The Navy Manual For Lookouts contains a table showing these distances for various heights.

All of these examples are simple evidence of the curvature of the earth which is proof of the earth being spheroid in shape, or a globe.
They are common examples of the way things are actually observed.
I have also observed them personally.
There are possibly those on this form who haven't had the opportunity to see them for themselves, so I am listing them as how things really are.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2017, 12:33:37 AM by geckothegeek »

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #102 on: April 12, 2017, 03:32:31 AM »
Novarus makes quite a few good points. I am in agreement, with most, if not all of them.

I don't know what kind of ship SexWarrior was on, but the horizon could be clearly seen from all the ships on which I sailed.

I will admit that my experiences were few in comparison with more seasoned veterans. They only included three trips from California to Japan return and return via Hawaii and Guam. They were on ships of medium size : A troop transport passenger type ship- USNS General Daniel I. Sultan (TAP-120) ; an Escort type Aircraft Carrier USS Sicily (CVE-118 ; and two cruises on a Seaplane Tender USS Kenneth Whiting (AV-14).

The atmosphere is not so dense as to make land before, on and over or beyond the horizon not visible to the naked eye. This is noticeable as a ship sails out to sea from a seaport such as San Diego or San Francisco. The beaches are the first to pass from view, and finally the tops of hills or mountains such as Point Loma. When nearing Honolulu, the peak of Diamond Head is first sighted.

The ship passing over the ship is another flat earth fallacy. Ships gradually pass out view, hull first. After the ship has passed over and beyond the horizon, the last parts of the ship to be seen are the tops of the tallest masts on that ship. And once a ship has passed over the horizon and completely out of view there is no way that it "can be restored to view with a telescope."

Also.If the horizon was obscured by the atmosphere, it would be useless as a reference point. Lookouts are trained to estimate distances to ships and other objects in relation to their locations from reference to the distance to the horizon. There is a simple equation to estimate the distance to the  horizon based on the heights of the observer above the sea. The Navy Manual For Lookouts contains a table showing these distances for various heights.

All of these examples are simple evidence of the curvature of the earth which is proof of the earth being spheroid in shape, or a globe. They are common examples of the way things are actually observed. I have also observed them personally.

Everything you described about ships or cities passing out of view as you moved further away is exactly what is shown in the video and photos of the Turning Torso.

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #103 on: April 12, 2017, 07:16:01 AM »
I posted a video, Tom. Nirmala even did you the favor of adding a link here for the charts related to that video.

You asked for proofs, could you explain what we see, if you would be so kind?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2017, 07:20:10 AM by andruszkow »
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #104 on: April 12, 2017, 10:56:10 PM »
Still nothing, Tom? I know you're here, you're replying in other threads.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8395
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #105 on: April 13, 2017, 12:50:34 AM »
Still nothing, Tom? I know you're here, you're replying in other threads.

If he wants to reply, he will. Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

Offline kenorb

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #106 on: November 27, 2018, 03:35:40 PM »
Related question post at Skeptic's site: Must the surface of all standing water have a certain degree of convexity (every part must be an arc of a circle)?
Link: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/42832/8014

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 657
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #107 on: November 27, 2018, 08:03:55 PM »
Any drop of water is subject to the sum of all the vector forces acting on it.  Normally the biggest force vector is the earth's gravity that acts in the direction of the center of the spherical earth.  Other forces can be the gravitational force exerted by the moon and the sun.  Winds and waves caused by boats can also cause anomalies.  In other words, water can be subject to many different force vectors and you have to know them all before you can say for sure what any given section of water will likely do. 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #108 on: January 21, 2019, 04:16:01 PM »
Looking through this thread, it seems a lot of attention was given to Totes' first 5 points, but very little addressed point number 6.
6. He provides no other photographic evidence, data, or witnesses to back up his claim. All we have to go on is his word.

Yet this is probably one of the more important points, where is Tom Bishop's evidence? His "experiment" is listed as experimental evidence for a flat earth, yet there is nothing supporting it, does Tom get a free pass or something because he's a flat earther? If a someone tried to present an experiment with zero evidence backing it up on this forum, but it supported a round earth, they'd be scorched by Tom and others. So what gives?

These were the only flat earth responses I was able to find regarding evidence.

The worst thing you can do is ignore the inconsistencies, and just assume that it was done correctly.
Indeed. It's a good thing that the experiment is so easily reproducible with good results. ...

Nice, would you mind telling us where we can find the replications of the Bishop experiment (they're not listed in the wiki) and do they have any documentation or are they spineless like Bishop's experiment?

13- Acuity of any photographic equipment used to document the results (if someone actually thought to document their results with a camera)
14- Editing or photoshopping done to any of the resulting photographic or video-graphic evidence collected
We're not interested in photographic "evidence". So much of it is fabricated that it's not worth anyone's time. Reproducing Tom's experiment is trivial, and experiencing it is much more convincing that looking at totally-real pictures of Tatooine.

Really Pete? What a lame cop-out. I thought this photo thing applied to only round pictures of the earth. So now it's every picture brought in as evidence? How ironic considering the wiki article about high altitude photographs says most of those photos aren't doctored. Or what about all the pictures of the ice wall touted around? Or the pictures of clouds lit up from the underside posted by people on this forum? And now you're suggesting that photos are inadmissible as evidence because there's a chance Tom could fake them? Then why don't you go around all over the place and call photos people have posted fake since obviously you're not interested in photographic evidence. You're just covering Tom's inability to take a photograph and back up his claims of seeing people playing on the beach 23 miles away with his magical telescope.

And now reproduction is trivial? You've said twice in this thread about how so many times people have reproduced the Bishop experiment (conveniently without providing any links to said reproductions) and now it doesn't matter because experiencing it is so much better? Experiencin it is better, but you can't throw that as a valid reply when pressed for documentation of the Bishop experiment. The burden of proof is on Tom here. If you're basically going to go "Do it yourself"  then either list the Bishop experiment as an open challenge (not as evidence) or remove it entirely .

15-Fudging of the data collected or reported to support a preconception of what should have been observed
It would be a shame if the experiment were repeated a number of times with consistent results by different people...

Again, just telling us there are replications of Tom's experiment isn't very helpful, why don't you actually give us links to the results and their documentation?

Overall the acceptance of the Bishop experiment and it's being presented as evidence on the wiki just does more to highlight the confirmation bias of flat earthers, how else does something with zero evidence backing it up somehow become fact?
We are smarter than those scientists.
Hmm. So Tom Bishop is a Russian spy. That would explain why he is so dedicated.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9000
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #109 on: January 22, 2019, 11:55:43 AM »
Really Pete? What a lame cop-out. I thought this photo thing applied to only round pictures of the earth. So now it's every picture brought in as evidence? How ironic considering the wiki article about high altitude photographs says most of those photos aren't doctored. Or what about all the pictures of the ice wall touted around? Or the pictures of clouds lit up from the underside posted by people on this forum? And now you're suggesting that photos are inadmissible as evidence because there's a chance Tom could fake them? Then why don't you go around all over the place and call photos people have posted fake since obviously you're not interested in photographic evidence. You're just covering Tom's inability to take a photograph and back up his claims of seeing people playing on the beach 23 miles away with his magical telescope.
It's even in the bloody FAQ. I don't know how to help you any more than that. Photographic evidence can be, and often is, manipulated by both sides of the debate. If you disagree with this simple statement, please explain your thoughts. If you agree, you're welcome to criticise others for their reliance on photographs.

And now reproduction is trivial? You've said twice in this thread about how so many times people have reproduced the Bishop experiment (conveniently without providing any links to said reproductions) and now it doesn't matter because experiencing it is so much better? Experiencin it is better, but you can't throw that as a valid reply when pressed for documentation of the Bishop experiment. The burden of proof is on Tom here. If you're basically going to go "Do it yourself"  then either list the Bishop experiment as an open challenge (not as evidence) or remove it entirely.
Every Zetetic experiment is an "open challenge", as you put it. You don't have to like it, but it's not changing. If you want to experience the world the Zetetic way, you're gonna have to do some doin', and probably less demandin'. And if you don't, if you think the whole idea of inquiry for one's own betterment is bunk, that's fine. We're not forcing you. But rambling about how angry you are about it won't change our philosophy, nor will it change yours.

Again, just telling us there are replications of Tom's experiment isn't very helpful, why don't you actually give us links to the results and their documentation?
Because that's not how we do things. And much like I'm not gonna force you to start seeing the world my way, I won't let you force me to perform experiments your way.

Overall the acceptance of the Bishop experiment and it's being presented as evidence on the wiki just does more to highlight the confirmation bias of flat earthers, how else does something with zero evidence backing it up somehow become fact?
The evidence is in the inquiry. You're welcome to do it yourself and see what we did. Or you can cling to your anger over the fact that no one wrote an essay about it. I recommend the former, but ultimately your epistemology is your own.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #110 on: January 22, 2019, 02:06:54 PM »
Photographic evidence can be, and often is, manipulated by both sides of the debate. If you disagree with this simple statement, please explain your thoughts.
I disagree with this. Certainly with the "often". OK, you get fish-eye lens photos but even then I don't think the intention is usually to deceive. I don't think those photos are generally taken to add evidence to the round earth "theory". I don't think many people feel the need to. It isn't a theory any more, it has been proven. We have hundreds of witnesses who have seen it for themselves, loads and loads of photos and video. Any lingering doubt about the shape of the earth ended when we had the technology to see the earth as it really is and that has been the case for over 60 years now.
Now, as you've noted those fish eye lens photos can and have been used as "proof" of horizon curve and I agree they shouldn't be. But those photos haven't been faked or manipulated, they've just been taken with a lens which misrepresents reality and people have used them incorrectly. This doesn't help RE, but photos are generally taken with those lenses to widen the field of view, not to deceive anyone.
So while I agree that photographic evidence can be faked and manipulated, I completely disagree that it often is. I'd suggest the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that claim.

Quote
You're welcome to do it yourself and see what we did. Or you can cling to your anger over the fact that no one wrote an essay about it. I recommend the former, but ultimately your epistemology is your own.
Asking people to do their own tests is reasonable, but I see that as an "as well as" to documenting your own tests, not an instead of.
Even if you believe that photographic evidence isn't the be all and end all - which I agree with - where's the harm in saying "here's the test I did, here's my photos and evidence of my results, if you don't believe me then repeat the tests for yourself"? It's telling, for example, that when Bobby did a lot of experimentation about horizon dip not one FE person tried to repeat his tests or do their own.

Bobby also repeated Tom's tests - not at the same place, admittedly, but he doesn't live in the same place. They are logically equivalent tests. And he got very different results.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10869.80
He's provided photographic evidence of his findings. It's far more convincing than someone who is saying "this is what I saw" when regardless of the shape of the earth I am extremely dubious that he could have seen the detail he claims from that distance and he has provided zero evidence that he even did the experiment.

Tom's predictable response of dismissing his results caused him to ragequit which is a shame, he was the only person on here, FE or RE, who actually bothered to get off their backside and do any tests of anything. I've dabbled and drawn diagrams to explain things but he really put the hours in.

So now what? We have Tom claiming one thing which seems implausible and has provided no evidence that he even did the experiment - yet somehow it's on your Wiki as a piece of experimental evidence. Bobby has got very different results and clearly documented them. I could do my own tests, maybe I will one day but I don't really have the equipment to do so. The documented experiment looks a lot more convincing than the undocumented one.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6074
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #111 on: January 22, 2019, 04:18:31 PM »
Read Earth Not a Globe. The effect happens over the ocean, but less frequently over landlocked ocean inlets, lakes, and canals. Location does matter. Bobby's images verify what was seen and predicted by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #112 on: January 22, 2019, 04:37:48 PM »
Read Earth Not a Globe. The effect happens over the ocean, but less frequently over landlocked ocean inlets, lakes, and canals. Location does matter. Bobby's images verify what was seen and predicted by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
And yet when you were shown the Turning Torso video - video taken over a channel far more protected from the effects of the open sea than the bay you claim to have used - you rejected it on other spurious grounds. I would suggest you repeat your experiment and document it. It would advance the discussion. Otherwise it's just you claiming something. As I believe you like to say "A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". You're making a claim. Now demonstrate it.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #113 on: January 22, 2019, 04:49:52 PM »
Claiming somebody did the "same tests," is just ridiculous when they did not do the same tests.

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #114 on: January 22, 2019, 05:00:45 PM »
Claiming somebody did the "same tests," is just ridiculous when they did not do the same tests.
If you're going to go down that road, no-one can do the same tests.
Even everything else is the same on a different day the weather will be different, the waves and tides may be different.
I don't believe though that it has to be the exact same stretch of water in order to do similar tests and expect similar results.
If you want to repeat Tom's experiment and provide some evidence of your results then I look forward to seeing them. Otherwise, see my sig...
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

shootingstar

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #115 on: January 22, 2019, 05:03:19 PM »
Quote
Bobby's images verify what was seen and predicted by Samuel Birley Rowbotham

So if the all wise all knowing Samuel Birley Rowbotham saw it and predicted it, then it must be true.  Right?  No further evidence or proof needed.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 05:06:38 PM by shootingstar »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9000
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #116 on: January 22, 2019, 05:56:32 PM »
I could do my own tests, maybe I will one day but I don't really have the equipment to do so. The documented experiment looks a lot more convincing than the undocumented one.
That's entirely up to you. I'm not here to forcibly convert you, merely to encourage you to trust your own inquiry over loud announcements and promises of others. Including out own. If you prefer to sit here talking about your personal credulity, so be it - but you're missing out ;)
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6074
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #117 on: January 22, 2019, 08:09:58 PM »
Bobby was seeing different amounts of bodies hidden every day he did the experiment. I agree, that is well documented.

Yet, the argument is that, even though what was seen was obviously and admittedly illusions, that they were the result of the curvature of the earth + illusions. This is a questionable leap of logic. An illusion is evidence of an illusion.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 08:12:31 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #118 on: January 22, 2019, 09:59:05 PM »
Weak trolling, Tom.
Please provide the evidence for the Bishop experiment even having taken place.
If you can’t then, well, see the wise words in my signature...
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6074
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #119 on: January 22, 2019, 11:10:58 PM »
Weak trolling, Tom.
Please provide the evidence for the Bishop experiment even having taken place.
If you can’t then, well, see the wise words in my signature...

I performed the experiment and documented my results. That's called evidence. Samuel Birley Rowbotham's documented evidence in Earth Not a Globe is evidence. You want evidence that the evidence is not all faked, which is absurd. The evidence is there in the reports.

Please learn what evidence is:

https://slideplayer.com/slide/5275592/



Can you point out where it says "YouTube videos only"?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 11:30:08 PM by Tom Bishop »