Ships get lower on horizon

  • 60 Replies
  • 15179 Views
Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2007, 04:08:39 PM »
Sorry to hear that Gulliver.

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2007, 04:18:20 PM »
Hmm, I was thinking. Do we actually know that the person posting on here is the real Tom Bishop? I mean, he could have just found somebody to fake so he could claim he has a Ph.D.

?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #32 on: October 03, 2007, 04:20:26 PM »
Gulliver, have you met Tom?
No, but I did buy some time of a college student this summer off of craigslist to follow him to work and to his place of worship. (I did explicitly tell him not to tell me his home address, though.) I had him verify the photo too. (There are advantages to being rich with a terminal disease.)

Wiat, so its true you have cancer?
Yes. I'm in the fourth year of a three-year sentence. There's nothing like getting overtime.

You will probably be killed by NASA agent first.
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #33 on: October 03, 2007, 04:22:58 PM »
Hmm, I was thinking. Do we actually know that the person posting on here is the real Tom Bishop? I mean, he could have just found somebody to fake so he could claim he has a Ph.D.
True. But it would show an awful lot of planning. TomB has been consistent on his geographic location. TomB's avatar matches a professional photo of him.

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #34 on: October 03, 2007, 04:28:10 PM »
Gulliver, have you met Tom?
No, but I did buy some time of a college student this summer off of craigslist to follow him to work and to his place of worship. (I did explicitly tell him not to tell me his home address, though.) I had him verify the photo too. (There are advantages to being rich with a terminal disease.)

Wiat, so its true you have cancer?
Yes. I'm in the fourth year of a three-year sentence. There's nothing like getting overtime.

You will probably be killed by NASA agent first.
I believe that the best wish I've received today. Since I'm an REer, the NASA agent will come only once I convert. Now if I can just resist the sirens' song of TomB's logic...

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #35 on: October 03, 2007, 06:11:27 PM »
...

My telescope manufacturer does not sell a camera mount for my model, and I'm not about to buy a new telescope just for you either.
...


Note: when confronted with my buying an adapter (which he said he would not buy) TomB suddenly edited his post to say the manufacturer didn't sell one for his model.

So what if the manufacturer doesn't sell one? What model is it? Surely someone sells one.

If I can't find one, then I'm find a high school physics teacher in Monterey, California and donate to his school a telescope with a camera mount with the stipulation that he loan you the donation for a day. Of course, he'd go along to protect his property and to verify your integrity (and this is only necessary because you lie so often).

Of course, we could just expect you to come up with another excuse.

Still waiting...

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65146
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #36 on: October 03, 2007, 11:02:50 PM »
Gulliver, have you met Tom?
No, but I did buy some time of a college student this summer off of craigslist to follow him to work and to his place of worship. (I did explicitly tell him not to tell me his home address, though.) I had him verify the photo too. (There are advantages to being rich with a terminal disease.)

Where's his place of worship? And you know you do sound like a scary stalker type person....please don't come murder me in my sleep or anything
I don't know. I asked him to only confirm that he attended a place of worship twice, at a regularly scheduled service. I didn't want to know even the days of the week involved. (I wasn't interested in his religion, just that he was lying about being an atheist.)

Okay, I won't.

He does seem to talk about the bible a lot for an atheist.

Phew I can sleep easy now.
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?

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #37 on: October 03, 2007, 11:58:42 PM »
...you'll first have to tell me how your model explains why deep-dripping Russian geologists found an impenetrable layer of turtle shell when attempting to breach the crust of the earth.

Is that a joke?  I can't tell.  I hope it is.  Otherwise, could you provide a reference to an impenetrable layer of turtle shells?  Is it peer-reviewed?

If you don't feel the need to peer review previously collected data for your model, I don't see why I should for mine.
Look you ugly son of a bitch, making up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is about.

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2007, 03:24:15 AM »
If you would like me to make a rebuttal against something which may or may not occur, you'll first have to tell me how your model explains why deep-dripping Russian geologists found an impenetrable layer of turtle shell when attempting to breach the crust of the earth.
I think this is conclusive proof that TB is just a troll. A dyslexic troll at that.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
tell me how your model explains why deep-dripping Russian geologists found an impenetrable layer of turtle shell when attempting to breach the crust of the earth.

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #39 on: October 04, 2007, 03:54:38 PM »
...

My telescope manufacturer does not sell a camera mount for my model, and I'm not about to buy a new telescope just for you either.
...


Note: when confronted with my buying an adapter (which he said he would not buy) TomB suddenly edited his post to say the manufacturer didn't sell one for his model.

So what if the manufacturer doesn't sell one? What model is it? Surely someone sells one.

If I can't find one, then I'm find a high school physics teacher in Monterey, California and donate to his school a telescope with a camera mount with the stipulation that he loan you the donation for a day. Of course, he'd go along to protect his property and to verify your integrity (and this is only necessary because you lie so often).

Of course, we could just expect you to come up with another excuse.

Still waiting...
Still waiting...

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17865
Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2007, 04:09:32 PM »
Quote
Still waiting...

I am more than willing to conduct additional experiments demonstrating the validity of my model. I already have conducted the ones outlined in Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which have reinforced the reality of the Flat Earth. I am certainly willing to provide photographic evidence.

My model of telescope does not have camera mounts available. Give me a little time to find a suitable telescope and camera mount and I'd be happy to confirm the claims made in the Flat Earth literature. I'll even have a High School physics teacher there to videotape and/or document and notarize the experiment.

You can wait for me to conduct my trials, can't you Gulliver? It's not like you're dieing or anything.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2007, 04:11:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2007, 04:11:17 PM »
You can wait, can't you Gulliver? It's not like you're dieing or anything.

Um...
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2007, 04:24:59 PM »


I am more than willing to conduct additional experiments demonstrating the validity of my model.

How about some experiments to demonstrate the validity of your crusty ass?

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #43 on: October 04, 2007, 04:33:23 PM »
Quote
Still waiting...

I am more than willing to conduct additional experiments demonstrating the validity of my model. I already have conducted the ones outlined in Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which have reinforced the reality of the Flat Earth. I am certainly willing to provide photographic evidence.

My model of telescope does not have camera mounts available. Give me a little time to find a suitable telescope and camera mount and I'd be happy to confirm the claims made in the Flat Earth literature. I'll even have a High School physics teacher there to videotape and/or document and notarize the experiment.

You can wait for me to conduct my trials, can't you Gulliver? It's not like you're dieing or anything.
Another excuse! What is your telescope model? There are camera mounts available for every type and model of telescope that I've ever seen. If it has a removable lens piece, then it has a camera mount available. A camera mount is nothing more than a plastic tube for almost all scopes. They're cheap and easy to acquire.

Yes, I am dying. Yes, I can wait. But I don't think it matters because you're lying, again.

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #44 on: October 04, 2007, 05:22:08 PM »
If you would like me to make a rebuttal against something which may or may not occur, you'll first have to tell me how your model explains why deep-dripping Russian geologists found an impenetrable layer of turtle shell when attempting to breach the crust of the earth.
I think this is conclusive proof that TB is just a troll. A dyslexic troll at that.

More and more (over these few hours of reading), I think you're right.  He is definitely getting good jollies by getting reactions from people.  Kudos for his inventiveness and ability to pull it off.  But if so he should face the death penalty for wasting so many people's time.  (And I'm even anti-death penatly.)

On the other hand, I've often fantasized about starting a website and forum (and a related commercial enterprise) on some rediculously impossible and wholly manufactured (by me) "belief system"--as utterly implausible as possible--and see how many people I could hoodwink.  Not out of malice, but love.  Because, after a few years according to plan, I would reveal to the press that it has all been a hoax.  (Perhaps with much buildup even built-in to the belief in advance, such as the assertion from the get-go that "on the ninth day of the ninth month of the ninth year, a messiah bearing my name will make a great and true revelation that will shatter what you think you know.")  The idea being, it would shock people--everyone not just my believers--into being just a bit more little more skeptical in their thinking and evaluation of new ideas.  But alas, I've come to the conclusion that people would not believe even me (I was brainwashed, murdered, replaced by reptilian overlords, etc.), and others would rise up to replace me in very the belief that I created, and ultimately I would have done far more harm than good.

I am becoming ever more suspicious that Tom is[/b] the flat earth society.  And furthermore, is growing tired of it as he's not trying very hard to rebut arguments, his logic is impossibly asinine (as in, you'd have to go out of your way), he slips in the most utterly moronic statements seemingly for giggles to see if we'll notice (e.g. turtle shells), and yet his seems reasonably intelligent, which in the end I think is a betrayal of his fictional, fantastically idiotic self-professed "beliefs".  He is smart, but not smart enough to pull it off in the long run.  But for now, he's getting off on fooling us all--FE believers or not--that he believes it.  He's an L. Ron Hubbard wannabe.  That's my theory anyway.
Look you ugly son of a bitch, making up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is about.

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #45 on: October 04, 2007, 05:27:32 PM »
Haha. He had me fooled for about a week. But watching him get owned time and again but noting he can sometimes put together an intelligent (if absurd) argument, I see he must be just a troll.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17865
Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #46 on: October 04, 2007, 05:50:27 PM »
Quote
Is that a joke?  I can't tell.  I hope it is.  Otherwise, could you provide a reference to an impenetrable layer of turtle shells?  Is it peer-reviewed?

If the Original Poster doesn't feel the need to show through reference that ships get lower on the horizon as he claims, I don't see the reason why I should demonstrate through reference my claim of Russian Geologists finding an impenetrable layer of turtle shell deep within the earth.

Many of these questions are entirely superfluous, lacking reference or demonstration. How am I supposed to rebuttal something which may or may not occur?



Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #47 on: October 04, 2007, 06:23:09 PM »
Quote
Is that a joke?  I can't tell.  I hope it is.  Otherwise, could you provide a reference to an impenetrable layer of turtle shells?  Is it peer-reviewed?

If the Original Poster doesn't feel the need to show through reference that ships get lower on the horizon as he claims, I don't see the reason why I should demonstrate through reference my claim of Russian Geologists finding an impenetrable layer of turtle shell deep within the earth.

Many of these questions are entirely superfluous, lacking reference or demonstration. How am I supposed to rebuttal something which may or may not occur?



I already posted proof of the OP's assertion. Now it's your turn.

Here's the photo again:

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17865
Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #48 on: October 04, 2007, 06:25:05 PM »
Quote
I already posted proof of the OP's assertion. Now it's your turn.

Here's the photo again:

How does that static photograph show whether the ship was sinking, or whether its hull was simply covered up as it receded?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #49 on: October 04, 2007, 06:27:45 PM »
How does that static photograph show whether the ship was sinking, or whether its hull was simply covered up as it receded?

The ship is never sinking. When a ship is at the horizon its lower part is invisible due to Earth's curvature.

By the way, that photo really helps the RE case.


Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #50 on: October 04, 2007, 06:32:07 PM »
Quote
I already posted proof of the OP's assertion. Now it's your turn.

Here's the photo again:

How does that static photograph show whether the ship was sinking, or whether its hull was simply covered up as it receded?
You're welcome to critique our evidence. Your question demonstrates your confusion. We offer the photo as proof that the top of the mast is lower than expected, demonstrating the OP's position.

We'll get back to you with more proof to back up our claim--right after you provide evidence for your claim. We're waiting on that photo of the turtle shell.

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #51 on: October 04, 2007, 06:48:41 PM »
Im still waiting for Tom to verify his sources as something other than random typing.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17865
Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #52 on: October 04, 2007, 06:49:50 PM »
Im still waiting for Tom to verify his sources as something other than random typing.

Why should I need to verify my sources if you don't need to verify your claims?

At least I have sources to back up my claims.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #53 on: October 04, 2007, 06:54:34 PM »
Why should I need to verify my sources if you don't need to verify your claims?

At least I have sources to back up my claims.

And again.

And where's/what's the sources? More copy/paste?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17865
Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #54 on: October 04, 2007, 07:00:34 PM »
Quote
And where's/what's the sources? More copy/paste?

My first post in this thread contains testimonials and first hand accounts from multiple investigators which directly contradicts the globular theory of sinking ships.

« Last Edit: October 04, 2007, 07:09:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #55 on: October 04, 2007, 07:34:07 PM »
Quote
And where's/what's the sources? More copy/paste?

My first post in this thread contains testimonials and first hand accounts from multiple investigators which directly contradicts the globular theory of sinking ships.


Okay, how about something from this century?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17865
Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #56 on: October 04, 2007, 07:43:18 PM »
Quote
Okay, how about something from this century?

Charles K. Johnson has published the same types of observations. You can scour through the Flat Earth News Archives if you'd like. They're available online. Samuel Shenton and Leo Ferarri have also published research on the sinking ship effect. But their literature isn't likely to be seen online or in Google Books any time soon since its still copyrighted. You'd have to dig it up.

However, none of it matters because Zetetic Cosmogony is the only source we need. If you are claiming that truth has an expiration date, then we must also logically do away with the work and findings of Albert Einstein, Max Planck, James Maxwell, Marie Curie, and Charles Darwin who published their works at around the same time as my sources. What do we have left after we discard and discredit all research over one hundred years old?
« Last Edit: October 04, 2007, 07:54:40 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #57 on: October 04, 2007, 07:54:36 PM »
Quote
Okay, how about something from this century?

Charles K. Johnson has published the same types of observations. You can scour through the Flat Earth News Archives if you'd like. They're available online. Samuel Shenton and Leo Ferarri have also published research on the sinking ship effect. But their literature isn't likely to be seen online or in Google Books any time soon since its still copyrighted. You'd have to dig it up.

However, none of it matters because Zetetic Cosmogony is the only source we need. If you are claiming that truth has an expiration date, then we must also logically do away with the work of Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin who published their works at around the same time as my sources. What do we have left when we discard and discredit all research over one hundred years old?
1) That's not a reference to anything. You fail
2) While truth doesn't have expiration date, foolishness leaves and is soon forgotten. Truth makes itself to home and becomes quite comfortable. It seems that your claim fails to have any contemporary documentation. Once photography came to the aid of documenting observations, your claim should have produced many proofs. They should be at your fingertips. Alas, you have none. Perhaps, you should follow foolishness and leave. Oh, and we're still waiting on the model number of your alleged telescope that has no camera mount available. Of course, we're convinced that you're [Rules Violation] again.
3) Don't let any copyright issue bother you. I'll buy valid copies. What should bother you though is your continued inability to provide valid, verifiable references.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2007, 02:57:04 PM by Gulliver »

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #58 on: October 05, 2007, 09:54:36 AM »
If the Original Poster doesn't feel the need to show through reference that ships get lower on the horizon as he claims, I don't see the reason why I should demonstrate through reference my claim of Russian Geologists finding an impenetrable layer of turtle shell deep within the earth.

I'm not asking you to rebut the OP, I don't care about any other post in this thread right now.  I'm asking you, Tom Bishop, to expand on this "impenetrable layer of turtle shell" business that you (not the OP) just casually threw out there.  Don't dodge my direct question to you with an unrelated reference to someone else.  I'm asking you, was that just a little joke slipped in, or were you serious, and if so give me something more to go on.  I'd love to know more about this.  I'm sure alot of people would.  Because if true, that would indeed be interesting.
Look you ugly son of a bitch, making up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is about.

Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« Reply #59 on: October 05, 2007, 10:14:26 AM »
The sinking ship effect has been proven to be an effect purely perspective in nature. By viewing the scene through a telescope with sufficient zoom a half sunken ship can be restored with its hull in full view. Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove that the earth is a globe really proves it to be a plane.

The validity of this argument (the part where dark hulls "dissapear" against the dark water and sails are starkly visible against the sky) hinges on the notions that:

A) Hulls are dark [wood]

and

B) Sails are readily visible against the sky [more visible than the hull on water presumably].

What is so laughable about this is that we have (yet again) another blatant demonstration of how pseudoscientific and antiscientific "theories" are not updated over time with new advances in observation technology, and just plain new observations.  Almost universally, such moronic belief systems cling tightly to the "widom of the ancients".  (That typically are not genuinely "old" at all, and/or never wise in their own time). You parade around jpegs of old text that were never peer-reviewed by the scientific community, never accepted in their own day--and yet since they are old, you apparently feel as if you can talk about them as accepted fact in their own day, and use them as backing evidence today.  I know a few other fanatical, moronic, dogmatic belief systems like that (can you think of a few?).  The underpinnings of your belief system have been built by an imbecile.

The concept of "rigorous evidence" involves a bit more than jpegs of an old text never accepted in its own day, written by an idiot who is now dead.  Please see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.

News flash, Tom: the hulls of most modern sailboats are fiberglass, often painted with a brilliant white gelcoat.  Furthermore, as someone who actually lives right near the ocean and is a sailing enthusiast and sees sailboats nearly every day, I can tell you from actual experience (rather than from hand-wavy assertions) that it is the sails that get harder to see, as they blend in more with the increasingly hazy white air as the distance increases.  Furthermore, sails--being thin for weight--tend to take on whatever color the air is (darker overcast, bright sunny, red sunset, etc.)  Meanwhile the gleaming white hulls are a beacon on the dark pacific ocean.  (Someone mentioned you live near Monterrey.  If so, shame on you for perpetuating what you probably know firsthand to be patently, observably false.)

I'm really getting sick of people making bold, ludicrous assertions that they have zero experiential  knowledge of, or backing evidence of other than old texts accepted as dogmatic fact, or hand-wavy thought experiments that betray a certain kind of infectious idiocy.  You post quotes from a book from an age of wooden boats, and repeat the assertions as if you know them to be fact.  You post a bunch of ridiculous formulas having something vaguely to do with an eclipse, and you have no idea what it means or how it could make a useful prediction.  Your credibility with me is zero.  You seem like an intelligent guy (sometimes), but as they say, "put up or shut up".  You, sir, have proven yourself (to me at least) to be a moron.  And probably faking it anyway for kicks.  (Which I would actually admire because that would take a great deal of skill and "out of the box" thinking.)

And I had such high hopes upon landing here, thinking that you would be able to provide stimulating debate.  Instead, you just repeat (contradictory) assertions over and over that you already believe, without providing a shred of a compelling reason for anyone else to believe them, or even a compelling reason to continue the debate.  Your moronic, terse "answers" shut down any real intellectual sparring.  I would assume, because, you are afraid of a real intellectual debate that is a step above trading ad-hoc assertions.
Look you ugly son of a bitch, making up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is about.