So this is a little thing that occured to me and I briefly posted my thoughts in The Canberran's thread, but I wanted to see what answer TomB could come up with because I haven't been entertained by him lately. There is a massive discrepancy between Robotham's experiments on the one hand and his use of the law of perspective on the other hand. Now you might say: "but slappy, haven't you and many others already shattered the law of perspective? Isn't this just pouring salt in the wound?" The answer is yes, but this is just to show what a manipulative prick (or astounding idiot) Rowbotham was... that and I like kicking bad theories when they're down.. I'm an ass, I know.
So here goes:
Rowbotham uses the law of perspective basically as a stand-in for the rotundity of the earth. Everything that is obscured in reality by the Earth's rotundity (sinking ships etc.) is obscured in exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree on the FE only via the law of perspective instead.
Interestingly enough however, in many of his experiments Rowbotham claims that things that should not be visible on a RE (due to its rotundity) are in fact visible, ergo the earth is flat. However, since the law of perspective is just a substitute for the earth's rotundity, anything that should not be visible on an RE should also not be visible on an FE (due to perspective of course). So then, I ask myself: aren't those experiments and the law of perspective mutually exclusive? I look forward to being entertained Tommy.