$100USD goes to...

  • 48 Replies
  • 5803 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37681
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2010, 01:53:20 PM »
People have been able to restore half-sunken ships with a telescope, demonstrating that they were not hidden by "hills of water," but obscured by natural perspective. 

And yet no one has been able to provide photographic evidence to support this claim.  Why do you suppose that is, Tom?
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17030
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #31 on: October 18, 2010, 02:00:10 PM »
And yet no one has been able to provide photographic evidence to support this claim.  Why do you suppose that is, Tom?

Well, the people in Zetetic Cosmogony and Cellular Cosmogony would have had a hard time providing photographic evidence in the 1800's, when the first mass market cameras didn't appear until 1900, let alone telescope mounts.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2010, 02:08:27 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37681
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2010, 02:03:23 PM »
And yet no one has been able to provide photographic evidence to support this claim.  Why do you suppose that is, Tom?

Well, the people in Zetetic Cosmogony and Cellular Cosmogony would have had a hard time providing photographic evidence in the 1800's.

Are you saying that no one has been able to photograph the hull of a ship being restored in the last 100 years or so?  ???
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17030
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2010, 02:06:06 PM »
Are you saying that no one has been able to photograph the hull of a ship being restored in the last 100 years or so?  ???

No Flat Earth research books have been published since the late 1800's/very early 1900's.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2010, 02:08:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #34 on: October 18, 2010, 02:09:23 PM »
And yet no one has been able to provide photographic evidence to support this claim.  Why do you suppose that is, Tom?

Well, the people in Zetetic Cosmogony and Cellular Cosmogony would have had a hard time providing photographic evidence in the 1800's, when the first mass market cameras didn't appear until 1900.
And what stop you, Tom, from proving that the hulls are restored by telescopes and thereby that the Earth is flat. Tom, you'd be famous. I'd be saying I knew the great genius when he was still posting on the Internet.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17030
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2010, 02:10:51 PM »
And what stop you, Tom, from proving that the hulls are restored by telescopes and thereby that the Earth is flat. Tom, you'd be famous. I'd be saying I knew the great genius when he was still posting on the Internet.

I've watched ships as they receded into the far distance on two separate occasions. From my experience they did not sink at all, but slowly faded out of sight.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2010, 02:13:33 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #36 on: October 18, 2010, 02:18:24 PM »
And what stop you, Tom, from proving that the hulls are restored by telescopes and thereby that the Earth is flat. Tom, you'd be famous. I'd be saying I knew the great genius when he was still posting on the Internet.

I've watched ships as they receded into the far distance on two separate occasions. From my experience they did not sink at all, but slowly faded out of sight.

But you also claim to be able to see sea level at a ~30km distance without any obscurity.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17030
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #37 on: October 18, 2010, 02:20:19 PM »
But you also claim to be able to see sea level at a ~30km distance without any obscurity.

Sometimes I'm only able to see 20 miles into the distance. Sometimes 30, and sometimes only 15.

It mostly depends on the day, the time of the year, the amount of pollution, and atmospheric conditions.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2010, 02:24:04 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #38 on: October 18, 2010, 02:21:31 PM »
People have been able to restore half-sunken ships with a telescope, demonstrating that they were not hidden by "hills of water," but obscured by natural perspective. 

And yet no one has been able to provide photographic evidence to support this claim.  Why do you suppose that is, Tom?

There was some time ago a RE forum member who admitted that photos taken showed a degree of restoration, but deemed it inconclusive.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #39 on: October 18, 2010, 02:28:01 PM »
And what stop you, Tom, from proving that the hulls are restored by telescopes and thereby that the Earth is flat. Tom, you'd be famous. I'd be saying I knew the great genius when he was still posting on the Internet.

I've watched ships as they receded into the far distance on two separate occasions. From my experience they did not sink at all, but slowly faded out of sight.
Right, so you're saying Rowbotham was wrong. Got it. Then please explain this view from Niagara-on-the-Lake of Toronto?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2010, 02:31:00 PM by ClockTower »
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2010, 02:38:45 PM »
People have been able to restore half-sunken ships with a telescope, demonstrating that they were not hidden by "hills of water," but obscured by natural perspective.  

And yet no one has been able to provide photographic evidence to support this claim.  Why do you suppose that is, Tom?

There was some time ago a RE forum member who admitted that photos taken showed a degree of restoration, but deemed it inconclusive.

link, please


Quote
I see it's not flat, otherwise I would be able to see europe from here(canada).

You must have some pretty good eyesight if you expect to see a thin landmass several thousand miles away.

Quote
Also, if you say "bendy light" that means you cannot believe everything you see, so looking out a window does not constitute proof.

I don't believe in bendy light.

OK, Mt. Logan is 5959m high (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Logan), and the distance according to a flat earth map is 4028.632 km.

now, the height is more than the distance, so the arc-cosine, and the angle should be at more than 45
still can't see it...
« Last Edit: October 18, 2010, 03:00:46 PM by wecl0me12 »
round earther
Quote from:  topic#19384
Gravity as a force does not exist
Quote from: FAQ
Q: Why does g vary with altitude if the Earth simply accelerates up?

A: The celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2010, 02:40:55 PM »
And what stop you, Tom, from proving that the hulls are restored by telescopes and thereby that the Earth is flat. Tom, you'd be famous. I'd be saying I knew the great genius when he was still posting on the Internet.

I've watched ships as they receded into the far distance on two separate occasions. From my experience they did not sink at all, but slowly faded out of sight.
I guess you also have a bad eyesight.
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.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2010, 02:51:33 PM »
People have been able to restore half-sunken ships with a telescope, demonstrating that they were not hidden by "hills of water," but obscured by natural perspective. 

And yet no one has been able to provide photographic evidence to support this claim.  Why do you suppose that is, Tom?

There was some time ago a RE forum member who admitted that photos taken showed a degree of restoration, but deemed it inconclusive.
Do you refer to this thread http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0 ?
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.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2010, 02:55:08 PM »
No. As I remember the subject of the picture was an oil derrick.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

zork

  • 3319
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.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #45 on: October 18, 2010, 03:12:23 PM »
Similar. I believe it was 3_Tesla that ran the numbers, but it was so long ago, I have doubts.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #46 on: October 18, 2010, 03:20:54 PM »
3 Tesla, a one-time respected RE proponent:

The only experiment that I have seen was inconclusive.

I want to modify that statement:

1. It was actually four experiments - two oil rigs both imaged on two different days, and

2. There was no "restoration" of height within experimental error.

Therefore the experiments do not support Rowbotham's theory on perspective.

The experiments were inconclusive, however, in that there was some recovery of height in all cases but this was always less than the associated experimental error.

Further experiments with a higher-powered lens would seem to be indicated, therefore.

(Emphasis mine)
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37681
Re: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #47 on: October 18, 2010, 06:06:41 PM »
Are you saying that no one has been able to photograph the hull of a ship being restored in the last 100 years or so?  ???

No Flat Earth research books have been published since the late 1800's/very early 1900's.

Why does such a photograph need to be part of a Flat Earth research book?  Why can't it be from someone's own personal research (like, maybe your own)?  As I recall, you're all about peer review.  This would be a perfect opportunity to publish your own peer review of such observations.  Just make sure that you properly document your research.
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: $100USD goes to...
« Reply #48 on: October 19, 2010, 01:49:00 AM »
3 Tesla, a one-time respected RE proponent:

The only experiment that I have seen was inconclusive.

I want to modify that statement:

1. It was actually four experiments - two oil rigs both imaged on two different days, and

2. There was no "restoration" of height within experimental error.

Therefore the experiments do not support Rowbotham's theory on perspective.

The experiments were inconclusive, however, in that there was some recovery of height in all cases but this was always less than the associated experimental error.

Further experiments with a higher-powered lens would seem to be indicated, therefore.

(Emphasis mine)
You're confused about the Scientific Method. Such a result does not support FET in the least. He/She looked for the effect and didn't find it.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards