Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!

Quote from: Moon squirter on July 13, 2009, 02:42:23 AM

Late edit:  Lets have those results with supporting photographic evidence, then

Photographic evidence can be faked and is not accepted on this forum.

http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/

All evedience can by faked, photographic or not.  The is especially true of so-called "first hand accounts", where it is one person's word against another.

Each piece of evidence, including photographic, should be considered and its reliability assessed.

Given:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 12, 2009, 12:15:29 PM

I meant proper, independent evidence like modern-day photographs.

I am not prepared to take Rowbotham's evidence on anything.

Rowbotham's experimental evidence is just as overwhelming now as it was then.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 13, 2009, 02:51:06 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2009, 02:49:55 AM

But I'll share a detailed description of the results if you'd like.

That would be nice, thanks.

Here you go:

The earth is flat.

I will repeat my earlier question:

So are we concluding that there is no real evidence to support Rowbotham's theories on perspective?

Edit - let me rephrase my question:

Are we concluding that there is no real, independent evidence to support Rowbotham's theories on perspective?

Yes.

There is no real evidence to support Rowbotham's theories on perspective.

More inactivity by the FE Brigade. They don't seem to like defending

. . . Earth Not a Globe, probably the most important science textbook of the last 500 years, and countenanced the great many experiments which prove it to be flat beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There's plenty of evidence to support Rowbotham's perspective. I have a whole library of literature in my signature link where ships, trains, and towers have been restored from perspective with telescopes, demonstrating that they were not really hiding behind a convex earth.

There's plenty of evidence to support Rowbotham's perspective. I have a whole library o literature in my signiature link where ships, trains, and towers have been restored from perspective with telescopes, demonstrating that they were not really hiding behind a convex earth.

Can you back that up with any photographs?

Remember that we have produced ourb own, modern-day oil-rig photos which did not show any recovery.

There's plenty of evidence to support Rowbotham's perspective. I have a whole library o literature in my signiature link where ships, trains, and towers have been restored from perspective with telescopes, demonstrating that they were not really hiding behind a convex earth.

It was Rowbotham's perspective and the fact that he claims to be able to see a mast-head but not the hull of a ship due to his 'vanishing point' that prompted me to make the OP. If the answer was in the literature why would you not help me to understand the conundrum?

I'll ask again, how can something the size of a mast-head be visible to the eye (when it should disappear at about a distance of 3000 x it's width) when the hull of a ship cannot be seen?

Let's make it simpler for you. A ship is heading away from you. Standing at the stern of the ship is a person. Which will disappear from sight first, the person or the hull of the ship?

There's plenty of evidence old FE-related accounts, which have not been repeated for 100 years to support Rowbotham's perspective.

Fix for you.

Can you back that up with any photographs?

Remember that we have produced ourb own, modern-day oil-rig photos which did not show any recovery.

Did you guys try looking at the rig with a telescope?

Did you guys try looking at the rig with a magic telescope?

Fixed for you.

Quote

Can you back that up with any photographs?

Remember that we have produced ourb own, modern-day oil-rig photos which did not show any recovery.

Did you guys try looking at the rig with a telescope?

It was binoculars, as I recall.

Perhaps you could do better - if you weren't so lazy?

It was binoculars, as I recall.

Perhaps you could do better - if you weren't so lazy?

Well the experiment called for a telescope, not a pair of binoculars.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 14, 2009, 03:46:12 PM

It was binoculars, as I recall.

Perhaps you could do better - if you weren't so lazy?

Well the experiment called for a telescope, not a pair of binoculars.

And how would binoculars alter the results....?

And how would binoculars alter the results....?

Binoculars are not telescopes.

Quote from: shiversaint on July 14, 2009, 04:38:51 PM

And how would binoculars alter the results....?

Binoculars are not telescopes.

That's right.  Some binoculars are better than some telescopes.

That's right.  Some binoculars are better than some telescopes.

Rowbotham specified that he used a high end telescope of significant power.

Since Rowbotham lived in a time known as the golden age of telescopes and glass making - an era where such things were polished and built to perfection - a quality telescope of a Victorian design would be equivalent to a quality telescope of today's design.

I wish Rowbotham (and Teed, et al) had given more detail about the telescopes used.

I wish Rowbotham (and Teed, et al) had given more detail about the telescopes used.

Since the trials and experiments in Earth Not a Globe were conducted over a 30 year period, a significant portion of the author's life, it's likely that Rowbotham used a number of different telescopes.

Quote from: Ski on July 14, 2009, 08:36:32 PM

I wish Rowbotham (and Teed, et al) had given more detail about the telescopes used.

Since the trials and experiments in Earth Not a Globe were conducted over a 30 year period, a significant portion of the author's life, it's likely that Rowbotham used a number of different telescopes.

And he never bothered to document any of them.

And he never bothered to document any of them.

Why would he need to? Rowbotham doesn't tell us that the temperature of the air was in each trial or what kind of shoes he wore either. Over the 30 year study Rowbotham probably used several different brands of high quality telescope, made his trials under many conditions, and wore several different brands of shoes.

Other independent researchers were able to reproduce the results and publish their own findings, which is all we need to know for verification of Earth Not a Globe.

See the literature.

See the literature.

Why should I see the literature if none of the experiments are properly documented?

Why should I see the literature if none of the experiments are properly documented?

They are documented. You can see the documented trials in the literature.

Quote from: markjo on July 14, 2009, 09:09:09 PM

Why should I see the literature if none of the experiments are properly documented?

They are documented. You can see the documented trials in the literature.

If the experiments are so well documented, then you should have no trouble telling us the focal length of the telescope that Rowbotham used at the Bedford Levels.

If the experiments are so well documented, then you should have no trouble telling us the focal length of the telescope that Rowbotham used at the Bedford Levels.

He likely used several different focal lengths. What matters is that Rowbotham tells us that the experiment is done with high-end equipment - no specific focal length or brand of telescope is defined because it's immaterial to the experiment. All that is needed for the experiment is a high-end telescope.

Quote from: markjo on July 14, 2009, 09:16:25 PM

If the experiments are so well documented, then you should have no trouble telling us the focal length of the telescope that Rowbotham used at the Bedford Levels.

He likely used several different focal lengths. What matters is that Rowbotham tells us that the experiment is done with high-end equipment - no specific focal length or brand of telescope is defined because it's immaterial to the experiment. All that is needed for the experiment is a high-end telescope.

For any of Mr Rowbothams 'experiments' to be reproduced faithfully and subsequently proved or disproved he should have kept notes on all aspects of the 'experiments'. He claimed to be a scientist so he should have known that. Perhaps 'Zetetic science' isn't that bothered about being able to reproduce experimental results. That would be very convenient for zetetic scientists.

Now, there has been a bit of a de-rail here so I'll ask again:

How can something the size of a mast-head be visible to the eye (when it should disappear at about a distance of 3000 x it's width) when the hull of a ship cannot be seen?

Let's make it simpler for you. A ship is heading away from you. Standing at the stern of the ship is a person. Which will disappear from sight first, the person or the hull of the ship?

Now, if you FE'ers can't answer a simple question like that, how are you ever going to be able to answer really tricky questions like "Does light bend upwards?" or "Why are star trails perfect circles?" or why "Directional Electromagnetic radition that circumnavigates the earth, is NOT possible on a dual flat plane of reflection."

Answer some simple questions and then start tackling the really tricky ones; why not give it a go.

For any of Mr Rowbothams 'experiments' to be reproduced faithfully and subsequently proved or disproved he should have kept notes on all aspects of the 'experiments'.

He presents his data just fine. The experiments are done under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions over a 30 year time span with high-end telescopes. That's all there is to it.

Quote

For any of Mr Rowbothams 'experiments' to be reproduced faithfully and subsequently proved or disproved he should have kept notes on all aspects of the 'experiments'.

He presents his data just fine for me. The experiments are done under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions over a 30 year time span with high-end telescopes. That's all there is to it.

Corrected that for you.

Quote

For any of Mr Rowbothams 'experiments' to be reproduced faithfully and subsequently proved or disproved he should have kept notes on all aspects of the 'experiments'.

He presents his data just fine. The experiments are done under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions over a 30 year time span with high-end telescopes. That's all there is to it.

Tom,

The problem here is that you have still failed (with any accuracy) to define a "high-end telescopes".  This is crucial because there are many different types of "high-end" 'scopes, with different focal lengths, diameters (apertures) and magnifications.  They all cost more than an average telescope, but that all we know.

There is nothing esoteric about the function of a telescope; It simple magnifies the observed angular dimensions of a distant view.

We have never seen any photographic evidence of telescope magnifying portions of objects by differing amounts, as (in the case of ships, rigs and building) those portions appear to be irrevocably lost when view through a camera lens.  This "selective magnification" is what your descriptions imply.

In order to win people over on this, you are going to have to provide modern verifiable evidence, simple because your description contracts some simple well-established principles regarding optics.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2009, 11:16:15 PM

Quote

For any of Mr Rowbothams 'experiments' to be reproduced faithfully and subsequently proved or disproved he should have kept notes on all aspects of the 'experiments'.

He presents his data just fine. The experiments are done under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions over a 30 year time span with high-end telescopes. That's all there is to it.

Tom,

The problem here is that you have still failed (with any accuracy) to define a "high-end telescopes".  This is crucial because there are many different types of "high-end" 'scopes, with different focal lengths, diameters (apertures) and magnifications.  They all cost more than an average telescope, but that all we know.

There is nothing esoteric about the function of a telescope; It simple magnifies the observed angular dimensions of a distant view.

We have never seen any photographic evidence of telescope magnifying portions of objects by differing amounts, as (in the case of ships, rigs and building) those portions appear to be irrevocably lost when view through a camera lens.  This "selective magnification" is what your descriptions imply.

In order to win people over on this, you are going to have to provide modern verifiable evidence, simple because your description contracts some simple well-established principles regarding optics.

You can find all the evidence needed in the Flat Earth Literature. There are numerous corroborating accounts from independent observers of the same effect. This means that it has been peer reviewed and verified.

He likely used several different focal lengths. What matters is that Rowbotham tells us that the experiment is done with high-end equipment - no specific focal length or brand of telescope is defined because it's immaterial to the experiment. All that is needed for the experiment is a high-end telescope.

"Immaterial to the experiment"?

That is unbelievably un-scientific!

Rowbotham was a "quack" (sharlatan) and so are you.

You can find all the evidence needed in the Flat Earth Literature. There are numerous corroborating accounts from independent observers of the same effect. This means that it has been peer reviewed and verified.

"Peer reviewed"?

You mean one "quack" agreeing with another "quack's" results?