my evidence

Tom Bishop is a zealot.

cpt-bthimes will never be able to convince him, regardless of the strength of the argument, because TB cannot see reason or accept evidence contrary to his belief. You may as well try to convince the Pope that God isn't real. He shows this time and again by his dismissal of evidence, refusal to counter arguments and one line "I say so" comments.

cpt-bthimes, I salute you but it's a losing battle.

Tom Bishop is a zealot.

cpt-bthimes will never be able to convince him, regardless of the strength of the argument, because TB cannot see reason or accept evidence contrary to his belief. You may as well try to convince the Pope that God isn't real. He shows this time and again by his dismissal of evidence, refusal to counter arguments and one line "I say so" comments.

cpt-bthimes, I salute you but it's a losing battle.

Rowbotham is right, you are all wrong.

You lose.

I like cpt_bthimes last statement.  We all know not that from here on out, anything Tom Bishop posts will be irrelevant to the discussion, therefore we should ignore it completely.


However, we can not dismiss the fact that cpt_bthimes has posted an enormous amount of evidence and data to back up his "claims" of a RE. 

So it would be nice to get the thread back on track and leave it open for discussion.  As in, some other FE advocates could come in, examine the evidence and offer up explanation, discussion, and/or debate.

thanks all.  bishop has tried to poke holes in the methodology, the data, and the conclusions.  rather poorly and messily, but he has been specifically beaten on all three.  now instead of just running a way, the proper rebuttal for a gentleman (with a proper set of nuts, an ounce of real-world motivation, and a single gram of self-assurance), would be to...

challenge the findings with disconfirming evidence of your own

he has the necessary equipment, including a telescope that seems every bit as 'very good' as rowbotham's refractor spotting scope.  he claims to have repeated the experiment many times.  (once he even said, my paraphrase from memory, "whenever i begin to doubt the theory of a flat earth, i just go to the beach with a telescope, and look at the beach on the other side of monterrey bay".)  it should be a trivial matter to conduct, document, and post, right?  mine took so long only because i repeated the farallons experiment twice times (as you can see in the photos), and conducted many other experiments all over the northern sf bay area...as in the photos.  but bishop already has the exact spot picked out!  he as done it multiple times!  it should be trivial just to take his camera and $40 adapter with him next time.

for at least a month, i have repeatedly pleaded, goaded, and bribed bishop to get off his lazy ass and obtain the visual evidence and supporting data to back up his oddly specific "33 mile beach" claims.  he steadfastly refuses to even *commit* to someday doing so.  for months he relied on the excuse, "there is no way to attach my camera to my telescope".  yet someone long ago disproved that claim, providing a link to the exact part number and price (<$40).

instead, his very last post on this thread (to date) was simply: "Did you graduate from your elementary school?"  wow.  i guess that showed us, or something.

this will simply be chalked up to a long list of thread bishop forfeits.  yes, it's hard to claim "victory" when no one is around to concede defeat.  or even just a simple, "good point.  i need to think about this."  i once compiled a list of threads bishop ran away from.  it quickly became way too burdensome and utterly pointless, the list got out of control.  (some forfeits are related to similar subjects here, and/or some are sub-arguments from the same threads.  it's no coincidence that most of the threads or sub-topics are mine; that's not vanity, it was just a more convenient place to start.)


tiny sampling of some blatant and egregious bishop forfeits

• failed to defend assertion that the 'Bedford Level Experiment' Wikipedia page is flawed (bishop claimed wallace was a fe'er)
  
  
• refused to post pictures corroborating his story of children splashing
  
  
• failed to provide examples backing up his specific claims of fraud on certain nasa photos (lost on two counts, forfeited on one)
  
  
• failed to explain why do planets line up on the ecliptic in his model of planetary orbit
  
  
• failed to defend his assertions that photos of ordinary ice shelves were the "ice wall" (this was more of a punt - he said the 'real' ice wall might actually be further in past his finally conceded pseudo-ice wall)
  
  
• confronting bishop with his toronto pic lie went mysteriously undefended
  
  
• failed to defend himself when presented with a list of his blatant contradictions over statements of "photographs are not admissable as evidence"
  
  
• directly contradicted self over what the "real stars" are with ms-paint blobs in one nasa photo version, and dust on the original scan in another; failed to defend self when this fact was pointed out
  
  
• failed to defend or counterattack when his assertion that 'compasses spin wildly in seattle wa', was shredded by fe'ers
  
  
• failed to answer what evidence he would find acceptable to back up re claims
  
  
• a recent status of multiple undefended bishop claims in summary form - some already noted above
  

and as long as i am copy/pasting lists of bishop f-ups, why not this too: a very tiny subsampling of bishop caught in lies.  (it is no coincidence some of the threads and topics overlap with above - i did these around the same time and started with the same collection of threads before writing it of as a pointless excercise.  furthmore, as above, it's no coincidence they are mostly my topics.  i added one of his lies from this thread.)

bishop lies

• purposefully misrepresented toronto pic: lie | truth
  
  
• he can see children splashing in 55 degree water and frisbees from 33 miles away at sea level: lie | truth
  
  
• his model of telescope does not have a camera mount: lie #1 | lie #2 | truth
  
  
• he doesn't consider photographs as evidence: lie #1 (of countles) | truth
  
  
• a canon digital rebel xti with 400mm zoom lens does not meet rowbotham's requirements for restoring sunken [islands /cities] from 28 miles away: lie | truth
  

he is also avoiding the thread "debate: lunar phases". notice the last 4 posts are mine!

Still arguing with Tom?  Will you ever learn...

obviously, no.  if i had, i would have stopped debating him on my first day here...

On the picture of your camera and lens, there is a small magnification icon on the bottom right.

Almost as if you took the image from a web catalog and pawned it off as your own.

Would you care to post a picture of the same camera and lens with a handwritten note saying "mxyzptlk" lying on top? That way we can know you really own this.

If you are faking pictures of your equipment, why should we believe your pictures? Are they snipped off Amazon too?

he is also avoiding the thread "debate: lunar phases". notice the last 4 posts are mine!

lol.  Post a few more times and I'm sure he'll return.  Just keep trying. 

On the picture of your camera and lens, there is a small magnification icon on the bottom right.

Almost as if you took the image from a web catalog and pawned it off as your own.

Would you care to post a picture of the same camera and lens with a handwritten note saying "mxyzptlk" lying on top? That way we can know you really own this.

If you are faking pictures of your equipment, why should we believe your pictures? Are they snipped off Amazon too?

i assume you are talking to me.  mainly because i noticed the little magnifying glass too and therefore know what you are talking about.

you think i said that was my lens?  if so, you need to actually read the post, where i provide a link to a popular website with...drum roll...an article on that very lens including that very picture.  better yet, actually read the whole thread - or at least several posts before, and two or three after.  there you'll learn the purpose of that particular post, and what lens i own.

then, should i expect an apology?  i don't really want or expect one, but it might be big of you for your complete failure to learn the facts before you accuse.

Quote from: zeroply on December 21, 2007, 05:50:03 PM

On the picture of your camera and lens, there is a small magnification icon on the bottom right.

Almost as if you took the image from a web catalog and pawned it off as your own.

Would you care to post a picture of the same camera and lens with a handwritten note saying "mxyzptlk" lying on top? That way we can know you really own this.

If you are faking pictures of your equipment, why should we believe your pictures? Are they snipped off Amazon too?

i assume you are talking to me.  mainly because i noticed the little magnifying glass too and therefore know what you are talking about.

you think i said that was my lens?  if so, you need to actually read the post, where i provide a link to a popular website with...drum roll...an article on that very lens including that very picture.  better yet, actually read the whole thread - or at least several posts before, and two or three after.  there you'll learn the purpose of that particular post, and what lens i own.

then, should i expect an apology?  i don't really want or expect one, but it might be big of you for your complete failure to learn the facts before you accuse.

I read the first couple words of your post and I was not talking to you so I do not appreciate the sarcastic remark. (Insert sarcasm where available)

Quote from: zeroply on December 21, 2007, 05:50:03 PM

On the picture of your camera and lens, there is a small magnification icon on the bottom right.

Almost as if you took the image from a web catalog and pawned it off as your own.

If you are faking pictures of your equipment, why should we believe your pictures? Are they snipped off Amazon too?

i assume you are talking to me.  mainly because i noticed the little magnifying glass too and therefore know what you are talking about.

you think i said that was my lens?  if so, you need to actually read the post, where i provide a link to a popular website with...drum roll...an article on that very lens including that very picture.  better yet, actually read the whole thread - or at least several posts before, and two or three after.  there you'll learn the purpose of that particular post, and what lens i own.

then, should i expect an apology?  i don't really want or expect one, but it might be big of you for your complete failure to learn the facts before you accuse.

Went back and read your post, it was very misleading, for example if I said:

My wife is very attractive and has a great body. I think she looks fantastic.

(and then I post a picture of Angelina Jolie)

Obviously while I have not claimed that the picture is that of my wife, the prior sentences make the assumption implicit.

It's a misleading change in context. Obviously we're talking about YOUR lens. You posted a picture of the biggest lens you could fine. If I posted a picture of the biggest refracting telescope I could fine, I am fairly sure it would be bigger than that lens.

Surely you don't think that ANY lens has superior zoom capacity over a modest refracting telescope? I might be misunderstanding your point.

i told you to go back and read the original context.  obviously you didn't.  i'm going to spell this out to you very slowly, so that a five year old could understand.  possibly even you and bishop.

below is the first post where i linked the image, with everything stripped out but the relevant context.  notice how bishop made a single, global, all-inclusive assertion.  this was his mistake, and that is what i intended to nail him on.  (which he does all the time and i completely p0wn him all the time the same way i did here.)  in order to prove him wrong, all i had to do was find *one* and only one camera lens that would counter his assertion, thus invalidating his whole argument and proving him wrong.  so you are quite right when you said i found the absolute biggest lens i could, that was still arguably a camera lens.  you just didn't have a clue *why* that was a correct statement.  even though i spelled out this very reasoning in this post.

now, as you can see below, i included the link to the fucking web page from where i found the image.  if you can't even understand that part, you are beyond bothering with.

furthermore, i made it very, very clear from the start of the thread that all images contain full exif information, containing all the pertinent information about my equipment.  although the lens is misidentified in exif as being something like 300mm, the focal length range is stated in the very next attribute as 200 to 400mm.  clearly not that giant lens.

but, misunderstandings can arise.  you know that, i know that.  the real test of a purposeful misunderstanding, or accidental, is how long you let it go on.  although i thought it was perfectly clear why i posted it (to cram bishop's logic in his own face), one poster that we know of thought that was my lens.  (another post just said "shit!".)  clearly, if that was intentional, i would have been home free.

but yet, i cleared up any confusion about the lens in this post that the giant one wasn't my lens, and the brand and attributes of lens was.

you can clearly see for yourself that i cleared up any confusion as soon as i read that someone had misinterpreted my post (you can see that my several sequential replies went in order), with only two people posting, and five hours elapsed - in between the lens picture and the clarification.

now explain to me how the fuck that is deliberately misrepresentation.

the funny thing is, if i wanted to lie about this lens, it would have been trivially easy to shut you down.  because, you are not only a jackass, you are a remarkably stupid jackass.  you challenged me to prove it was my lens by writing down an unlikely series of characters, and posting a picture of them.  ok, i could have very easily done that, and apparently you would have then believed i owned that giant lens.  in fact, if i had provided some other visual clues as well that allowed someone (not you - too dumb) to calculate the approximate focal length, it would have been even more "proof" for you - because my camera lens has the exact same focal length as that giant one.  i already stated that several times.  you can go to any camera store and for a mere two or three or four hundred dollars, also buy one with the exact same focal length.  (but don't believe me.  read the specs on that lens, then go run a query on adorama.com.)

do i get that apology?  i'm guessing not.  you are too big of a coward.  you prefer to just snipe at the hard work of others, finding the most trivial of errors, and screaming "liar!" about it.  interestingly enough, we know of only one person was definitely genuinely confused, and we know of multiple people who were not confused at all.

so, go piss off.  i'm done with you now.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2007, 04:22:45 PM

Quote

it's not the camera, it's the lens.  you lose.

The zoom potential of a camera lens is not comparable to the zoom potential of a refracting telescope.

as an illustration of what an complete idiot you are, take a look at this camera lens and tell me again, categorically that "The zoom potential of a camera lens is not comparable to the zoom potential of a refracting telescope."

you are not only a jackass, you are a remarkably stupid jackass

My patience is wearing thin.

cpt_bthimes: I would love to read your posts in their entirety but I have a day job. Can you summarize this in under 500 words or so, say? I don't have the time to read half a million words to determine some hidden context that you claim but I don't see.

Here's a very simple clarifying question for you:

If you take the strongest (non-telescope) SLR lens and look at Venus, are you saying that the image would appear bigger to the human eye than a $600 Mead reflecting telescope?

That's where I'm losing you.

you just can't admit you are wrong, can you?  are you sure you are not tom bishop?  first, you accuse me of purposeful misrepresentation - not a trivial thing.  now that i have proven your accusations bogus and baseless, you want to debate magnification power?

when you falsely accuse someone of lying, it is incumbent upon you to listen to their defense.  and apologize or at least concede when you are proven wrong.  otherwise you prove yourself a lazy, cowardly roadside bomber of ideas - too big of a p***y to stand up for a real fight.

but i anticipated your fear of reading and challenged comprehension skills.  which is why i used big, bold letters on just a few points for those with rudimentary reading skills.  just read those parts.  better yet, don't.  just keep appearing ignorant, i do not care.

as for magnification power, myself and others (including an astronomer) have debated that in this very thread.  if you are actually curious about it, rather than just diverting attention from your bucket of fail, then read the thread.  you might learn something.

and now, i am done with you.  i enjoy real debates and honest, legitimate challenges to the methods, data, and conclusions of my (or any) experiment.  but you bore me.

I wanna rename this thread Tom Bishop's win.

I wanna rename this thread Tom Bishop's win.

how ironic that would be. not as ironic as FE win though

Lol. Your post is ironic. Mine is not.

Find the purpose of Tom and you'll find your answer.

cpt_bthimes: I would love to read your posts in their entirety but I have a day job. Can you summarize this in under 500 words or so, say? I don't have the time to read half a million words to determine some hidden context that you claim but I don't see.

Here's a very simple clarifying question for you:

If you take the strongest (non-telescope) SLR lens and look at Venus, are you saying that the image would appear bigger to the human eye than a $600 Mead reflecting telescope?

That's where I'm losing you.

The zoom factor (size of the image) is not important here, but the resolution (amount of detail) is. cpt_bthimes' camera has much, much, much better resolving power than any old telescope from the 1800's.

The zoom factor (size of the image) is not important here, but the resolution (amount of detail) is. cpt_bthimes' camera has much, much, much better resolving power than any old telescope from the 1800's.

Proof?

FE's are kidding themselves if they think that a much more powerful lense would have completely changed the results.  This thread must have stung.

Quote from: zeroply on December 25, 2007, 11:25:31 AM

cpt_bthimes: I would love to read your posts in their entirety but I have a day job. Can you summarize this in under 500 words or so, say? I don't have the time to read half a million words to determine some hidden context that you claim but I don't see.

Here's a very simple clarifying question for you:

If you take the strongest (non-telescope) SLR lens and look at Venus, are you saying that the image would appear bigger to the human eye than a $600 Mead reflecting telescope?

That's where I'm losing you.

The zoom factor (size of the image) is not important here, but the resolution (amount of detail) is. cpt_bthimes' camera has much, much, much better resolving power than any old telescope from the 1800's.

Again, this just doesn't make sense:

Back in the day, I used to own a Hasselblad that used roll film. Generally I would use very low speed film. Now I absolutely guarantee you that I got better resolution with that setup than cpt_bthimes does with his 35mm SLR and film suitable for shooting from a moving boat. So the Hasselblad had better resolution i.e. amount of detail but clearly would not be a better choice here. So why are you saying resolution is what we want rather than zoom factor?

Quote

The zoom factor (size of the image) is not important here, but the resolution (amount of detail) is. cpt_bthimes' camera has much, much, much better resolving power than any old telescope from the 1800's.

Proof?

Bishop, you couldn't get a clearer picture of that beach if you'd trained the Hubble telescope on it. cpt_bthimes' camera met (and exceeded) the natural resolving limit imposed by the atmospheric haze even on the clearest of days (see the weather report of that location, at the time the pics were taken). He has already posted 700x crops of the relevant sections in his album. The original flat earth evidence is flawed. Admit it, or post your counter evidence.

So why are you saying resolution is what we want rather than zoom factor?

Because, the greater the resolution of the capture, the more we can zoom into it at our leisure. The "size" of the original photo means very little in digital photography, see?

Again, this just doesn't make sense:

Back in the day, I used to own a Hasselblad that used roll film. Generally I would use very low speed film. Now I absolutely guarantee you that I got better resolution with that setup than cpt_bthimes does with his 35mm SLR and film suitable for shooting from a moving boat. So the Hasselblad had better resolution i.e. amount of detail but clearly would not be a better choice here.

What does that have to do with anything?
If you own a camera with better resolution, why don't you try and film that elusive island yourself?

Wait, what evidence do you have that the camera lens the OP has is better than the top of the line telescopes of thee 1800's?

Wait, what evidence do you have that the camera lens the OP has is better than the top of the line telescopes of thee 1800's?

A century of evolution.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2007, 10:32:04 PM

Wait, what evidence do you have that the camera lens the OP has is better than the top of the line telescopes of thee 1800's?

A century of evolution.

good point. alot of things happen in century.

Quote from: zeroply on December 26, 2007, 07:53:24 AM

Again, this just doesn't make sense:

Back in the day, I used to own a Hasselblad that used roll film. Generally I would use very low speed film. Now I absolutely guarantee you that I got better resolution with that setup than cpt_bthimes does with his 35mm SLR and film suitable for shooting from a moving boat. So the Hasselblad had better resolution i.e. amount of detail but clearly would not be a better choice here.

What does that have to do with anything?
If you own a camera with better resolution, why don't you try and film that elusive island yourself?

What do you mean what does it have to do with anything?

Your exact words were: "The zoom factor (size of the image) is not important here, but the resolution (amount of detail) is."

Well, as I just pointed out, my old Hasselblad has less zoom factor (less important) and better resolution (more important) than a newer SLR with telephoto lens. So according to your logic it should be more appropriate.

Obviously since I think your logic is wrong, there's not much point in me actually using the Hasselblad...

Wait, what evidence do you have that the camera lens the OP has is better than the top of the line telescopes of thee 1800's?

Until you can tell us with a degree of certainty what kind of telescope Rowbotham was using (i.e. more detailed than 'a good telescope') I think it is safe to assume that modern day optics can do better than he could.

In fact, if we assume Rowbotham was using the telescope portrayed in the diagrams of tENaG (a nautical spyglass or a collapsable refractor) I would say it is almost certain that OP's and cpt bthimes equipment can do better than that.