Rowbotham's Sinking Effect

  • 96 Replies
  • 18227 Views
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« on: October 02, 2008, 10:31:07 AM »
In the interest of freeing up The FE sun thread and organizing the argument I am reposting this as a new thread. Perspective can logically be determined and supported by simply examining the aspects of sight.


Consider a room. The far wall appears rectangular whereas the lines defining the edges of the other walls, ceiling, and floor converge toward the center. Why does perspective behave this way? It's because the further portions of the wall appear smaller as all approach the vanishing point. Examining the concept of converging lines for a moment, one might question why object appear smaller based only their distance. The answer is simple: The further away an object is, the smaller the angle an object has when meeting the eye, or a smaller percentage of your vision detects that objects.

Basically, the greater the distance an object is, the smaller the angle it is perceived. The smaller the angle it is perceived, the smaller the object appears. As the companion cube in the picture approaches an infinite distance, the angle approaches zero degrees.


Therefore, without other influences on your vision, an object would be visible at all distances. The resolution of the eye, variance in particles, temperature related atmospheric distortions, pollution and particulate matter, etc. all place limits on the vision preventing the eye from seeing objects an infinite distance away. I do think it is important to stress however, that there is no reason for perspective to selectively cut portions of vision out.

The image above was taken from ENaG to demonstrate the massive failing of Rowbotham's theory. As the hole in the disk gets further away, it does get smaller but at no point does it fill. Limitations of the eye would eventually blend the area around the hole with the hole once the entire structure is verging on invisible to the naked eye, but the portion of the whole and the sign itself shrinks uniformly and proportionality. If you can see something equally large to the hole at the same distance as the hole, than the hole is still visible. This applies to the ships that have a very noticeable top portion and the bottom is hidden from view. This cannot be explained by perspective, but instead curvature of the Earth.

I should also note that the sinking ship effect, as explained by Rowbotham, quotes a source that merely notes the limitations of the human eye and how an object no longer becomes visible after a certain distance. He immediately classifies this observation limitations as a law of perspective without justification.

Rowbotham then claims, without a shred of evidence, that perspective naturally creates the effect that portions of objects become indistinguishable to the eye due to great distance. Besides the obvious flaw that perspective shouldn't account for obstacles and imperfections, the notion that only the lower half of an object vanishes as it moves away is ridiculous. Even though the object as a whole has supposedly reached this magic distance, selectively cutting out only the bottom section within your vision disobeys all reason. This fails to include the fact that the ground and area above this region remain unaffected.


This is a sketch Rowbotham included to illustrate the effect on objects as distance increases. It is based solely on Rowbotham's version of perspective and allows me to illustrate my questions. Compare the wheels to the shape (much like a half circle) on top of the locomotive. Might I ask why distance, the alleged direct cause of the disappearing effect) causes the wheels to vanish but not the shape above? Might I ask why has no one else discovered this phenomenon? Might I ask why I cannot observe it when I test it?

The truth is that perspective doesn't behave this way, nor does it have any reason to. Rowbotham fabricated his physics, experiments, and results in order to arrive at his predetermined conclusion of a Flat Earth. I personally believe it was a elaborate joke that Bishop fell for. Since Rowbotham has been more than sufficiently proved wrong, his perspective theory can no longer be cited as evidence. Yes Bishop, I'm talking to you.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2008, 10:33:37 AM »
I agree, Rowbothian perspective is nonsense.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2008, 11:19:59 AM »
I will repost here for my question, but not yet.  Yours is very good so I would like to hear FE response to that first.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2008, 11:41:12 AM »
On the sinking ship, Dr. Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of the human eye - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent beyond the resolving power of the human eye. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge to human eyesight is called the Vanishing Point. The Vanishing Point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:



However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:



This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to shrink into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point from the bottom up. As the boat recedes into the distance its hull is gradually and perceptively appearing closer and closer to the surface of the sea. At a far off point the hull of the ship is so close to the sea's surface that it is impossible for the observer to tell ocean from hull. From to the limits of the human eye, the two appear merged.

While the sails of the ship may still be visible while the hull is perceptively merged, it's only a matter of time before it too shrink into the vanishing point which rests on the surface of the water and becomes indiscernible from the surface.

We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at it through a telescope.

It has been found that the sinking ship effect 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. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex earth.

From Cellular Cosmogony by Cyrus Teed there are accounts where the hulls of half sunken ships have been restored by the aid of a telescope:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

There are also many accounts of restored hulls in the book Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship:

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/ships/index.html
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 12:01:41 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2008, 12:19:29 PM »
Tom, all of that is incorrect. It is simply a collection of assertions about "perspective" that has no explanation to back it up. Show me some proper derivations and formulae and unambiguous diagrams.

We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at it through a telescope.

Show me proof of this, preferably in a peer-reviewed journal.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2008, 12:21:48 PM »
Quote
Show me proof of this, preferably in a peer-reviewed journal.

There are multiple accounts of the same phenomenon in my above links. The effect is "peer reviewed".

However, there was a journal published after Earth Not a Globe called "Earth Not a Globe Review," in which all claims and experiments from ENAG, Zetetic Cosmogony, Cellular Cosmogony, 100 Proofs, and other FE Literature was verified over and over again in its monthly publications. Look it up.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 12:31:46 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2008, 12:25:16 PM »
Quote
Show me proof of this, preferably in a peer-reviewed journal.

There are multiple accounts of the same phenomenon in my above links. The effect is "peer reviewed".

Anyone can write something in a book. I want something in a scientific journal. Photos and videos would also be good.

And before you ask, ENaG is not a scientific journal.

Bottom line is, your theory makes no sense, and it doesn't take a lack of evidence to show that it's wrong, it just takes a little thought.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2008, 12:26:28 PM »
Quote
Anyone can write something in a book. I want something in a scientific journal.

Perhaps you missed my message above:

Quote
However, there was a journal published after Earth Not a Globe called "Earth Not a Globe Review," in which all claims and experiments from ENAG, Zetetic Cosmogony, Cellular Cosmogony, 100 Proofs, and other FE Literature was verified over and over again in its monthly publications. Look it up.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2008, 12:29:28 PM »
Quote
Photos and videos would also be good.

There is photographic evidence. Samuel Shenton has a lot of color photography in his archives which demonstrates the non-convexity of the earth.

A woman named Lady Bount was among the first to provided photographic evidence for a Flat Earth:

    "The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

Mrs. Peach recently found a reference of photographic evidence from The English Mechanic, a scientific journal:

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.
"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.
The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 12:31:04 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2008, 12:45:00 PM »
One question Mr. Bishop.  Why are you citing "evidence" from 100 years ago(or more) and not having your own evidence to present.  Kind of takes that whole (blind faith) argument do a different level for you doesn't it.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39118
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2008, 12:58:20 PM »
Quote
Photos and videos would also be good.

There is photographic evidence. Samuel Shenton has a lot of color photography in his archives which demonstrates the non-convexity of the earth.

A woman named Lady Bount was among the first to provided photographic evidence for a Flat Earth:

And you have yet to provide links to any of these photographs.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2008, 01:09:54 PM »
Tom, you just don't get it. Whenever you copy-paste large tracts from 100 year old books, people don't bother reading it. Why not present some of your own evidence?

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2008, 01:31:13 PM »
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!"

So NASA photos are okay for evidence now? Great.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2008, 02:29:54 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at it through a telescope.

Incorrect. We don't know that the reports are accurate or if they were falsified.

The key to any accepted scientific observation is its demonstrability and repeatability. Taking accounts of people who claim to have experienced something is a good start but ultimately useless unless it can be repeated. I have repeated the experiment, among many others on these forums, and the perspective effect described by Rowbotham has continually failed.

To accept these testimonies blindly (despite the fact that they directly contradict scientists' understanding of physics), and then continue to place faith in them when recreations disprove them, only shows your extreme bias in determining evidence.

Rowbotham's theory fails to explain the mechanism that would merge the hull of ships with the water, and it fails to live up to standard testing. This means that the testimonies you listed were incorrect. We can either guess that they were incompetent mistakes or falsified on purpose.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2008, 02:42:55 PM »
Quote
One question Mr. Bishop.  Why are you citing "evidence" from 100 years ago(or more)

Truth didn't have an expiration date the last time I checked.

Quote
And you have yet to provide links to any of these photographs.

The photographs are there in library archives. You're just too lazy to dig them up.

Quote
Tom, you just don't get it. Whenever you copy-paste large tracts from 100 year old books, people don't bother reading it. Why not present some of your own evidence?

I'll be happy to provide my own evidence proving the earth to be a plane one you guys have presented your own evidence that the earth is a globe.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 02:45:49 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2008, 02:46:31 PM »
Quote
Incorrect. We don't know that the reports are accurate or if they were falsified.

There are multiple reports of the same phenomenon by multiple independent observers.

Quote
The key to any accepted scientific observation is its demonstrability and repeatability.

The tests which have brought back half-sunken ships have been repeated. You're just ignoring the evidence.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 02:48:18 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2008, 02:47:24 PM »
Quote
One question Mr. Bishop.  Why are you citing "evidence" from 100 years ago(or more)

Truth doesn't have an expiration date.

Great! So we can now do away with modern physics and chemistry and go back to the much simpler philosophies of olde. Tell me, what's the moon made of: earth, air, fire or water?

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2008, 02:53:51 PM »
Quote
Incorrect. We don't know that the reports are accurate or if they were falsified.

There are multiple reports of the same phenomenon by multiple independent observers.

Are of which are long since dead. It is impossible to know their biases or interests, but it is possible to test their claims, and prove them wrong.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2008, 02:56:07 PM »
Quote
Are of which are long since dead.

It doesn't matter if the participants are presently alive or dead. All that matters is that there are multiple people who have experienced the effect of half-sunken hulls being restored by a telescope, demonstrating that the hulls were not really behind the convexity of the earth. There are explicitly detailed observations of this effect.

You sound pretty silly waving your hands around and saying that those detailed first hand accounts don't matter because the authors have passed away.

Charles Darwin is also dead. Should we throw his work out the window too?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 03:01:20 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2008, 03:02:42 PM »
Quote
Are of which are long since dead.

It doesn't matter if the participants are presently alive or dead. All that matters is that there are multiple people who have experienced the effect of half-sunken hulls being restored by a telescope, demonstrating that they were not really behind the convexity of the earth. There are explicitly detailed observations of this effect.

Given up on the bendy-light theory now? Care to explain these first-hand, dcumented observations?

You sound pretty silly waving your hands around and saying that those detailed first hand accounts don't matter because the authors are dead.

Not as silly as you sound, waving your hands around, saying all the astronauts are lying to you because they work for the government.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2008, 03:15:37 PM »
Quote
Care to explain these first-hand, dcumented observations?

Dyno's images are exactly consistent with what Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us we should experience.

From the chapter Perspective on the Sea from Earth Not a Globe we read the following:

"We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull at sea a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be."

Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us directly that a telescope will not be able to restore the hull on am ocean due to the waves and swells in the way. Dyno used his telescope to look at the sea, so his being unable to restore the hull to any significant degree is exactly what Samuel Birley Rowbotham predicts.

The Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

Dyno has proven Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham correct once again. The more you post Dyno's image, the more correct Samuel Birley Rowbotham becomes.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 07:32:03 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2008, 03:26:04 PM »
Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us directly that a telescope will not be able to restore the hull on am ocean due to the waves and swells in the way. Dyno used his telescope to look at the sea, so his being unable to restore the hull to any significant degree is exactly what Samuel Birley Rowbotham predicts.

[...]

Dyno has proven Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham correct once again. The more you post Dyno's image, the more correct Samuel Birley Rowbotham becomes.


Maybe you should think before posting, rather than just quote Rowbotham.

Look at these two images: 1, 2.

Notice there are buildings in the foreground that are hidden at ground level but restored at elevation. This means the waves would have to be higher than the height of the buildings above sea level. Are you saying the swell that day was over 3m high out at sea?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2008, 03:30:28 PM »
Quote
Notice there are buildings in the foreground that are hidden at ground level but restored at elevation. This means the waves would have to be higher than the height of the buildings above sea level.

No it doesn't. By the photographers own admission he was right next to sea level when he took those images. If there is a wave even half a foot higher than the camera then vast stretches of area can be obscured in the distance.

Hold out a penny an arms length away and align it with the sun. Amazingly, perspective allows a small body to obscure a larger body. The penny isn't as large as the sun. Under no pretense does the obscuring body need to be as large as the body it obscures.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2008, 03:32:56 PM »
Hold out a penny an arms length away and align it with the sun. Amazingly, perspective allows a small body to obscure a larger body. The penny isn't as large as the sun. Under no pretense does the obscuring body need to be as large as the body it obscures.

Now put the penny on the ground in front of you and see how much of the sun it obscures.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2008, 03:35:13 PM »
Quote
Now put the penny on the ground in front of you and see how much of the sun it obscures.

Can you guys manage to hold a coherent argument for once?

How does that stupid analogy disprove the fact that a smaller body can obscure a bigger body?

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2008, 03:37:32 PM »
If there is a wave even half a foot higher than the camera then vast stretches of area can be obscured in the distance.

You're stil not thinking Tom. Look at the photo. For the wave to be half a foot high and close to the camera it would have to be breaking on the shore. The waves in the picture are definately not breaking.

In this picture you can see wave tops in the foreground, meaning nearby waves are not obscuring further-back waves behind them. This means we are looking down on the waves, and therefore the camera is higher than the wave tops.

Therefore waves canno be blocking the camera's view of the buildings. So what is?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2008, 03:39:56 PM »
Quote
In this picture you can see wave tops in the foreground, meaning nearby waves are not obscuring further-back waves behind them. This means we are looking down on the waves, and therefore the camera is higher than the wave tops.

I saw that image. The camera's view through that telescope looks very close to the level of the sea to me. A foot lower and that camera is going to be touching water.

Quote
Therefore waves canno be blocking the camera's view of the buildings. So what is?

There's a bunch of waves or swells on the ocean higher than the camera's height obscuring the bottoms of distant bodies.

We've been over this already. It's exactly what Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us we should experience when looking across something as turbulent as an ocean.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 06:41:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2008, 03:49:06 PM »
Quote
Therefore waves canno be blocking the camera's view of the buildings. So what is?

There's a bunch of waves or swells on the ocean higher than the camera's height obscuring the bottoms of distant bodies.

This "swell" doesn't undulate like you would expect it to. It certainly doesn't look like swell to me:




This swell is clearly a great distance from the camera (remember, these pictures were taken with a zoom lens), so it would have to be a massive swell to hide thse buildings.

Your argument looks very shaky to me. You even said this:
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards. Thanks dyno.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2008, 04:03:52 PM »
I only mentioned the fact that they were dead because they are incapable of explaining themselves, and we couldn't evaluate their circumstances. Quite frankly, a conspiracy controlled by the church to maintain governmental power over any region would be more likely than a conspiracy now. But in the end, this is irrelevant.

I don't have a problem with the testimonies because they are dead. I have a problem with them because they have been proven wrong. Understand that repeatability is the issue here. If the testimonies were correct, the results would have been confirmed. There are not.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2008, 07:01:05 PM »
Quote
This "swell" doesn't undulate like you would expect it to. It certainly doesn't look like swell to me:

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8885/dsc9370011smallip4.jpg
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9349/dsc9393020smallhg9.jpg

This swell is clearly a great distance from the camera (remember, these pictures were taken with a zoom lens), so it would have to be a massive swell to hide thse buildings.

Are you kidding? Those pictures are taken so close to the surface of the sea that its ridiculous to say that there could not be a wave, swell, or tide higher than the camera's height. At my local beach a large wave big enough to surf on comes in every eleventh wave or so like clockwork.

Tides come in twice a day, manifesting as massive bulges upon the ocean. And swells are common in low pressure environments. The sea is by no stretch of the imagination calm. There are bulges on it from tides and wind and pressure, the manifestation of which could easily be obscuring those distant bodies.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham already told us that one should not expect to restore a half-sunken hull on an ocean with a telescope. An obscured hull on the ocean as seen from sea level is usually physically blocked. Half-sunken hulls and bodies can only be restored with a telescope on calm standing environments such as canals and lakes.

Maybe if you guys actually read Earth Not a Globe before going off and attempting your experiments, we wouldn't be having this conversation. In the future I suggest reading the material before setting off and observing things which have been observed 150 years ago.

Those pictures taken close to the sea surface just prove that Samuel Birley Rowbotham's timeless words remain correct to this very day.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 07:15:57 PM by Tom Bishop »