horizon

If you?ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just ?appear? out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.

But - you say - ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in ?Pirates of the Caribbean?, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie). The reason ships appear as if they ?emerge from the waves? is because the world is not flat: it?s round.

Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view. If you look at the orange ?head on?, you will see the ant?s body slowly rising up from the ?horizon?, because of the curvature of the Orange. If you would do that experiment with a long road, the effect would have changed: The ant would have slowly ?materialized? into view, depending on how sharp your vision is.

You may have seen a submarine while at the port, and not a ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine

You may have seen a submarine while at the port, and not a ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine

So does the Submarine transform into a ship when it reaches the shore and is within 5 feet of me?

If the earth was flat, there wouldn't be a horizon. The horizon itself is caused by the curvature of the earth.

You may have seen a submarine while at the port, and not a ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine

Nope I've never seen one of those. Big things with sticks and sheets out of the top yes. Underwater tin cans no.

Read the FAQ

Read the FAQ

this isnt in the FAQ, if it is and i missed it please quote it for me

A Roundy with poor reading comprehension?? 

if your saying i have poor reading comprehension please quote the question and answer that deals with horizons

The sinking ship is a known perspective effect. It has been found 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 sea.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read the following accounts of half-sunken ships which have been restored with a telescope:




There are also accounts of restored hulls in the book Cellular Cosmogony by Cyrus Teed:

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

It's called education.

Tom why do you cut and paste the same stuff over and over again?

Isn't that called spamming?

You're new here, aren't you?

@Tom.  Why have no modern photographs of this phenomenon been produced?  And before you bring up Lady Blount, you have yet to produce that photograph either.

Quote from: KillaBee on May 28, 2009, 04:53:58 AM

Tom why do you cut and paste the same stuff over and over again?

Isn't that called spamming?

You're new here, aren't you?

@Tom.  Why have no modern photographs of this phenomenon been produced?  And before you bring up Lady Blount, you have yet to produce that photograph either.

Because it's not necessary to prove something which has already been proven and peer reviewed many times in the past.

Truth doesn't have an expiration date.

ok, you say its not necessary but lets see it anyway

Show me one published peer review of the sinking ship phenomenon which agrees with Rowbotham.

There are a number of published works in my signature link which agree with Rowbotham. You can start with Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship, which is available in full online.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 28, 2009, 08:29:49 AM

You can start with Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship, which is available in full online.

That's not a peer review it's a fanboy book.

Show me one published peer review of the sinking ship phenomenon which agrees with Rowbotham.

Zetetic Cosmogony is published. It's a peer review of Rowbotham's work. Plenty of additional resources in my signature link as well.

Quote from: markjo on May 28, 2009, 06:18:10 AM

Quote from: KillaBee on May 28, 2009, 04:53:58 AM

Tom why do you cut and paste the same stuff over and over again?

Isn't that called spamming?

You're new here, aren't you?

@Tom.  Why have no modern photographs of this phenomenon been produced?  And before you bring up Lady Blount, you have yet to produce that photograph either.

Because it's not necessary to prove something which has already been proven and peer reviewed many times in the past.

Truth doesn't have an expiration date.

You're right Tom.  Rowbotham, Winship, et.al. were wrong then and they are still wrong today. 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 28, 2009, 06:34:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 28, 2009, 06:18:10 AM

Quote from: KillaBee on May 28, 2009, 04:53:58 AM

Tom why do you cut and paste the same stuff over and over again?

Isn't that called spamming?

You're new here, aren't you?

@Tom.  Why have no modern photographs of this phenomenon been produced?  And before you bring up Lady Blount, you have yet to produce that photograph either.

Because it's not necessary to prove something which has already been proven and peer reviewed many times in the past.

Truth doesn't have an expiration date.

You're right Tom.  Rowbotham, Winship, et.al. were wrong then and they are still wrong today.  

Since when did "proven and peer reviewed" mean "wrong"?

Sorry I couldn't find the phrase "peer review" in Winship work. Usually its on the front cover

Peer reviews are corroborating works by third parties.

Quote from: markjo on May 28, 2009, 09:15:48 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 28, 2009, 06:34:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 28, 2009, 06:18:10 AM

Quote from: KillaBee on May 28, 2009, 04:53:58 AM

Tom why do you cut and paste the same stuff over and over again?

Isn't that called spamming?

You're new here, aren't you?

@Tom.  Why have no modern photographs of this phenomenon been produced?  And before you bring up Lady Blount, you have yet to produce that photograph either.

Because it's not necessary to prove something which has already been proven and peer reviewed many times in the past.

Truth doesn't have an expiration date.

You're right Tom.  Rowbotham, Winship, et.al. were wrong then and they are still wrong today. 

Since when did "proven and peer reviewed" mean "wrong"?

How does repeating a flawed experiment make it "the truth"?