Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon

  • 221 Replies
  • 30401 Views
?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« on: June 03, 2007, 04:46:28 PM »
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.

« Last Edit: June 03, 2007, 04:49:45 PM by Gin »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2007, 01:13:26 AM »
11. Tom Claims that water remains flat and level even when flowing downhill as opposed to being on an incline

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2007, 05:46:10 AM »
Gin, all that is correct. I am prepared to justify each of my claims with references.

Quote
11. Tom Claims that water remains flat and level even when flowing downhill as opposed to being on an incline

If you had actually read my posts, you would have noted that the Old Bedford Canal contained standing water. Dr. Rowbotham tells us that the water in the Old Bedford Canal is very often completely still.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 03:48:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 64630
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2007, 05:47:01 AM »
He said....where's the proof?
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2007, 05:49:29 AM »
Quote
He said....where's the proof?

From the first page of Chapter 2 of Earth Not a Globe:

    "In the county of Cambridge there is an artificial river or canal, called the "Old Bedford." It is upwards of twenty miles in length, and (except at the part referred to at page 16) passes in a straight line through that part of the Fens called the "Bedford Level." The water is nearly stationary--often completely so, and throughout its entire length has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind; so that it is, in every respect, well adapted for ascertaining whether any or what amount of convexity really exists."
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 05:51:19 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 64630
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2007, 05:53:21 AM »
That's not proof
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2007, 05:58:12 AM »
That's not proof

Dr. Rowbotham studies the Old Bedford Canal for a number of months. I'm pretty sure that he would know whether it flowed or not.

    "The above-named experiments were first made by the author in the summer of 1838, but in the previous winter season, when the water in the "Old Bedford" Canal was frozen, he had often, when lying on the ice, with a good telescope observed persons skating and sliding at known distances of from four to eight miles. He lived for nine successive months within a hundred yards of the canal, in a temporary wooden building, and had many opportunities of making and repeating observations and experiments, which it would only be tedious to enumerate, as they all involved the same principle, and led to the same conclusions as those already described."

Even if the water did imperceptibly flow, the water must still obey the convexity of the earth's 'gravity'.

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 64630
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2007, 05:59:16 AM »
Suure that's proof  ::)
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2007, 06:03:02 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 06:08:35 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2007, 06:07:49 AM »
Quote
He said....where's the proof?

From the first page of Chapter 2 of Earth Not a Globe:


"In the county of Cambridge there is an artificial river or canal, called the "Old Bedford." It is upwards of twenty miles in length, and (except at the part referred to at page 16) passes in a straight line through that part of the Fens called the "Bedford Level." The water is nearly stationary--often completely so, and throughout its entire length has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind; so that it is, in every respect, well adapted for ascertaining whether any or what amount of convexity really exists."

Not proof, but rather quite the opposite.

Remember TomB: you have the opportunity to document your outlandish claim about your view across that bay near your home. I've wagered money that you can't.

Recall your infamous rant ...
    [expletive deleted] ...[M]aking up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is against.

    Dr. Rowbotham's entire philosophy was to replace conventional science with a true and practical free-thought method. He promoted a back-to-basics approach to knowledge, in which experiments were tried and facts were collected not only to corroborate any existing theory but to start from scratch to uncover the great universal and primary truths.
    [/list]
    It seems to us that it's time for you to heed your own advice. Go do the experiment with proper documentation and a reliable witness and you'll further your cause. Cutting and pasting the same refuted text over and over again won't work--in the least.

    (To anyone not familiar with TomB's shameful tactics, please do an advanced search on the text of six or more words from most any of TomB's posting to see how it's been refuted before. TomB appears to just be trolling for new people to annoy without regard to debating the issues or further human understanding.)

    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #10 on: June 04, 2007, 06:09:25 AM »
    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?
    You're wrong on both accounts.

    *

    Chris Spaghetti

    • Flat Earth Editor
    • 12682
    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #11 on: June 04, 2007, 06:10:28 AM »
    Bet if I looked on an OS map, I'd see contour lines. I'll concede defeat when I check and find there aren't any...

    *

    Tom Bishop

    • Flat Earth Believer
    • 17587
    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #12 on: June 04, 2007, 06:13:44 AM »
    Quote
    Remember TomB: you have the opportunity to document your outlandish claim about your view across that bay near your home.

    I have nothing further to prove to you. You are free to deny my observation as much as you'd like.

    Quote
    Not proof, but rather quite the opposite.

    Even nearly stationary water must obey the convexity of the earth's gravity. Which part about that do you not understand?

    Quote
    You're wrong on both accounts.

    Maybe you should back up your claims with solid experimental or observational evidence Gulliver. It seems to us that it's time for you to heed your own advice. Go do the experiment with proper documentation and a reliable witness and you'll further your cause.

    Prove to us that the Old Bedford Canal really does flow in contradiction to Dr. Rowbotham's claims.  ::)
    « Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 06:23:47 AM by Tom Bishop »

    *

    Chris Spaghetti

    • Flat Earth Editor
    • 12682
    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #13 on: June 04, 2007, 06:19:35 AM »
    do you know where the OB Canal is relative to cambridge? North, South? I really want to check this out because we've got a heap of OS maps here at work and if I knew where to look I could check it for both of us in about 5 minutes

    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #14 on: June 04, 2007, 06:23:32 AM »
    Quote
    Remember TomB: you have the opportunity to document your outlandish claim about your view across that bay near your home.

    I have nothing further to prove to you. You are free to deny my observation as much as you'd like.

    Quote
    You're wrong on both accounts.

    Maybe you should back up your claims with solid experimental or observational evidence Gulliver. It seems to us that it's time for you to heed your own advice. Go do the experiment with proper documentation and a reliable witness and you'll further your cause.

    Prove to us that the Old Bedford Canal really does flow in contradiction to Dr. Rowbotham's claims.  ::)
    Sorry, TomB, I leave it to you to prove your claims. I've done my share of the experimental work. Please recall the unrefuted SunSpots.xlsx and the purchase of computer-controlled telescope. I also see that Gayer has done quite the remarkable job of checking the contour lines. I think that should be proof enough for even you.

    Oh and stop calling him "Dr." (To those you don't know, Rowbotham did not hold an advanced degree and that no one else uses the honorific with his name except the deluded TomB.).

    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #15 on: June 04, 2007, 06:24:42 AM »
    do you know where the OB Canal is relative to cambridge? North, South? I really want to check this out because we've got a heap of OS maps here at work and if I knew where to look I could check it for both of us in about 5 minutes
    From the wikipedia entry of the Bedford Level Experiment: At the point chosen for all the experiments the Level was a slow-flowing drainage canal running in uninterrupted straight line for a six-mile stretch to the north-east of the village of Welney.

    *

    Tom Bishop

    • Flat Earth Believer
    • 17587
    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #16 on: June 04, 2007, 06:27:04 AM »
    Quote
    Oh and stop calling him "Dr." (To those you don't know, Rowbotham did not hold an advanced degree and that no one else uses the honorific with his name except the deluded TomB.).

    Pick up a copy of the book "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by historian Christine Garwood. She confirms that Rowbotham did indeed hold an advanced degree. He was laid to rest as "Samuel Birley Rowbotham, M.D., Ph.D." in the Crystal Palace Cemetery.

    Quote
    From the wikipedia entry of the Bedford Level Experiment: At the point chosen for all the experiments the Level was a slow-flowing drainage canal running in uninterrupted straight line for a six-mile stretch to the north-east of the village of Welney.

    Wikipedia isn't a valid source. Stop quoting and referencing that website.

    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #17 on: June 04, 2007, 06:28:13 AM »
    Quote
    Not proof, but rather quite the opposite.

    Even nearly stationary water must obey the convexity of the earth's gravity. Which part about that do you not understand?

    Proof? Scientific reference? Nope and nope. We've given clear examples that show that you're wrong, TomB. No one is believing you any more. I'm resolved to counter every single post of yours to ensure that no one new is fooled for a moment. You might as well troll somewhere else. You're done here, ogre.

    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #18 on: June 04, 2007, 06:30:28 AM »
    Quote
    Oh and stop calling him "Dr." (To those you don't know, Rowbotham did not hold an advanced degree and that no one else uses the honorific with his name except the deluded TomB.).

    Pick up a copy of the book "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by historian Christine Garwood. She confirms that Rowbotham did indeed hold an advanced degree. He was laid to rest as "Samuel Birley Rowbotham, M.D., Ph.D." in the Crystal Palace Cemetery.

    That's your proof. Goodness,, you don't have much to support you now! How about the name of the granting university?
    « Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 06:32:54 AM by Gulliver »

    *

    Tom Bishop

    • Flat Earth Believer
    • 17587
    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #19 on: June 04, 2007, 06:34:25 AM »
    Quote
    That's your proof. Goodness,, you don't have much to support you now! How about the name of the granting university?

    At least I reference actual publications and books to back up my claims. All you can seem to reference is user made Wikipedia articles. You are welcome to look into Christine Garwood's credentials and history. She is not a Flat Earther. There is no motive for her to lie to us. Indeed, she supports a spherical earth in her work.

    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #20 on: June 04, 2007, 06:35:48 AM »
    ...

    Wikipedia isn't a valid source. Stop quoting and referencing that website.
    Wrong again, TomB. Do you check your facts at all? Please reference: BBC News

    *

    Tom Bishop

    • Flat Earth Believer
    • 17587
    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #21 on: June 04, 2007, 06:43:47 AM »
    Quote
    Wrong again, TomB. Do you check your facts at all? Please reference: BBC News

    You really are a fool, Gulliver. I could change the article to say "The Old Bedford Canal is completely stationary" at any point in time. I could create a macroscript to change it to say those words every day if it was changed back. The very ability to do that proves conclusively that Wikipedia is not a valid source. There is no fact proofing. There is no peer review before publication. If that's all the proof you have then you truly are as pathetic as the petty and childish insults you throw around.

    If I create an article which says that the earth is in the shape of a donut, will that prove that the earth takes the shape of a donut?

    *

    Chris Spaghetti

    • Flat Earth Editor
    • 12682
    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #22 on: June 04, 2007, 06:45:01 AM »
    Quote
    That's your proof. Goodness,, you don't have much to support you now! How about the name of the granting university?

    At least I reference an actual publication and book to back up my claims. All you can seem to reference is user made Wikipedia articles. You are welcome to look into Christine Garwood's credentials and history. She is not a Flat Earther. There is no motive for her to lie to us. Indeed, she supports a spherical earth in her work.
    fixed

    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #23 on: June 04, 2007, 06:47:57 AM »
    Quote
    Wrong again, TomB. Do you check your facts at all? Please reference: BBC News

    You really are a fool, Gulliver. I could change the article to say "The Old Bedford Canal is completely stationary" at any point in time. I could create a macroscript to change it to say those words every day if it was changed back. The very ability to do that proves conclusively that Wikipedia is not a valid source. There is no fact proofing. There is no peer review before publication. If that's all the proof you have then you truly are as pathetic as the petty and childish insults you throw around.

    If I create an article which says that the earth is in the shape of a donut, will that prove that the earth takes the shape of a donut?
    I suggest you demonstrate your claim. The checks and balances in Wikipedia have already defeated more-talented evil-doers than you, TomB. Get used to it. The world has passed you by.

    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #24 on: June 04, 2007, 06:57:13 AM »
    Quote
    Oh and stop calling him "Dr." (To those you don't know, Rowbotham did not hold an advanced degree and that no one else uses the honorific with his name except the deluded TomB.).

    Pick up a copy of the book "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by historian Christine Garwood. She confirms that Rowbotham did indeed hold an advanced degree. He was laid to rest as "Samuel Birley Rowbotham, M.D., Ph.D." in the Crystal Palace Cemetery.

    Cemetery records are notoriously inaccurate and often inflated. Please reference: Genealogy Research. Let's have the name of the university that granted his Ph. D.. I'm sure from there we can confirm or deny your claim. Otherwise, the burden of proof remains squarely with you. You could of course bolster your cause with a reference to someone else who has published the honorific with his name. I couldn't find one with 15 minutes of effort.

    *

    Chris Spaghetti

    • Flat Earth Editor
    • 12682
    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #25 on: June 04, 2007, 07:00:17 AM »
    I feel we've gone off-topic here, the original point was that TB often contradicts established FE canon, then othertimes contradicts himself

    ?

    ∂G/∂x

    • 1536
    • All Rights Reversed
    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #26 on: June 04, 2007, 08:00:04 AM »
    Yeah you guys totally ruined my thread. I was trying to establish some kind of definite idea of FET vs. TFET.

    Quote from: Tom Bishop
    Gin, all that is correct. I am prepared to justify each of my claims with references.

    That was all I needed to know. The rest of this stuff belongs somewhere else.

    If a moderator wants to come and move (not delete) most of this thread to another one about the Bedford level experiment (which I suggest belongs in D&D not Q&C) that would be very good. If there are any FEers out there who want to answer the OP just to clear things up, that would be great.
    Quote from: Tom Bishop
    The universe has already expanded forever

    Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
    Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

    *

    sokarul

    • 18142
    • Discount Chemist
    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #27 on: June 04, 2007, 09:12:24 AM »
    Quote
    Wrong again, TomB. Do you check your facts at all? Please reference: BBC News

    You really are a fool, Gulliver. I could change the article to say "The Old Bedford Canal is completely stationary" at any point in time. I could create a macroscript to change it to say those words every day if it was changed back. The very ability to do that proves conclusively that Wikipedia is not a valid source. There is no fact proofing. There is no peer review before publication. If that's all the proof you have then you truly are as pathetic as the petty and childish insults you throw around.

    If I create an article which says that the earth is in the shape of a donut, will that prove that the earth takes the shape of a donut?

    So their was this article here in the Denver post not the longest ago.  They hired 3 professionals in certain fields and had them go look at a topic on wiki.  All the topics they looked at were correct.


    In other news I wikied Earth Not A globe 2007 edition and nothing came up. 
    ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

    It's no slur if it's fact.

    *

    Roundy the Truthinessist

    • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
    • The Elder Ones
    • 27043
    • I'm the boss.
    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #28 on: June 04, 2007, 11:06:11 AM »
    That's not proof

    Dr. Rowbotham studies the Old Bedford Canal for a number of months. I'm pretty sure that he would know whether it flowed or not.

    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".
    Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

    *

    TheEngineer

    • Planar Moderator
    • 15483
    • GPS does not require satellites.
    Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
    « Reply #29 on: June 04, 2007, 11:49:23 AM »
    Quote from: TheEngineer
    The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop.  In fact, just about everything he says is stupid.


    "I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
            -- Bob Hudson