Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective

  • 124 Replies
  • 12542 Views
?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #120 on: July 24, 2010, 01:19:54 PM »
Whoever posted the disproof of bent light is not relevant. Facts were posted which disproved it. If Parsec wants to dispute this I request he quotes the disproof and gives a blow by blow explanation of exactly where it goes wrong. I can find no fault with it and so I think it stands.
You are asking for impossible. Parsec can only argue in style where he asks vague questions back without answering actually any questions asked from him and without explaining his own views correctly.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #121 on: July 24, 2010, 02:22:10 PM »
Believe it or not, these issues have been discussed extensively before. It is up to you to search past threads and read what has been said.

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #122 on: July 24, 2010, 03:40:52 PM »
Believe it or not, these issues have been discussed extensively before. It is up to you to search past threads and read what has been said.
Believe it or not, these issues have been discussed extensively before. It is up to you to read the scientific journals and records and read what has been said. For example: http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduoff/aol/market/collaboration/soleclipse/solecl-3d.html.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #123 on: July 24, 2010, 04:21:37 PM »
Believe it or not, these issues have been discussed extensively before. It is up to you to search past threads and read what has been said.
Believe it or not, these issues have been discussed extensively before. It is up to you to read the scientific journals and records and read what has been said. For example: http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduoff/aol/market/collaboration/soleclipse/solecl-3d.html.
Thank you for posting such a quality resource.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #124 on: July 25, 2010, 01:49:39 AM »
Believe it or not, these issues have been discussed extensively before. It is up to you to search past threads and read what has been said.
Believe it or not, these issues have been discussed extensively before. It is up to you to read the scientific journals and records and read what has been said. For example: http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduoff/aol/market/collaboration/soleclipse/solecl-3d.html.
Thank you for posting such a quality resource.
It's more than you can ever do.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.