[Tom Bishop]

Your video is just of a man drawing lines on a sheet and explaining Euclid's ancient version of perspective. What does that prove? How does drawing lines on a sheet prove what happens in reality? "Here is a line I drew. Proof!" 

That's all I see in ENaG. Line drawings and Rowbotham claiming "Proof!"

...

Samuel Birley Rowbotham backs up the various aspects of the ideas with various experiments that were performed over his 30 year study of this subject matter.

He does more than tell. He shows. Important distinction.

Read the material.

[edby]

Your video is just of a man drawing lines on a sheet and explaining Euclid's ancient version of perspective. What does that prove? How does drawing lines on a sheet prove what happens in reality? "Here is a line I drew. Proof!" 

That's all I see in ENaG. Line drawings and Rowbotham claiming "Proof!"

...

Samuel Birley Rowbotham also backs up his ideas with various experiments that were performed over his 30 year study of this material.

He does more than tell. He shows.

Read the material.

I have read the material, such as it is. Again, are you confusing 'straight' with 'parallel'? What do you understand by the word 'parallel'? Please answer. I notice you very frequently avoid direct questions in this forum.

[Tom Bishop]

I have read the material, such as it is. Again, are you confusing 'straight' with 'parallel'? What do you understand by the word 'parallel'? Please answer. I notice you very frequently avoid direct questions in this forum.

Rail road tracks are straight and parallel, and meet in the distance in a railroad perspective scene. The point where they meet is not "an infinite distance away." They meet a finite distance away.

You may use a telescope to modify your perspective angles and push back that point where the rail road tracks meet together, but so too does Rowbotham describe that one can use a telescope to reverse the sinking ship effect on flat bodies of water, showing the effect is not due to any curvature of the earth and more to do with angular limits of the scene. See Chapter 14 and Perspective at Sea. Thomas Winship also reports sunken ship reversals in his book Zetetic Cosmology.  A telescope cannot see behind a hill of water.

If you read Earth Not a Globe then you would know that there are various experiments inserted all throughout when analyzing how perspective works.

Experiments > Non-Experiments

The Ancient Greeks did not provide experimental verification that the perspective lines met an infinite distance away, or that they would never touch. That is merely their idea of how the a perfect world should work and nothing more.

[edby]

Rail road tracks are straight and parallel, and meet in the distance in a railroad perspective scene. The point where they meet is not "an infinite distance away." They meet a finite distance away.

So you don't understand the definition of 'parallel'. Enough said.

When you say 'The point where they meet', what is the reference of the word 'they'??

[Tom Bishop]

Rail road tracks are straight and parallel, and meet in the distance in a railroad perspective scene. The point where they meet is not "an infinite distance away." They meet a finite distance away.

So you don't understand the definition of 'parallel'. Enough said.

Perspective causes parallel lines to meet in the distance. Parallel lines are angled towards each other and will recede until they meet.

And, please, avoid the argument of "Ackshually parallel lines don't meet!" Perspective clearly adjusts two parallel lines to be angled towards each other. Two lines angled towards each other will meet in the distance.

No one is saying that they physically meet, and no one is saying that the sun physically touches the earth when it sets.

[Tontogary]

There is proof and data showing that it happens. Read Earth Not a Globe. There are numerous chapters in ENAG dedicated to the topic of perspective. Rowbotham spends a lot of time showing why and how.

But nowhere how to calculate it!

If it exists, then he should be able to have a formula for calculating it?

He does not spend a lot of time showing why and how, he just repeats the same thing over and over again.

Rowbotham does describe how to compute it. The vanishing point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute

So why does the sun disappear then?
The sun has a diameter of over 30 minutes of arc, but it is claimed that it disappears due to perspective and then goes beyond the vanishing point. Why can we not see it all the time? And why does it set?

Small pinpoints of light, such as lasers will be seen at less than 1 minute of arc, yet don’t disappear. Why is that?

Using simple trigonometry the distance at which an object will disappear (vanishing point) is easily calculated by object hieght/Tan0.0166666
If the hieght is in metres the distance will be in metres, and if in feet, distance is in feet.

Using this, an object, no matter where you observe it from, no matter what hieght will disappear when the size is less than 1 minute of arc.

So, an object of 10M in size will be visible to 34.4Km
An object 100M in size will be visible to 344Km

An object of 30 miles across will be visible to 103,173 MILES
Guess what? FE Hypothesis has the suns diameter as 30 miles, so why does the sun disappear? It has not reached the vanishing point.

[AATW]

You may use a telescope to modify your perspective angles and push back that point where the rail road tracks meet together, but so too does Rowbotham describe that you can use a telescope to reverse the sinking ship effect on flat bodies of water, showing the effect is not due to any curvature of the earth and more to do with angular limits of the scene. A telescope cannot see behind a hill of water.

Right. Which brings us back to the original experiment which started this thread. The pictures are taken by zooming so why hasn't the zoom "restored" the distant objects



With a viewer height of 2 feet quite a lot of the hotel is occluded, from 6 feet it isn't. On a flat earth it should be the same.
And if you're going to talk about waves and vanishing points then you'll have to explain why this is the explanation for the observation at 2 feet looking at a hotel 11 miles away, but in your experiment you claim that with a viewer height of 20 inches (again, less than 2 feet) and looking at a distant beach 23 miles away (i.e. more than 11) you can see the beach "all the way down to the shoreline.

Why aren't waves and vanishing points an issue for you?

Experiments > Non-Experiments

Agreed. How funny then that every time you're show experiments which don't show what you want them to show you just shout "FAKE!" or dismiss them on spurious grounds, while refusing to do any experiments yourself.

[edby]

Rail road tracks are straight and parallel, and meet in the distance in a railroad perspective scene. The point where they meet is not "an infinite distance away." They meet a finite distance away.

So you don't understand the definition of 'parallel'. Enough said.

Perspective causes parallel lines to meet in the distance. Parallel lines are angled towards each other and will recede until they meet.

And, please, avoid the argument of "Ackshually parallel lines don't meet!" Perspective clearly adjusts two parallel lines to be angled towards each other. Two lines angled towards each other will meet in the distance.

As I said, you don't understand the definition of 'parallel', and enough said.

Or you are wilfully trolling. Hard to understand which.

[Tom Bishop]

You may use a telescope to modify your perspective angles and push back that point where the rail road tracks meet together, but so too does Rowbotham describe that you can use a telescope to reverse the sinking ship effect on flat bodies of water, showing the effect is not due to any curvature of the earth and more to do with angular limits of the scene. A telescope cannot see behind a hill of water.

Right. Which brings us back to the original experiment which started this thread. The pictures are taken by zooming so why hasn't the zoom "restored" the distant objects

https://image.ibb.co/fbi8Fd/standup.jpg

With a viewer height of 2 feet quite a lot of the hotel is occluded, from 6 feet it isn't. On a flat earth it should be the same.

And if you're going to talk about waves and vanishing points then you'll have to explain why this is the explanation for the observation at 2 feet looking at a hotel 11 miles away, but in your experiment you claim that with a viewer height of 20 inches (again, less than 2 feet) and looking at a distant beach 23 miles away (i.e. more than 11) you can see the beach "all the way down to the shoreline.

Why aren't waves and vanishing points an issue for you?

Read the chapter Perspective at Sea in which obscured bodies at sea are identified to be hidden by disturbances on the ocean.

The amount and height of swells on the ocean varries throughout the day and by location. If we were set up a timelapse a video camera we would see that sometimes one can see more or less of that hotel throughout the day.

GlobeBusters had a nice time lapse video of such a scene, which demonstrated the matter, showing that the water would seem to rise and fall throughout the day to obscure and hide or reveal distant bodies, showcasing the explanation for why people have reported contradicting observations on such surfaces. The video was also shown at the last big US Flat Earth conference. I will see if I can find that video.

Rowbotham studied all of this 150 years ago. This is why the experiments are performed on large bodies of standing water, as there can be issues with waves and swells on ocean conditions.

[edby]

Why aren't waves and vanishing points an issue for you?

I don't think he even understands what a vanishing point is. There is no point in arguing with someone whose understanding of basic geometry is so wilfully flawed. By 'wilfully flawed' I mean, he is clearly intelligent enough to understand the subject with a bit of work, and not much at that, but he is not inclined to bother.

[Tontogary]

You may use a telescope to modify your perspective angles and push back that point where the rail road tracks meet together, but so too does Rowbotham describe that one can use a telescope to reverse the sinking ship effect on flat bodies of water, showing the effect is not due to any curvature of the earth and more to do with angular limits of the scene. See Chapter 14 and Perspective at Sea. Thomas Winship also reports sunken ship reversals in his book Zetetic Cosmology.  A telescope cannot see behind a hill of water.

If you read Earth Not a Globe then you would know that there are various experiments inserted all throughout when analyzing how perspective works.

Experiments > Non-Experiments

Sorry Tom, you have got it wrong.

There are drawings in EnaG, and descriptions, but very few experiments, and what experiments are undertaken are flawed, and the results are based in the fact that the Earth is Flat. Confirmation bias. He does not ever provide proper details of his equipment, heights, distances or how any are verified. He only draws perspective lines, and get asks the reader to believe his conclusions.

I probably see ships hull down in the water most days, so i have a fair amount of experience on this, and I have NEVER seen a hull down ship restored with binoculars. EVER. If it happened i would see it all the time, but it does not happen. Sorry.

The hulls of modern large tankers (not the superstructure) are about 15 to 20M from the water line to deck
Taking your example of angular distance of less than 1 minute, then the hull disappears at about 28 nautical miles. Sorry, that is not true. I have never seen a ships hull at 28 miles away.
Finally the picture taken below, was not clear, as i needed to take it through binoculars, as i dont have a good zoom lens, but it was taken at about 20 miles. The hull is nowhere to be seen, which should according to you have been, 1, restored by magnification, and 2, be visible to 28 miles by naked eye.

[Tom Bishop]

There are drawings in EnaG, and descriptions, but very few experiments, and what experiments are undertaken are flawed, and the results are based in the fact that the Earth is Flat. Confirmation bias. He does not ever provide proper details of his equipment, heights, distances or how any are verified. He only draws perspective lines, and get asks the reader to believe his conclusions.

I probably see ships hull down in the water most days, so i have a fair amount of experience on this, and I have NEVER seen a hull down ship restored with binoculars. EVER. If it happened i would see it all the time, but it does not happen. Sorry.

The hulls of modern large tankers (not the superstructure) are about 15 to 20M from the water line to deck
Taking your example of angular distance of less than 1 minute, then the hull disappears at about 28 nautical miles. Sorry, that is not true. I have never seen a ships hull at 28 miles away.
Finally the picture taken below, was not clear, as i needed to take it through binoculars, as i dont have a good zoom lens, but it was taken at about 20 miles. The hull is nowhere to be seen, which should according to you have been, 1, restored by magnification, and 2, be visible to 28 miles by naked eye.

Read the material please.

You seem to have missed the chapter Perspective at Sea, which describes that often waves are the cause for the sinking ship effect and that at those times a telescope cannot restore the ship

The restoration experiment must be done on a standing body of water, such as a canal or lake. But you would know this if you guys were to actually ever read the book that Samuel Birley Rowbotham went to great efforts creating for you rather than making off the cuff arguments.

If you are attempting to contradict us, how about actually reading and understanding our material? Its only been in black and white for 150 years.

[AATW]

The amount and height of swells on the ocean varries throughout the day and by location. If we were set up a timelapse a video camera we would see that sometimes one can see more or less of that hotel throughout the day.

Except...

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.
—Tom Bishop

https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence

Doesn't seem to have been a problem for you.

This is why the experiments are performed on large bodies of standing water, as there can be issues with waves and swells on ocean conditions.

But your experiment wasn't on standing water, it was across a bay open to the ocean...
Are we expected to believe that over a stretch of 23 miles there was no wave or swell over 20 inches high?

[inquisitive]

There are drawings in EnaG, and descriptions, but very few experiments, and what experiments are undertaken are flawed, and the results are based in the fact that the Earth is Flat. Confirmation bias. He does not ever provide proper details of his equipment, heights, distances or how any are verified. He only draws perspective lines, and get asks the reader to believe his conclusions.

I probably see ships hull down in the water most days, so i have a fair amount of experience on this, and I have NEVER seen a hull down ship restored with binoculars. EVER. If it happened i would see it all the time, but it does not happen. Sorry.

The hulls of modern large tankers (not the superstructure) are about 15 to 20M from the water line to deck
Taking your example of angular distance of less than 1 minute, then the hull disappears at about 28 nautical miles. Sorry, that is not true. I have never seen a ships hull at 28 miles away.
Finally the picture taken below, was not clear, as i needed to take it through binoculars, as i dont have a good zoom lens, but it was taken at about 20 miles. The hull is nowhere to be seen, which should according to you have been, 1, restored by magnification, and 2, be visible to 28 miles by naked eye.

Read the material please.

You seem to have missed the chapter Perspective at Sea, which describes that often waves are sometimes the cause for the sinking ship effect and that at those times a telescope cannot restore the ship

The restoration experiment must be done on a standing body of water, such as a canal or lake. But you would know this if you guys were to actually ever read the book that Samuel Birley Rowbotham went to great efforts creating for you rather than making off the cuff arguments.

If you are attempting to contradict us, how about actually reading and understanding our material? It's only been in black and white for 150 years.

Details of the experiments carried out recently please.  And please reply.

[Tom Bishop]

The amount and height of swells on the ocean varries throughout the day and by location. If we were set up a timelapse a video camera we would see that sometimes one can see more or less of that hotel throughout the day.

Except...

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.
—Tom Bishop

https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence

Doesn't seem to have been a problem for you.

Read through the entire page. I also specify in the first sentence "On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa."

A very clear and chilly day. Qualifier. It is not possible to see the opposite coast on some days. On those days where the opposite coast can be seen, it must be because the day and and the ocean is calm. It is possible to observe the effect at times through the year, but mainly on clear/calm days as was qualified.

The opposite coast should not be seen at all, ever, according to the hundreds of feet it needs to drop in the Round Earth Theory.

This is why the experiments are performed on large bodies of standing water, as there can be issues with waves and swells on ocean conditions.

But your experiment wasn't on standing water, it was across a bay open to the ocean...
Are we expected to believe that over a stretch of 23 miles there was no wave or swell over 20 inches high?

The quality of the ocean varies a lot. Look into Surf Forecasts.

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/hnl/pages/SRF.php

SURF ZONE FORECAST
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HONOLULU HI
400 PM HST FRI MAY 11 2018

OAHU-
400 PM HST FRI MAY 11 2018

Surf along north facing shores will be 3 to 5 feet tonight, building to 5 to 7 feet Saturday.

Surf along west facing shores will be 2 to 4 feet tonight, building to 3 to 5 feet Saturday.

Surf along east facing shores will be 1 to 3 feet tonight, building to 2 to 4 feet Saturday.

Surf along south facing shores will be 1 to 3 feet through Saturday.

[Tontogary]

There are drawings in EnaG, and descriptions, but very few experiments, and what experiments are undertaken are flawed, and the results are based in the fact that the Earth is Flat. Confirmation bias. He does not ever provide proper details of his equipment, heights, distances or how any are verified. He only draws perspective lines, and get asks the reader to believe his conclusions.

I probably see ships hull down in the water most days, so i have a fair amount of experience on this, and I have NEVER seen a hull down ship restored with binoculars. EVER. If it happened i would see it all the time, but it does not happen. Sorry.

The hulls of modern large tankers (not the superstructure) are about 15 to 20M from the water line to deck
Taking your example of angular distance of less than 1 minute, then the hull disappears at about 28 nautical miles. Sorry, that is not true. I have never seen a ships hull at 28 miles away.
Finally the picture taken below, was not clear, as i needed to take it through binoculars, as i dont have a good zoom lens, but it was taken at about 20 miles. The hull is nowhere to be seen, which should according to you have been, 1, restored by magnification, and 2, be visible to 28 miles by naked eye.

Read the material please.

You seem to have missed the chapter Perspective at Sea, which describes that often waves are sometimes the cause for the sinking ship effect and that at those times a telescope cannot restore the ship

The restoration experiment must be done on a standing body of water, such as a canal or lake. But you would know this if you guys were to actually ever read the book that Samuel Birley Rowbotham went to great efforts creating for you rather than making off the cuff arguments.

If you are attempting to contradict us, how about actually reading and understanding our material? It's only been in black and white for 150 years.

I have read the material, and it makes a load of nonsense!

Please look at the picture i attached and attempt to explain how a 20M high black hull can be hidden by “waves” it is not possible.
You use the dime hiding the elephant phrase as a “proof” of a small wave hiding a larger object behind, however;

My height of eye is 34 metres, and it would need an incredibly high wave to hide that ship. It would have to be between me at 34 meters high, looking DOWN upon a hull of a ship 18 meters high, so to obscure the hull the wave would need to be at least 20M high, if it was close to the other ship, and MUCH higher if it was close to mine. There were no swells that day.
 
The picture of the ship is a type and size that i know, ship i know and know the height of the hull above the water, and if you bothered looking at the sea, you will see it is a flat calm day, no wind, no waves and no swell. I was there, you were not. So dont tell me it was waves!

I have been on many canals (and the New Bedford is NOT a canal, it is a river) and seen much bigger waves. I think i am qualified to determine what’s waves and swell were in the area at the time, as i was in the same area.

The horizon according to flat earth is at the vanishing point, but how do you determine a vanishing point of the sea surface?

I have already proved by measurement that the horizon does not rise up to meet eye level, so you dont need to keep on quoting AnaG, as he is wrong. He only says i have seen this so that, i have seen that so this, no actual measurements, or photographs (yes they were invented when his book were printed) so please excuse me if i dont immediately accept his “proofs”

[Bobby Shafto]

Are these waves?

[Tumeni]

Your video is just of a man drawing lines on a sheet and explaining Euclid's ancient version of perspective. What does that prove? How does drawing lines on a sheet prove what happens in reality? "Here is a line I drew. Proof!" 

That's all I see in ENaG. Line drawings and Rowbotham claiming "Proof!"

...

Samuel Birley Rowbotham backs up the various aspects of the ideas with various experiments that were performed over his 30 year study of this subject matter.

He does more than tell. He shows. Important distinction.

Read the material.

All that we have there is line diagrams and writing.

You're taking someone else to task for only providing a video with line diagrams and commentary.

There's no difference.

If you can take someone else to task for this, it's equally valid to take ENaG to task for the same reason.

[nickrulercreator]

Tom, what about observations over land rather than water?

[edby]

Tom, what about observations over land rather than water?

I suspect these will be dismissed on the basis that the land might not be flat. By contrast, a keystone of the FE belief-system is that water must always be level. Stands to reason, right?