One solid fact

No reference to an accredited degree--Failure.

European colleges don't use accreditation. European degrees are backed up by charter.

But regardless of his education, it is beyond doubt that the world of the 1800's was fascinated with Rowbotham's work in demonstrating the earth as a plane. Rowbotham received many positive reviews during his career:

"Without endorsing 'Parallax's' teachings, it must be said that (at the Philosophical Hall, Leeds) he advanced them, supported them, and fought for them with a skill and intelligence, tact, and good temper which were not at all equalled by his opponents."--Leeds Times, May 11th, 1867.

"He displays in his lectures a thorough acquaintance with the Newtonian philosophy, and presents his own peculiar views in such a way that they assume great plausibility and astonish his hearers. At the close of each lecture discussion is permitted, in the course of which 'Parallax' exhibits great debating tact and power; his answers to his opponents being frequently loudly applauded."--Leeds Evening Express, May 23rd, 1867.

"PARALLAX AT DEVONPORT.--On Wednesday evening last the gentleman adopting this cognomen, and who has been creating a great deal of interest in this locality during the last few weeks, commenced a series of lectures at the Devonport Mechanics' Institute. The reasoning of 'Parallax,' which he has termed Zetetic, is so astounding and diametrically opposed to the great Newtonian theory which has obtained in the world for hundreds of years, that he has often been ridiculed as a crude experimentalist, abused as a false teacher, and even accused of mendacity. He has borne these harsh expressions and ungentlemanly imputations calmly and patiently; and it is but just to say that, in his lectures, he has always courted the fullest inquiry--stating that his only object is the elucidation of truth, no matter what it may be or what it may lead to; and that in his discussions he is courteous in hearing and candid in expression. That he is a clever man, and that he has studied his subject deeply, there can be no possible doubt; and it is certainly the case, whether he is right or wrong, that his arguments are exceedingly plausible, and that he has much the better of his opponents in discussion. Unfortunately those who have entered into discussion with him have in nine cases out of ten become excited and lost their command, while 'Parallax,' remaining cool and calculating, has thus, apart from his demonstrations, been enabled to gain an advantage over them in reasoning. On this occasion the discussion became very warm, and ungracious imputations were made, which 'Parallax' said resulted from a fear to face the consequences resulting from new and true ideas. The demeanour, respectful bearing, and candour of 'Parallax' bear out his assertions that his object is the elucidation of truth; and he appeals to his audience to disprove his statements, while he undertakes to prove them to be true. He is fair in every way, and it is unjust, nay, it is something worse, to treat with disrespect a lecturer of this character."

Hrm I can't seem to find anywhere he's referenced as Dr. Samuel Rowbotham at all.  I may owe you an apology.

However, like I said, I'll check our library tonight or tomorrow.

all this crying in your sleep as I lay awake beside

Hrm I can't seem to find anywhere he's referenced as Dr. Samuel Rowbotham at all.  I may owe you an apology.

However, like I said, I'll check our library tonight or tomorrow.

You're quite the good guy. Thanks.

Quote

No reference to an accredited degree--Failure.

European colleges don't use accreditation. European degrees are backed up by charter.

False. Yet another [Rules Violation] by TomB.

But regardless of his education, it is beyond doubt that the world of the 1800's was fascinated with Rowbotham's work in demonstrating the earth as a plane. Rowbotham received many positive reviews during his career:

"Without endorsing 'Parallax's' teachings, it must be said that (at the Philosophical Hall, Leeds) he advanced them, supported them, and fought for them with a skill and intelligence, tact, and good temper which were not at all equalled by his opponents."--Leeds Times, May 11th, 1867.

"He displays in his lectures a thorough acquaintance with the Newtonian philosophy, and presents his own peculiar views in such a way that they assume great plausibility and astonish his hearers. At the close of each lecture discussion is permitted, in the course of which 'Parallax' exhibits great debating tact and power; his answers to his opponents being frequently loudly applauded."--Leeds Evening Express, May 23rd, 1867.

"PARALLAX AT DEVONPORT.--On Wednesday evening last the gentleman adopting this cognomen, and who has been creating a great deal of interest in this locality during the last few weeks, commenced a series of lectures at the Devonport Mechanics' Institute. The reasoning of 'Parallax,' which he has termed Zetetic, is so astounding and diametrically opposed to the great Newtonian theory which has obtained in the world for hundreds of years, that he has often been ridiculed as a crude experimentalist, abused as a false teacher, and even accused of mendacity. He has borne these harsh expressions and ungentlemanly imputations calmly and patiently; and it is but just to say that, in his lectures, he has always courted the fullest inquiry--stating that his only object is the elucidation of truth, no matter what it may be or what it may lead to; and that in his discussions he is courteous in hearing and candid in expression. That he is a clever man, and that he has studied his subject deeply, there can be no possible doubt; and it is certainly the case, whether he is right or wrong, that his arguments are exceedingly plausible, and that he has much the better of his opponents in discussion. Unfortunately those who have entered into discussion with him have in nine cases out of ten become excited and lost their command, while 'Parallax,' remaining cool and calculating, has thus, apart from his demonstrations, been enabled to gain an advantage over them in reasoning. On this occasion the discussion became very warm, and ungracious imputations were made, which 'Parallax' said resulted from a fear to face the consequences resulting from new and true ideas. The demeanour, respectful bearing, and candour of 'Parallax' bear out his assertions that his object is the elucidation of truth; and he appeals to his audience to disprove his statements, while he undertakes to prove them to be true. He is fair in every way, and it is unjust, nay, it is something worse, to treat with disrespect a lecturer of this character."

Same problems:
No reference to an accredited degree--Failure.
No means to verify to the source and quote--Failure.
You regularly [Rules Violation] , so what you type is always [Rules Violation].--Failure.

So does someone want to answer my question or should I dumb it down?

Hey Gulliver just for shits and giggles I have found Tom's source for the quotes.

It's here.

I thought it was funny. I don't know what others will think. At least we actually know he didn't make it up.

Hey Gulliver just for shits and giggles I have found Tom's source for the quotes.

It's here.

I thought it was funny. I don't know what others will think. At least we actually know he didn't make it up.

Funny that he quotes EnaG to validate Parallax. Thanks.

I wonder if Tom will actually attempt to defend his source in anyway.

I wonder if Tom will actually attempt to defend his source in anyway.

Shall be interesting to see.

This page appears to link the complete text of ENaG btw:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Now will someone answer my original question or are you just dodging it?

Now will someone answer my original question or are you just dodging it?

There are so many facts which put the theory of a globe earth to shame that they could not all be described in one single post or thread.

It will be necessary to read through the literature. I will suggest you read through One Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe and Zetetic Cosmogony, both of which are available in full online.

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on September 28, 2007, 03:20:30 PM

Now will someone answer my original question or are you just dodging it?

There are so many facts which put the theory of a globe earth to shame that they could not all be described in one single post or thread.

It will be necessary to read through the literature. I will suggest you read through One Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe and Zetetic Cosmogony, both of which are available in full online.

Nope. Neither contain the one solid fact that the OP requested. Don't be a coward. Stand up to the challenge.

Bishop shut up and answer the question... one solid fact.  Thats all it can't be that hard.  Christ

Bishop shut up and answer the question... one solid fact.  Thats all it can't be that hard.  Christ

I'll reply for Tom Dipshit

"I gave a link which gave all the prof you'll need. But if you want one sold prof then look out your window."

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on September 28, 2007, 03:20:30 PM

Now will someone answer my original question or are you just dodging it?

There are so many facts which put the theory of a globe earth to shame that they could not all be described in one single post or thread.

It will be necessary to read through the literature. I will suggest you read through One Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe and Zetetic Cosmogony, both of which are available in full online.

Here's something else you can get on the internet, Tom.  Have you read it?

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Now will someone answer my original question or are you just dodging it?

Welcome to FES! 

hats

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on September 28, 2007, 03:20:30 PM

Now will someone answer my original question or are you just dodging it?

Welcome to FES! 

Next time you need a question answered, smash your skull until you forget what it was.

its less time consuming and causses less headaches

Quote from: The Yattering on September 28, 2007, 08:34:05 PM

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on September 28, 2007, 03:20:30 PM

Now will someone answer my original question or are you just dodging it?

Welcome to FES! 

Next time you need a question answered, smash your skull until you forget what it was.

its less time consuming and causses less headaches

This is very good advice.

Quote from: Gunznroses on September 29, 2007, 06:32:24 PM

Quote from: The Yattering on September 28, 2007, 08:34:05 PM

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on September 28, 2007, 03:20:30 PM

Now will someone answer my original question or are you just dodging it?

Welcome to FES! 

Next time you need a question answered, smash your skull until you forget what it was.

its less time consuming and causses less headaches

This is very good advice.

its how ive survived TomB this long   

Bishop shut up and answer the question... one solid fact.  Thats all it can't be that hard.  Christ

Perhaps the most visually stunning fact which proves the earth as a plane is the sinking ship effect. As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to sink from the bottom up into the sea when it touches the horizon line. The Flat Earth Society found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

See Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe for the physical mechanics of the effect.

See Chapter 9 of Zetetic Cosmogony entitled "Disappearances of Ships at Sea" to read accounts of half-sunken ships restored to full view by looking at them through a telescope with sufficient magnification.

Perhaps the most visually stunning fact which proves the earth as a plane is the sinking ship effect.

I fucking love it.   

Perhaps the most visually stunning fact which proves the earth as a plane is the sinking ship effect.

Thus have we ascertained by a simple Zetetic process, regardless of all theories, and irrespective of consequences, that the disappearance of the hull of an outward bound vessel is the natural result of the law of perspective operating on a plane surface, but modified by the mobility of the water; and has logically no actual connection with the doctrine of the earth's rotundity. All that can be said for it is, that such a phenomenon would exist if the earth were a globe; but it cannot be employed as a proof that the assumption of rotundity is correct.

According to this book, it says that the ship sinking effect cannot be used as proof to a round Earth.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

Stop being a dumb ass.

Oh, here's another link for you:

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~clark/MeasECAct2.html

It appears school children can be more intelligent than you! How do you explain this experiment?

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on September 28, 2007, 04:02:13 PM

Bishop shut up and answer the question... one solid fact.  Thats all it can't be that hard.  Christ

Perhaps the most visually stunning fact which proves the earth as a plane is the sinking ship effect. As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to sink from the bottom up into the sea when it touches the horizon line. The Flat Earth Society found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

See Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe for the physical mechanics of the effect.

See Chapter 9 of Zetetic Cosmogony entitled "Disappearances of Ships at Sea" to read accounts of half-sunken ships restored to full view by looking at them through a telescope with sufficient magnification.

Wow! TomB changes his story again. It must be hard to keep track of which story you're telling on which day. Since TomB proved to us all that the Horizon does not rise to eye level with his great panorama from Mount Everest, we already know that his argument fails. But thanks TomB for the trip down memory.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2007, 07:32:33 PM

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on September 28, 2007, 04:02:13 PM

Bishop shut up and answer the question... one solid fact.  Thats all it can't be that hard.  Christ

Perhaps the most visually stunning fact which proves the earth as a plane is the sinking ship effect. As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to sink from the bottom up into the sea when it touches the horizon line. The Flat Earth Society found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

See Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe for the physical mechanics of the effect.

See Chapter 9 of Zetetic Cosmogony entitled "Disappearances of Ships at Sea" to read accounts of half-sunken ships restored to full view by looking at them through a telescope with sufficient magnification.

Wow! TomB changes his story again. It must be hard to keep track of which story you're telling on which day. Since TomB proved to us all that the Horizon does not rise to eye level with his great panorama from Mount Everest, we already know that his argument fails. But thanks TomB for the trip down memory.

of course he changed his story, how can one have solid evidence in a theory filled with so many holes

I'd like you to answer my question Tom, but I understand if you are unable to do so.

According to this book, it says that the ship sinking effect cannot be used as proof to a round Earth.

Well yes, the effect cannot be used as proof for a Round Earth because the apparent sinking is reversible once the scene is looked at through a telescope with sufficient magnification. The effect can only be used as evidence for a Flat Earth. From Chapter 9 of Zetetic Cosmogony:--



When a ship or any other object recedes from the observer on a level surface the highest part is always seen last by reason of perspective. So that the masts and sails of a receding vessel on a flat surface should he seen long after the hull has become invisible to the naked eye. Besides this law of perspective, the hull of a vessel is generally of a dark color, and often at a very short distance disappears to the naked eye, because it has lost its individuality in the mass of surrounding water, both hull and water being nearly of the same color. It appears to have mingled with the water, and is thus lost to sight. The hull has no background whatever, but the mast and sails have a splendid background against the sky and stand out to advantage, and are, for this reason also, seen long after the hull has vanished. But that the hull has not "gone down behind a hill of water" because the globular theory is in error, which has been proven by the writer many times.

At Capetown, sometime ago, I made special experiments with a view to arrive at the truth of the matter. On one occasion I watched the schooner Lilla, of Capetown, sail away north, bound to Saldanha Bay, Instead of gradually going down the hill of water, the observer always being on the highest part, she appeared to ascend an inclined plane until she reached the level of my eye-perhaps 100 feet above sea level and then gradually diminished in size. Soon her hull disappeared-it was painted black-and her masts and sails became smaller and smaller every minute. I then applied a binocular to the eye, and saw her hull plainly enough, It remained in sight until the individuality of the vessel's parts were lost in the distance.

If the earth were a globe and the receding vessel were really "rounding the curve" then it would be impossible to restore a half-sunken ship by simply looking at it through a telescope. There should be a hill of water in the way, blocking the hull of the ship under every zoom. Hence, we see that the globular proof of sinking ships is in error, that the earth is a plane, that the sinking effect is perceptual only.

Quote

According to this book, it says that the ship sinking effect cannot be used as proof to a round Earth.

Well yes, the effect cannot be used as proof for a Round Earth because the apparent sinking is reversible once the scene is looked at through a telescope with sufficient magnification. From Chapter 9 of Zetetic Cosmogony:--



When a ship or any other object recedes from the observer on a level surface the highest part is always seen last by reason of perspective. So that the masts and sails of a receding vessel on a flat surface should he seen long after the hull has become invisible to the naked eye. Besides this law of perspective, the hull of a vessel is generally of a dark color, and often at a very short distance disappears to the naked eye, because it has lost its individuality in the mass of surrounding water, both hull and water being nearly of the same color. It appears to have mingled with the water, and is thus lost to sight. The hull has no background whatever, but the mast and sails have a splendid background against the sky and stand out to advantage, and are, for this reason also, seen long after the hull has vanished. But that the hull has not "gone down behind a hill of water" because the globular is in error, which has been proven by the writer many times.

At Capetown, sometime ago, I made special experiments with a view to arrive at the truth of the matter. On one occasion I watched the schooner Lilla, of Capetown, sail away north, bound to Saldanha Bay, Instead of gradually going down the hill of water-the observer always being on the highest part-she appeared to ascend an inclined plane until she reached the level of my eye-perhaps 100 feet above sea level-and then gradually diminished in size, Soon her hull disappeared-it was painted black-and her masts and sails became smaller and smaller every minute. I then applied a binocular to the eye, and saw her hull plainly enough, It remained in sight until the individuality of the vessel's parts were lost in the distance.

If the earth were a globe and the receding vessel were really "rounding the curve" then it would be impossible to restore a half-sunken ship by simply looking at it through a telescope. There should be a hill of water in the way, blocking the hull of the ship under every zoom. Hence, we see that the globular proof of sinking ships is in error, that the earth is a plane, that the sinking effect is purely perceptual in nature.

We know that this account is false.

One need only read The RE Primer, in particular Experiment #0013--kudos to Trekky, for proof. Here's the great photos of the Toronto skyline that Trekky provided in another thread: (BTW TomB's refutation was that Lake Ontario has tides over a hundred feet--and just at the time of photos!)