Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!

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.

Which you fail to quote if asked. You can't refer us to or quote even one peer review. If asked you only quote newspaper articles or descriptions of picnics where people observed something.

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.

Tom,

With reference to be earlier post, we need:

  1. Technical details of the of the telescope required to observe this "restoration" phenomenon
  2. Modern repeatable evidence (including sequential images) that demonstrates this phenomenon.

You claims are outside the fundamental understanding of optics and perspective.  As you say, "the truth has no expiration date", but it does start to smell after a while.  Until you can advance beyond ancient accounts, your claims are a joke.

Which you fail to quote if asked. You can't refer us to or quote even one peer review. If asked you only quote newspaper articles or descriptions of picnics where people observed something.

I have literature resources which peer review each other in my signature link. You can find ship-restoration experiments which agree and corroborate with each other in Earth Not a Globe, Zetetic Cosmogony, and Cellular Cosmogony.

You claims are outside the fundamental understanding of optics and perspective.  As you say, "the truth has no expiration date", but it does start to smell after a while.  Until you can advance beyond ancient accounts, your claims are a joke.

The age of the experiments have no veracity of their truth.

And, no, photographs are not needed for a documented and successfully repeated experiment to be true. Neither are focal lengths.

And, no, photographs are not needed for a documented and successfully repeated experiment to be true. Neither are focal lengths.

It is of fundamental importance to know the magnification factor (at the very least) of the equipment used.

To say otherwise is to display a wanton disregard for proper scientific methodology.

Quote from: zork on July 15, 2009, 03:59:50 AM

Which you fail to quote if asked. You can't refer us to or quote even one peer review. If asked you only quote newspaper articles or descriptions of picnics where people observed something.

I have literature resources which peer review each other in my signature link. You can find ship-restoration experiments which agree and corroborate with each other in Earth Not a Globe, Zetetic Cosmogony, and Cellular Cosmogony.

I know you have, but you still fail to quote them despite your claims that you have them. Copy/paste please from something other than newspaper articles or descriptions of picnics where people observed something.

Quote from: zork on July 15, 2009, 03:59:50 AM

Which you fail to quote if asked. You can't refer us to or quote even one peer review. If asked you only quote newspaper articles or descriptions of picnics where people observed something.

I have literature resources which peer review each other in my signature link. You can find ship-restoration experiments which agree and corroborate with each other in Earth Not a Globe, Zetetic Cosmogony, and Cellular Cosmogony.

Quote

You claims are outside the fundamental understanding of optics and perspective.  As you say, "the truth has no expiration date", but it does start to smell after a while.  Until you can advance beyond ancient accounts, your claims are a joke.

The age of the experiments have no veracity of their truth.

And, no, photographs are not needed for a documented and successfully repeated experiment to be true. Neither are focal lengths.

Experiments have to be repeatable.  If they are not repeated for 100 years then people (including myself) have a right to be suspicious and smell pseudoscience.  Details of the equipment used is a basic requirement of a documented experiment or observation.  If you cannot provide it, credibility goes through the floor.

Photographs are needed in this case, because you need to win people over with more than just words.

It's still a joke.

It is of fundamental importance to know the magnification factor (at the very least) of the equipment used.

No it isn't. Rowbotham says that he uses high-end equipment. The effect isn't dependent on a certain focal length. It's dependent on high telescopic magnification.

I know you have, but you still fail to quote them despite your claims that you have them. Copy/paste please from something other than newspaper articles or descriptions of picnics where people observed something.

What are you talking about? I quote them all the time.

Zetetic Cosmogony Experiments

Lake Michigan Experiments

Experiments have to be repeatable.  If they are not repeated for 100 years then people (including myself) have a right to be suspicious and smell pseudoscience.

They have been repeated within the last 100 years. If you did your research on the Flat Earth Society you would know that Samuel Shenton and Charles K. Johnson used to perform them for audiences all the time, just like ROwbotham did.

Details of the equipment used is a basic requirement of a documented experiment or observation.  If you cannot provide it, credibility goes through the floor.

Photographs are needed in this case, because you need to win people over with more than just words.

I don't need to win over crap. I'm under no obligation to prove anything to anybody.  I don't care what shape of the earth you believe the earth to be.

I've already provided corroborating and repeated the experiments from the literature. I've already conducted my own inquiries and my own trials to satisfy my own curiosity. I don't need to "prove this" or "take a picture of that" to anyone or care about what you do and do not believe about the text. I've already provided all the evidence I need to provide.

If you don't believe the peer reviews in the literature, I don't care. That's your problem

I've already provided corroborating and repeated the experiments from the literature. I've already conducted my own inquiries and my own trials to satisfy my own curiosity. I don't need to "prove this" or "take a picture of that" to anyone or care about what you do and do not believe about the text. I've already provided all the evidence I need to provide.

If you don't believe the peer reviews in the literature, I don't care. That's your problem

Have you been able to see a mast-head when the hull of the ship was not visible like Rowbotham says is possible. Not the sails, not the superstructure of a liner or tanker; but the mast-head?

Now I appreciate that you are getting distracted by all this talk of high-end telescopes and your inability to answer that question but, if a ship is going away from you and there is a person stood on deck at the stern what will disappear from your sight first, the person or the hull of the ship?

Quote

Experiments have to be repeatable.  If they are not repeated for 100 years then people (including myself) have a right to be suspicious and smell pseudoscience.

They have been repeated within the last 100 years. If you did your research on the Flat Earth Society you would know that Samuel Shenton and Charles K. Johnson used to perform them for audiences all the time, just like ROwbotham did.

Show me the documentation.

Quote

Details of the equipment used is a basic requirement of a documented experiment or observation.  If you cannot provide it, credibility goes through the floor.

Photographs are needed in this case, because you need to win people over with more than just words.

I don't need to win over crap. I'm under no obligation to prove anything to anybody.  I don't care what shape of the earth you believe the earth to be.

♫Wrong♫.  The very fact you are on these forums 24 hours a day tells us that you care passionately about changing other peoples opinions.  If this is not the case then please delete your account from this forum.  You will save yourself a lot of time.

-If you did publish a modern paper on telescopic perspective correction (rewriting currently understanding on optics and perspective), people would be genuinely interested, I think.   Somehow I don't think this will happen.

Have yoou been able to see a mast-head when the hull of the ship was not visible like Rowbotham says is possible. Not the sails, not the superstructure of a liner or tanker; but the mast-head?

Now I appreciate that you are getting distracted by all this talk of high-end telescopes and your inability to answer that question but, if a ship is going away from you and there is a persn stood on deck at the stern what will disappear from your sight first, the person or the hull of the ship?

I didn't do my observations with ships. I did it with distant costlines. You can find a description of my trials by doing a forum search for "Monterey".

Show me the documentation.

Read Flat Earth News and Samuel Shenton's work.

♫Wrong♫.  The very fact you are on these forums 24 hours a day tells us that you care passionately about changing other peoples opinions.  If this is not the case then please delete your account from this forum.  You will save yourself a lot of time.

-If you did publish a modern paper on telescopic perspective correction (rewriting currently understanding on optics and perspective), people would be genuinely interested, I think.   Somehow I don't think this will happen.

Rowbotham et. all have already published all of the documentation and information we need. If you don't believe it that's your probelm. I don't need to "prove" something which has already been thoroughly proven and peer reviewed.

Quote

I know you have, but you still fail to quote them despite your claims that you have them. Copy/paste please from something other than newspaper articles or descriptions of picnics where people observed something.

What are you talking about? I quote them all the time.

Zetetic Cosmogony Experiments

Lake Michigan Experiments

I know you have some reading disabilities when things go in that direction but I usually ask for scientific peer reviews and experiments. Not casual observations and newspaper articles to what you again refer me.

I know you have some reading disabilities when things go in that direction but I usually ask for scientific peer reviews and experiments. Not casual observations and newspaper articles to what you again refer me.

What are you mumbling about? The sinking ship restore experiments are there for all to see. If you deny their truthfulness you'll need to present contradicting evidence of your own. Until then the literature stands as truth, as it always has and always will.

Quote

Have you been able to see a mast-head when the hull of the ship was not visible like Rowbotham says is possible. Not the sails, not the superstructure of a liner or tanker; but the mast-head?

Now I appreciate that you are getting distracted by all this talk of high-end telescopes and your inability to answer that question but, if a ship is going away from you and there is a persn stood on deck at the stern what will disappear from your sight first, the person or the hull of the ship?

I didn't do my observations with ships. I did it with distant costlines. You can find a description of my trials by doing a forum search for "Monterey".

Why can't you just say "No, I have not done what Rowbotham says is possible." ?

I don't think a distant coastline is the same as a ship going away from the observer and then over the horizon, do you? I often look out on a distant coastline from my balcony with a 'low-end' telescope or binoculars. Strangely, when I go swimming in the sea, the same coastlines are not visible. What am I doing wrong?

Quote

Show me the documentation.

Read Flat Earth News and Samuel Shenton's work.

Remind me again where I can find this?

Quote

♫Wrong♫.  The very fact you are on these forums 24 hours a day tells us that you care passionately about changing other peoples opinions.  If this is not the case then please delete your account from this forum.  You will save yourself a lot of time.

-If you did publish a modern paper on telescopic perspective correction (rewriting currently understanding on optics and perspective), people would be genuinely interested, I think.   Somehow I don't think this will happen.

Rowbotham et. all have already published all of the documentation and information we need. If you don't believe it that's your probelm. I don't need to "prove" something which has already been thoroughly proven and peer reviewed.

[/quote]

If you are not sceptical of a experiment that as not been properly repeated for 100 years then you are not a Zetetist.  If however you are satisfied with dead peoples' accounts of strange observations involving undefined equipment, then you are a fool.

Quote

It is of fundamental importance to know the magnification factor (at the very least) of the equipment used.

No it isn't. Rowbotham says that he uses high-end equipment. The effect isn't dependent on a certain focal length. It's dependent on high telescopic magnification.

Yeah - but how "high" is "high"?

If the magnification isn't specified clearly then the experiment cannot be repeated.

And if the experiment cannot be repeated, then it isn't science!

Rowbotham et. all have already published all of the documentation and information we need. If you don't believe it that's your probelm. I don't need to "prove" something which has already been thoroughly proven and peer reviewed.

But we have oil-rig photos which show that there is no restoration (within experimental error).

And before you say that they were taken with insufficient magnification because Rig navigator used binoculars not a telescope:

1. Using one side of a pair of binoculars is equivalent to using a telescope, and

2. We do not know how powerful Rowbotham's telescopes were because he never specified this, so you can't sat that Rig's equipment was inferior with any certainty.

(When Rowbotham vaguely wrote that you had to use "a telescope of sufficient power" he was deliberately obfuscating, in my opinion, because he was a devious "quack".)

Quote from: markjo on July 14, 2009, 08:56:15 PM

And he never bothered to document any of them.

Why would he need to?

Tom, if you're going to be pedantic about the specific equipment used, why wouldn't you expect your opponents to as well?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2009, 09:04:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 14, 2009, 08:56:15 PM

And he never bothered to document any of them.

Why would he need to?

Tom, if you're going to be pedantic about the specific equipment used, why wouldn't you expect your opponents to as well?

Thank you Roundy.  It really is hard to properly peer review an experiment such as BLE or hull restoration without knowing what equipment should be used. 

For example, some might consider this telescope to be of high quality and significant magnification.  Others may consider it a child's toy.  Without proper documentation, it's impossible to know the difference.

Quote from: zork on July 15, 2009, 05:39:10 AM

I know you have some reading disabilities when things go in that direction but I usually ask for scientific peer reviews and experiments. Not casual observations and newspaper articles to what you again refer me.

What are you mumbling about? The sinking ship restore experiments are there for all to see. If you deny their truthfulness you'll need to present contradicting evidence of your own. Until then the literature stands as truth, as it always has and always will.

What are you mumbling about? There are pictures in this forum that show otherwise. No restoration done. Just search this forum. And Rowbotham only drew pictures, no photographs. Your literature is toppling from all sides.

Remind me again where I can find this?

Flat Earth News is available online. Daniel put up scans a while back. Shenton's work is available offline
 in a number of library collections.

If you are not sceptical of a experiment that as not been properly repeated for 100 years then you are not a Zetetist.  If however you are satisfied with dead peoples' accounts of strange observations involving undefined equipment, then you are a fool.

You mean kind of like Aristotle's observations and experiments of natural buoyancy in liquid?

Yeah - but how "high" is "high"?

If the magnification isn't specified clearly then the experiment cannot be repeated.

And if the experiment cannot be repeated, then it isn't science!

It doesn't need to be specified clearly. There's no certain focal length where it happens. All that is specified is that it happens with high end professional telescopes. Since we know that the quality of telescopes has not improved by any great margin since the 1800's, a quality telescope of the Victorian Age is compatible to a quality telescope of today.

But we have oil-rig photos which show that there is no restoration (within experimental error).

And before you say that they were taken with insufficient magnification because Rig navigator used binoculars not a telescope:

1. Using one side of a pair of binoculars is equivalent to using a telescope, and

2. We do not know how powerful Rowbotham's telescopes were because he never specified this, so you can't sat that Rig's equipment was inferior with any certainty.

(When Rowbotham vaguely wrote that you had to use "a telescope of sufficient power" he was deliberately obfuscating, in my opinion, because he was a devious "quack".)

Binoculars are not comparable to professional grade telescopes. They never have been.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 15, 2009, 12:39:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2009, 09:04:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 14, 2009, 08:56:15 PM

And he never bothered to document any of them.

Why would he need to?

Tom, if you're going to be pedantic about the specific equipment used, why wouldn't you expect your opponents to as well?

Thank you Roundy.  It really is hard to properly peer review an experiment such as BLE or hull restoration without knowing what equipment should be used. 

For example, some might consider this telescope to be of high quality and significant magnification.  Others may consider it a child's toy.  Without proper documentation, it's impossible to know the difference.

child's toy

Tom, if you're going to be pedantic about the specific equipment used, why wouldn't you expect your opponents to as well?

The specific equipment use is professional grade telescopes. No focal length, lens size, or tube length need to be specified because all that is needed is a professional grade telescope. End of story.

Thank you Roundy.  It really is hard to properly peer review an experiment such as BLE or hull restoration without knowing what equipment should be used.  

For example, some might consider this telescope to be of high quality and significant magnification.  Others may consider it a child's toy.  Without proper documentation, it's impossible to know the difference.

That telescope wouldn't be considered "professional grade" in the Victorian Era. And it wouldn't be considered "professional grade" now. All the proper documentation we need is already in the text: A high-quality telescope.

If you don't understand what a high-quality telescope is, or if you think that a children's toy or a pair of binoculars are comparable to high-end telescopes, then you are much more of a dunce than you let on.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 15, 2009, 12:39:26 PM

Tom, if you're going to be pedantic about the specific equipment used, why wouldn't you expect your opponents to as well?

The specific equipment use is professional grade telescopes. No focal length, lens size, or tube length need to be specified because all that is needed is a professional grade telescope. End of story.

So a professional grade 3x telescope should be sufficient.  Thanks for clearing that up Tom.

Quote

Thank you Roundy.  It really is hard to properly peer review an experiment such as BLE or hull restoration without knowing what equipment should be used. 

For example, some might consider this telescope to be of high quality and significant magnification.  Others may consider it a child's toy.  Without proper documentation, it's impossible to know the difference.

That telescope wouldn't be considered "professional grade" in the Victorian Era. And it wouldn't be considered "professional grade" now. All the proper documentation we need is already in the text: A high-quality telescope.

If you don't understand what a high-quality telescope is, or if you think that a children's toy or a pair of binoculars are comparable to high-end telescopes, then you are much more of a dunce than you let on.

How about this one?  Is it professional grade or a toy?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 15, 2009, 12:39:26 PM

Tom, if you're going to be pedantic about the specific equipment used, why wouldn't you expect your opponents to as well?

The specific equipment use is professional grade telescopes. No focal length, lens size, or tube length need to be specified because all that is needed is a professional grade telescope. End of story.

Quote

Thank you Roundy.  It really is hard to properly peer review an experiment such as BLE or hull restoration without knowing what equipment should be used.  

For example, some might consider this telescope to be of high quality and significant magnification.  Others may consider it a child's toy.  Without proper documentation, it's impossible to know the difference.

That telescope wouldn't be considered "professional grade" in the Victorian Era. And it wouldn't be considered "professional grade" now. All the proper documentation we need is already in the text: A high-quality telescope.

If you don't understand what a high-quality telescope is, or if you think that a children's toy or a pair of binoculars are comparable to high-end telescopes, then you are much more of a dunce than you let on.

Guys, please stop falling for this.

He clearly does not believe the world is flat. Maybe some people on this forum who have been swept into this silly little charade actually do, but I'd be willing to bet money that Tom, does not.

He's trying to prove a point. He wants you to realize that you shouldn't believe everything that is told to you. That you should go out and TRY things for yourself. This is the essence of science, and I hate to say it, but he has an exceptional point.

The Earth is round, this is trivial, but it's important to his hyperbole that he picks something so trivial. Why should we believe the Earth is round? It's a good question, for sure.

He won't ever acknowledge this, because that would ruin it--in fact, he'll probably deny it--but that's what he's doing. I'll be honest, it's clever.

So a professional grade 3x telescope should be sufficient.  Thanks for clearing that up Tom.

No. A high quality one would be sufficient.

And, obviously, the remarks of "high quality" in ENAG are in reference to magnification and not to the quality of the plastic tubing or the lens material.

How about this one?  Is it professional grade or a toy?

What kind of quality does that have compared to other telescopes?

Quote from: Moon squirter on July 15, 2009, 01:17:54 AM

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.

That's not what peer review is.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 15, 2009, 12:39:26 PM

Tom, if you're going to be pedantic about the specific equipment used, why wouldn't you expect your opponents to as well?

The specific equipment use is professional grade telescopes. No focal length, lens size, or tube length need to be specified because all that is needed is a professional grade telescope. End of story.

No.  "Professional grade telescope" is about as vague as you can get.  Unfortunately we can't get Rowbotham's word on it as he's dead, and he chose to be vague and not include the specifics, but you yourself have performed the experiments many times and gotten the same results.  You seem to agree with the REers in this thread that the specific type of equipment used has an effect on the results, as you are arguing that binoculars are no substitute for the telescope specified in ENaG, despite the fact that they perform the same function.  Can you at least let us in on the specs of the telescope you used in your own experiments?  It's far from an unreasonable request, and I think it would get to the heart of much that's being discussed here.

No.  "Professional grade telescope" is about as vague as you can get.  Unfortunately we can't get Rowbotham's word on it as he's dead, and he chose to be vague and not include the specifics, but you yourself have performed the experiments many times and gotten the same results.  You seem to agree with the REers in this thread that the specific type of equipment used has an effect on the results, as you are arguing that binoculars are no substitute for the telescope specified in ENaG, despite the fact that they perform the same function.  Can you at least let us in on the specs of the telescope you used in your own experiments?  It's far from an unreasonable request, and I think it would get to the heart of much that's being discussed here.

I use a Orion Starblast 4.5 EQ Reflector, which is a high quality telescope.

Everyone knows what a high quality telescope is and what Rowbotham is referring to. Don't play dumb. Obviously Rowbotham isn't referring to the quality of the plastic tubing.

A REFLECTOR telescope?

They are for astronomical use and NOT ground use. In fact the image will be upside down unless you have a converter