Incorrect. He was labeled as a con man by haters. The medicine in question was thought to have healing properties by many at that time. Later on it was discovered that the application of the medicine for what they were attempting to use it for would not foster the desired results. Of course he was called a con. Can you tell me why others wouldnt have said that? Why dont you 'disprove' the ship and the visual effect as noone has done thus far instead of these baseless attacks on Dr. Rowbathom.
Of course he was labeled a con man by haters. People hate con men. Is it unfair to call someone a con man just because their loyalists don't call him one?
So, I just think he's wrong. If you look at his first diagram with the lines of perspective, I don't think the vanishing point is at H. It is at W. It's just that the ground meets the vanishing point at a more shallow angle than the sky. His whole theory hinges on the idea that the ground and the sky converge at the same rate of optical slant. But, they don't. It's like, if you stand in a hallway more than twice your height, you'll notice that the floor leads to the end at a more shallow angle than the ceiling. If you lie on the ground and look at the floor at eye level, you'll notice that the floor is level while the ceiling still appears to slant downwards. Now, as far as the ship is concerned, the hull disappears not because the water meets point H closer than the sky meets point W, it disappears because the earth curves as it approaches point W, and the ship is in a position between H and W, allowing you to see only what's over the hull. Even if he's correct, the hull is at the same level as the water. Why would water in the distance come to point H, but an object
on the water come to point W? I think what he's missing is that W
is the vanishing point because the ground (line C,W) doesn't really resemble the bottom-most visible line of sight. In fact, line C,W is totally irrelevant when you're talking about the vanishing point of perspective, because it's an arbitrary line that doesn't matter. If the ground were not there, everything would converge to point W equally because the ground would not be below you to block your vision. That chart would be more accurate with another line below E,W that mirrors A,B.
Here you go... let's assume point A and G are top and bottom of the universe, and point C was your eye level. Point D would be the vanishing point. Now, let's say line E,F is the ground. Accordint to Parallax, line E,D would would meet line C,D at a point before D, but why would it? The ground is going to converge with the vanishing point at a more shallow angle than the sky, so of course line E,D converges at the same point as line A,D. Why wouldn't it?
But, the original experiments that "Parallax" conducted lead him to believe that the earth was flat because he COULD see an object in its entirety at a point where it was SUPPOSED to disappear under the curviture. One reason it didn't is because as you increse in altitude, the atmospheric makeup causes light to refract, which discounted the factors used in his experiments. This light refraction is only possible because as you look straight ahead, you are actually looking upwards into the atmosphere, which wouldn't be possible on a flat Earth. The original conclusions of the Bedford Level Experiments led Parallax to conclude the Earth was flat. When a bunch of God-squads jumped on board because they thought it proved the existance of God, that's when all this BS started. Later, REAL surveyors who knew what they were doing came in and conducted the same experiments, and concluded that the Earth is, without a doubt, round. Supporters of Parallax... one guy in particular, was actually a hard-core religious fanatic who was charged with libel and jailed for making death threats on the guy who proved Parallax wrong.