bishop has a problem with his stories

The sinking ship is a perspective effect occurring where the perspective lines intersect with the vanishing point. The effect can be countered and reversed by applying a telescope to the eye.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17435.msg301724#msg301724

Quote

This is in a previous thread.  You said that, Tom Bishop.  So, I devised an example.  An infinite flat plane, all the distance in the world for those objects to break the horizon line, and they still didn't.  That's the point I am making.

I absolutely agree with your point. On an infinite plane with a perfectly transparent atmosphere, receding objects at a level lower than the observer will never break the horizon line.

I support this simulation 100%, Ferruccio.

the model does not take into account atmospheric distortion.

And just to add to the whole splasing in the wather argument. Today in Santa Cruz, which is just south of Monterey the water was 52.5 deg today which is a day to be wearing a full body suit, booties, and a head cover

bishop, we are still waiting for your photographic evidence of seeing a beach from 33 miles away from ocean level.  time to walk the talk.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 28, 2007, 09:05:26 AM

The sinking ship is a perspective effect occurring where the perspective lines intersect with the vanishing point. The effect can be countered and reversed by applying a telescope to the eye.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17435.msg301724#msg301724

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 06, 2007, 11:44:36 AM

Quote

This is in a previous thread.  You said that, Tom Bishop.  So, I devised an example.  An infinite flat plane, all the distance in the world for those objects to break the horizon line, and they still didn't.  That's the point I am making.

I absolutely agree with your point. On an infinite plane with a perfectly transparent atmosphere, receding objects at a level lower than the observer will never break the horizon line.

I support this simulation 100%, Ferruccio.

Not only does he contradict himself, I already created POV-RAY renderings proving his point to be wrong.

200,000 prisms on an infinite flat plane, ones below the eye level, ones above the eye level.  They never intersect the horizon.


The same thing zoomed in 10x, still no intersection.


The same thing zoomed in 20x, but this time on a sphere the size of earth (assuming the prisms are 1 meter and 2 meters tall, respectively)


A more extreme example, this time with 100 and 200 meter tall "skyscrapers"  stretching out for 20,000 kilometers.  Curvature can clearly be seen.



Tom, just because it may have been a long time ago that your views have been proven wrong does not mean you should be reintroducing them in hopes that I'm still not lurking around to discover them.

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 06, 2007, 11:25:05 AM

bishop, we are still waiting for your photographic evidence of seeing a beach from 33 miles away from ocean level.  time to walk the talk.

Photographs are not admissible as evidence on this forum. Read the FAQ dumbshoe.

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 06, 2007, 11:25:05 AM

bishop, we are still waiting for your photographic evidence of seeing a beach from 33 miles away from ocean level.  time to walk the talk.

Photographs are not admissible as evidence on this forum. Read the FAQ.

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 06, 2007, 11:25:05 AM

bishop, we are still waiting for your photographic evidence of seeing a beach from 33 miles away from ocean level.  time to walk the talk.

Photographs are not admissible as evidence on this forum. Read the FAQ.

• "Picture is taken from the ground on the opposite coast. We see undeniably that the Toronto skyline is unobscured, the distance between the observer and object confirmed accurate by the photographer himself."
  
  
• "Already done. Here is the 150 foot tall shelf of ice at the coast of Antarctica"
  
  
• Celestial "Gears"
  
  
• "That's a nice excuse for the lacking of photographic evidence"
  
  
• "Any photograph showing a curved elliptical horizon from very high altitudes poses no affront to FE.  Example:"
  
  
• "If you look into the literature you will find that Lady Bount has provided photographic evidence of a Flat Earth"
  
  
• affronted by accusation that ice shelf photos were photoshopped
  
  
• my favorite: using NASA photos as evidence
  
  
• "For example, notice how these distant mountains tend to fade out and become discolored with distance."
  
  

reminds me of the "logic" a comic book character once used:

geniuses are sometimes called crazy.
everyone says i am crazy.
therefore, i am a genius!

know who said that? the Joker, a certified psycopath!

Tom Bishop is just plain nuts. he is totally impervious to logic or reason. not even dragging him onto the space shuttle and taking him to the ISS would make any impression on him!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2007, 12:29:37 PM

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 06, 2007, 11:25:05 AM

bishop, we are still waiting for your photographic evidence of seeing a beach from 33 miles away from ocean level.  time to walk the talk.

Photographs are not admissible as evidence on this forum. Read the FAQ.

not surprisingly, this is yet another convenient bishop lie.  with just a few minutes of casual searching, i found a whole heap of posts where he clearly *does* consider photographs as evidence.  examples:

• "Picture is taken from the ground on the opposite coast. We see undeniably that the Toronto skyline is unobscured, the distance between the observer and object confirmed accurate by the photographer himself."
  
  
• "Already done. Here is the 150 foot tall shelf of ice at the coast of Antarctica"
  
  
• Celestial "Gears"
  
  
• "That's a nice excuse for the lacking of photographic evidence"
  
  
• "Any photograph showing a curved elliptical horizon from very high altitudes poses no affront to FE.  Example:"
  
  
• "If you look into the literature you will find that Lady Bount has provided photographic evidence of a Flat Earth"
  
  
• affronted by accusation that ice shelf photos were photoshopped
  
  
• my favorite: using NASA photos as evidence
  
  
• "For example, notice how these distant mountains tend to fade out and become discolored with distance."
  
  

there is a useful label for people that repeatedly lie, and in such a way that is so easliy checkable: compulsive liar.

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 07, 2007, 12:46:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2007, 12:29:37 PM

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 06, 2007, 11:25:05 AM

bishop, we are still waiting for your photographic evidence of seeing a beach from 33 miles away from ocean level.  time to walk the talk.

Photographs are not admissible as evidence on this forum. Read the FAQ.

not surprisingly, this is yet another convenient bishop lie.  with just a few minutes of casual searching, i found a whole heap of posts where he clearly *does* consider photographs as evidence.  examples:

• "Picture is taken from the ground on the opposite coast. We see undeniably that the Toronto skyline is unobscured, the distance between the observer and object confirmed accurate by the photographer himself."
  
  
• "Already done. Here is the 150 foot tall shelf of ice at the coast of Antarctica"
  
  
• Celestial "Gears"
  
  
• "That's a nice excuse for the lacking of photographic evidence"
  
  
• "Any photograph showing a curved elliptical horizon from very high altitudes poses no affront to FE.  Example:"
  
  
• "If you look into the literature you will find that Lady Bount has provided photographic evidence of a Flat Earth"
  
  
• affronted by accusation that ice shelf photos were photoshopped
  
  
• my favorite: using NASA photos as evidence
  
  
• "For example, notice how these distant mountains tend to fade out and become discolored with distance."
  
  

there is a useful label for people that repeatedly lie, and in such a way that is so easliy checkable: compulsive liar.

quoted for irony.

Lol, unbelievable