Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon

Tom Bishop!

Or maybe he's actually Ann Coulter.

Ha ha, I'm referencing Americans you've never heard of, like you do with Brits here! 

What the Jeremy Beadle are you talking about?

Who??? 

Tom Bishop!

Or maybe he's actually Ann Coulter.

Ha ha, I'm referencing Americans you've never heard of, like you do with Brits here! 

I think you made them up

I say we set Vanessa Feltz onto him.

I say we don't spam the serious forums

I think you made them up

Never!

They're two well-known conservative pundits.  Look them up if you don't believe me.

I say an Admin moves this all to a separate thread, then an FEers or two (not Tom) comes to answer the Op for the good of all!

Please?

wow tom bishop asked a 3 year old for sex 

I'm starting to doubt his observations, only because after 150 years so many damn questions are unanswered, and there are so many inconsistencies that seem to work just fine with a RE.

Rowbotham was a hypocrite.  Rallying against the dogma of a round earth, then basing 75% of his own work on baseless conjecture and often superstition.  He was a hypocrite and anybody putting all his faith in that book, or claiming to put all his faith in that book, is a hypocrite too.

Yes, I'm talking to you, Tom.  You've been shown all the reasons why Rowbotham cannot possibly be correct, and instead of trying to give a reasonable rebuttal, you blindly quote dogma, ignorantly saying "Read the book".  Dogma.  That's all "Earth Not a Globe" is, and that's all "Dr" Rowbotham was good for.  This is proven by you time and time again when you tell people to read the book; you can't back what he says up with any other source (except the other dogmatic, Christian fundamentalist FEers who claimed to have conducted their own experiments proving him right).  This lack of corroboration is the reason why FET is taken as a joke.

The difference between you and TheEngineer is that rather than copy pasting the same ridiculous shit over and over again, he actually tries to come up with reasonable explanations for the bullshit Rowbotham obviously got wrong.

Whether you can trust Rowbotham's experiments or not, everything he did beyond "proving" the earth to be flat was not based on experiment.  It's based on conjecture.  It's silly dogma, all of it, and you look like a fool for constantly backing it up.

I'm bringing up this thread again because Tom blatantly ignored it, and for his own good, really needs to read it.

To be completely honest Tom seems to be drawing in on himself more and more. He relies on his own (and Rowbothams-but, seeing as he's dead, we won't count him) theories and thoughts. I can imagine him sitting in his house, slowly becoming more and more paranoid as the world around him gets smaller and smaller.

He's gone from just having the RE'ers ridicule him to having the RE'ers AND the FE'ers ridiculing and ribbing him like a tortured pet in a cage, poking him for their own amusement every now and then when they get bored.

Don't you see whats happening Tom? You're not convincing anyone. You're playing into peoples hands and just making a bigger and bigger fool of yourself the harder you try. You're becoming this era's Pauly Shore.

The best thing for you Tom would be to unplug your internet and go about your life. In time, people will forget you and you may live a few years longer due to your blood pressure not getting up everyday.

Er why wouldn't you count someone's theories and thoughts because they're dead?

Tom's trolliness is amazing at times. He is very committed or very stupid (probably both) but it's fun to debate anyway...

In answer to my own OP, I think given the lack of response we can simply go with TheEngineer's statement on the matter (despite him not being a member of FES):

"The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop"

There, now as Gayer is not here to spam this thread to death, it may be laid to rest...

The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop

Why wouldn't "Earth Not a Globe" be part of Flat Earth Theory?

Can you provide a better model than Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham?

Yup, a Round Earth. Much better model

In answer to my own OP, I think given the lack of response we can simply go with TheEngineer's statement on the matter (despite him not being a member of FES):

"The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop"

There, now as Gayer is not here to spam this thread to death, it may be laid to rest...

Oh really? I'm back for a couple of hours til its time to get the train so er spam?

Mr. Bishop I have to ask you; have you ever traveled into space? Until you do I'm gonna have to ask you to "Up shut the fuck"

I feel we've gone off-topic here, the original point was that TB often contradicts established FE canon, then othertimes contradicts himself

On a secondary point, everything said about FET or even TFET (or whatever I really don't care about the acronyms) is contradictary to each other therefore I'm gonna have to go with the fact this is a conspiracy. Nothing more nothing less. The Earth is round Tom. You fail.

"JOIN THE FE CULT AND GET A FREE SUPER-DEXLUXE LUNCHABLE!"

Quote

The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop

Why wouldn't "Earth Not a Globe" be part of Flat Earth Theory?

Can you provide a better model than Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham?

www.googleearth.com THERE'S YER DAMN MODEL TOM.

I know some FEers (Dogplatter especially) have been frustrated by the confusion between Flat Earth Theory (FET) and the version of it proposed by Tom Bishop (hereafter called TFET). Tom has been known to make very outlandish claims regarding the Flat Earth, and I thought I'd post some of them here in Q&C so that Flat Earthers (no REers please, unless you definitely know what you're talking about) can make clear which of Tom Bishop's various statements are not endorsed by the FES as a whole. I thought this might be helpful as it is difficult for newbies (and oldies, on occasion) to differ between FE canon and something Tom has just made up, simply because he is the most frequent FE poster on Flat Earth D&D.

Here goes (Quotations here are used for clarity of structure, but are not verbatim reproductions of Tom's words):

1.

Quote

The Flat Earth does not rotate

Tom has claimed it both ways, so I'm a little confused which is part of FET.

2.

Quote

The Earth is a (potentially?) infinite plane

Does FET hold an infinite Earth, a finite one, or an unknown in this area?

3.

Quote

The Sun 'orbits' at an altitude of 700 miles

Tom stated these a few times in some D&D threads, in response to some posts I made about it. He says Rowbotham's calculations give us this figure...

4.

Quote

Satellites do exist; they orbit a common barycentre like the Sun, Moon and stars

Tom holds that gravitation by mass exists in FE, but not on Earth. He states satellites are held in space by the gravitational attraction of the various celestial bodies.

5.

Quote

Most photos from space (not the Apollo 17 ones) are real. They are consistent with FE.

While this has gone largely uncontested by REers as yet, it seems a big step away from the conspiracy-oriented ideas of FET.

6.

Quote

Those in low Earth Orbit (including commercial space passengers of the future) will see a curved horizon, consistent with FE.

Similar to above.

7.

Quote

Aircraft flight times in the Southern hemisphere are shortened by 400mph jet streams, or the flights are delayed to compensate.

Also met with incredulity by REers, this doesn't seem like the kind of argument FET would employ.

8.

Quote

The ice wall is 150ft tall. It was discovered by James Clark Ross.

The ice wall question is a big confusion spot. I know there may not be FET consensus, but is this TFET statement correct in your eyes?

9.

Quote

The conspiracy does not extend to the RSA, as they do not have experience of higher altitude orbits necessary to observe the difference between FE and RE.

As above with satellites.

There may well be more, but this is all I could think of right now. If anyone would like to add some feel free (as long as they are good/important ones). If Tom feels I have misrepresented him in some way; please correct me. I am confident I can find supporting statements for each one I have listed in the many threads we have discussed them in.

The FAQ does answer some of these, but it's age and brevity make it unclear what parts of the theory have been changed or added to. Tom's additions may or may not be welcome in FET.

I posted this in Q&C because I didn't intend these points to be debated in and of themselves, just that they be distinguished FET from TFET. Thanks for your help.

Please look back at question 8, re-pasted here:

The ice wall is 150ft tall. It was discovered by James Clark Ross.

However, now, look back in the FAQ. It clearly states that the Ice Wall is only a MOUNTAIN range, and it only happens to be covered in snow and ice. 150 ft., obviously, is not mountain height, probably not even "hill" height. Funny how Tom Bishop and the FAQ disagree. I'm pretty sure no 2 RE'ers have disagreed (except maybe the mentally retarded or those that are constantly drunk/high etc.)

Quote

Suure that's proof

What part do you disagree with, that the Old Bedford Canal does not flow or that water must obey the convexity of the earth's gravity even while flowing?

The Old Bedford Canal is the same location where Alfred Wallace and John Hampden conducted their tests and trials. Those two scientists found the canal to be a satisfying stretch of water upon which it would be possible to tell whether or not convexity really did or did not exist. There we have two independent sources who found the canal to be a satisfying location for a test.

Perhaps you should either take a trip to Cambridge and see for yourself, or give them the benefit of the doubt.

No, what is disagreed with is how you post text from a book and expect thinking people to assume that is the gospel truth, because a dead man said it, and yet NASA saying something is automatically assumed to be a lie, conspiracy, or some shit take to make us cowed.

Pathetic.

The Sun 'orbits' at an altitude of 700 miles

Tom stated these a few times in some D&D threads, in response to some posts I made about it. He says Rowbotham's calculations give us this figure...


WAIT WAIT WAIT, I HAVE IT! I HAVE IT! THIS DISPROVES EVERYTHING!!!

SCORE! I"VE DONE IT!:

Explain why the sun does not burn us if its only 700 miles? If the temperature can be proven by thermal imaging from the ground why does the sun not burn us at 700mi? It would burn us alive due to the temperature proven FROM the ground by non-NASA officials. It is roughly 27,000,000 degrees Farenhiet. Now given that this is a UNDISPUTABLE FACT that the sun is this hot. So under the current situation the sun at 700mi would destroy all life as well as melt any ice wall (or any ice for that matter) clouds would evaporate and ther would be no watter, we would be essentially a scorth peice of black rock with zero atmosphere.

Why this works:

Simple princicple. You can test it at home. Build a fire. Move your hand closer to the flame, eventually it will get burned. Apply this simple common sense to a "flame" 27,000,000 F and the range of that "danger zone" increases TREMENDOUSLY. This is a simple principle to understand.

RE 1 FE 0

The temperature will probably be disputed, and the sun is magical.

captain Morgan and Bartholomew's pirate code. its more like guidelines actually!

TRY AOL 90 DAYS FREE!!!!!

zomby survival guide

I'll take my Victory Lap now. Thanks for playing assclowns.

I'll take my Victory Lap now. Thanks for playing assclowns.

You didn't win, you have to be very patient on these forums.

Quote

You keep calling him "Dr" yet Dogplatter says Rowbotham didn't hold a doctorate in any field.  Please enlighten me as to why you refer to him as "Dr".

Rowbotham held a medical degree. Read "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" for a biography. I would reprint the material here in full, but that would be an insult to Ms. Christine Garwood.

I've completed a quick skim of Garwood's book. There is no reference to a medical degree that I can find to a medical degree. Would you care to provide a page number to your references, or perhaps you just made that up like so much else?

I've completed a quick skim of Garwood's book. There is no reference to a medical degree that I can find to a medical degree. Would you care to provide a page number to your references, or perhaps you just made that up like so much else?

From Page 151:

"For some years past Dr. Rowbotham could never under any consideration be induced to travel by rail. Patients or friends wishing to see him had to send their carriage for him and in the last few months he visited Brighton for the good of his health, traveling to and fro in a private carriage. Curiously enough the mode of conveyance in which he placed his faith accelerated his death. On an occasion, in several months past, he slipped and injured his leg when alighting from a cab, and from that time his health gradually failed."

"... Parallax's family and friends were understandably distressed. On New Year's Eve 1884 they laid him to rest as Samuel Birley Rowbotham M.D., Ph.D. in Crystal Palace District Cemetery under a gravestone bearing his Zetetic teachings."