Why is there even a debate?

An globularist posted pictures that featured such a restoration in this very forum and the lot of you tried to run away from the results.

An globularist posted pictures that featured such a restoration in this very forum and the lot of you tried to run away from the results.

Link please?

An globularist posted pictures that featured such a restoration in this very forum and the lot of you tried to run away from the results.

Was the restoration more than one pixel?

The pictures were taken by Rig Navigator:
http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/5175/imgp2163ky0.jpg

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6884/imgp2164ak6.jpg

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9834/imgp2165eg0.jpg



The photos show that the height-to-width ratio of each rig increases with zoom even taken with a simple telephoto lens (a 35mm camera with a 200mm focal length lens).

http://i38.tinypic.com/fllpc9.jpg

The pictures were taken by Rig Navigator:
http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/5175/imgp2163ky0.jpg

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6884/imgp2164ak6.jpg

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9834/imgp2165eg0.jpg



The photos show that the height-to-width ratio of each rig increases with zoom even taken with a simple telephoto lens (a 35mm camera with a 200mm focal length lens).

http://i38.tinypic.com/fllpc9.jpg

These measurements are inconclusive due to the clarity and blurriness of the images at distance.  Also you haven't provided a link for the thread these images were posted in, which is necessary to establish context, for example were both images taken at the same elevation?

If this is the best evidence you can find you need to try a little harder.  Especially when you consider these threads, which shows clearly the hull restored by elevation.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49605.msg1236552#msg1236552

Of course the hull will be restored by elevation; why wouldn't it be? The thread was by Rig Navigator. I'm on vacation at the moment, so I'm not going to spend the time to find it. The pictures were taken by Rig Navigator. The measurements were done by another poster. Euclid,  or 3Tesla perhaps. One of the more intelligent globularist posters of the time. 

Of course the hull will be restored by elevation; why wouldn't it be? The thread was by Rig Navigator. I'm on vacation at the moment, so I'm not going to spend the time to find it. The pictures were taken by Rig Navigator. The measurements were done by another poster. Euclid,  or 3Tesla perhaps. One of the more intelligent globularist posters of the time.

The hull won't be restored by elevation unless something is obscuring the hull that the extra elevation allows you to see over.  That's the whole point. 

Of course the hull will be restored by elevation; why wouldn't it be? The thread was by Rig Navigator. I'm on vacation at the moment, so I'm not going to spend the time to find it. The pictures were taken by Rig Navigator. The measurements were done by another poster. Euclid,  or 3Tesla perhaps. One of the more intelligent globularist posters of the time.

So a distant sphere would look like this from different altitudes:

So a distant sphere would look like this from different altitudes:
http://i51.tinypic.com/34gk7qh.png

That's not a distant sphere. That's a sphere 8 inches away.

Please read up on perspective in Earth Not a Globe.

Quote from: momentia on September 03, 2011, 02:50:45 PM

So a distant sphere would look like this from different altitudes:
http://i51.tinypic.com/34gk7qh.png

That's not a distant sphere. That's a sphere 8 inches away.

Please read up on perspective in Earth Not a Globe.

You read it, then come back here when you've understood Rowbotham's error in logic which leads to his erroneous conclusion.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2011, 03:17:49 PM

Quote from: momentia on September 03, 2011, 02:50:45 PM

So a distant sphere would look like this from different altitudes:
http://i51.tinypic.com/34gk7qh.png

That's not a distant sphere. That's a sphere 8 inches away.

Please read up on perspective in Earth Not a Globe.

You read it, then come back here when you've understood Rowbotham's error in logic which leads to his erroneous conclusion.

There is no error in logic. Rowbotham's explanation of perspective is proven by the fact that half-sunken ships can be restored by looking at them through a telescope. Please see this link I provided earlier. Additionally, Ski has posted pictures of this restoration effect in this thread.

There is no error in logic. Rowbotham's explanation of perspective is proven by the fact that half-sunken ships can be restored by looking at them through a telescope. Please see this link I provided earlier. Additionally, Ski has posted pictures of this restoration effect in this thread.

I've explained Rowbotham's error and no FE'er has yet satisfactorily rebutted my explanation of how Rowbotham is wrong.  You continue to rely on faith that Rowbotham somehow understands something that can't be explained with the use of logic.  Markjo, Momentia and myself have all offered proofs that demonstrate why Rowbotham is wrong in the Crows Nest thread, but all FE'ers do is refer us back to enag or claim we aren't able to understand the material.  It's very clear what Rowbotham claims, he is simply and demonstrably wrong about it.

The ship on the horizon isn't at the vanishing point, so this convulated malarky doesn't apply.   The ship would be at the vanishing point if the vanishing point was the same as the horizon, which it would be on a flat earth.  But it isn't on a curved earth.  Further, if the ship was at the vanishing point (to be clear, we are talking about vanishing point of of human eyesight in these discussions), all the points that mark out it's shape would effectively be equi-distant from the eye and the ship would appear as a single dot.  At that distance, the resolving error of the human eye negates the small differences in distances between the mast or the hull and the viewers eye. If a telescope is brought into play, it simply (optically) brings the object back from the vanishing point.  It restores the whole image, not just the hull.  Of course the Hull is never restored because the vanishing point of the human eye, for something the size of a ship, is beyond the horizon.

Rowbotham is using his misunderstanding of perspective to prove a Flat Earth.  In other words, he is saying "this is how perspective would have to work to explain this sinking ship phenomena, so I am going to bloody-mindedly insist that perspective does work this way, and therefore prove the Earth is flat".
 
ie: "I  postulate A.  For A to exist, B must exist.  Therefore B exists."  B is Rowbotham's twisted law of perspective.

His problem comes from having a biased towards the Flat Earth Theory.  His view of perspective is predicated on the vanishing point of the human eye being synonomous with the Horizon, and then heattempts to force the experience of reality to fit this model

Please see this link I provided earlier. Additionally, Ski has posted pictures of this restoration effect in this thread.

Those two pictures are way too blurry to draw any conclusion.  Besides no link was provided to verify the source of the images or the elevation.   Ski is able to find the link for the images, but not the thread that contains them?  Seems rather convenient to me.

I have several items saved for my own personal collection. I'm sorry my holiday is interfering with your using the search function.

You haven't explained Dr. Rowbotham's error, because you continue to miss a vital point of perspective which Tom and I have tried again and again to explain to you. Nor have you explained how an oil rig (or ship or anything else) become restored if it were in fact being hidden behind a hill of water.

I have several items saved for my own personal collection. I'm sorry my holiday is interfering with your using the search function.

You haven't explained Dr. Rowbotham's error, because you continue to miss a vital point of perspective which Tom and I have tried again and again to explain to you. Nor have you explained how an oil rig (or ship or anything else) become restored if it were in fact being hidden behind a hill of water.

I have given my rebuttal for both points. 

For the first, you have in fact not tried to explain it at all, instead you parrot "read enag" over and over again.

For the second, I don't accept that the quality of the photos is adequate to make accurate enough measurements to draw any firm conclusions.  I can't find the thread without looking through every single thread that either rig or trig have posted to or that contains the word navigator.   

I will conduct my own research once I get a clear calm day and an opportunity to head out to Moreton Bay and collect my own photographic evidence using both a 50mm lens and a 900mm telescope.  I will present it hear, and I will do the measurements on that data.

I have several items saved for my own personal collection. I'm sorry my holiday is interfering with your using the search function.

You haven't explained Dr. Rowbotham's error, because you continue to miss a vital point of perspective which Tom and I have tried again and again to explain to you. Nor have you explained how an oil rig (or ship or anything else) become restored if it were in fact being hidden behind a hill of water.

I looked at your photos, and I don't see anything "hidden":



The only difference is in the angular resolution. And there have already been other photos posted where angular resolution is not a problem, but clearly show the bottom parts of ships missing.

Compare that to these photos with better angular resolution (taken at different heights):


These clearly show a difference in how much the water obscures the hull, as no features but the hull are lost.

Great contribution.

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2011, 09:03:12 PM

I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon.

You've seen the sun below the horizon? 

Yes. I sure have.

momentia demonstraits that clearer photos will be needed as the zoomed picture is just pixels. i hope to see the new pictures soon so we can draw new conclusions

momentia demonstraits that clearer photos will be needed as the zoomed picture is just pixels. i hope to see the new pictures soon so we can draw new conclusions

On rigs photos.  Mine on the other hand have more than enough detail for it to be clear that the hull is revealed from altitude.

The OP was a rather pathetic attempt at the very least.

before you people come with those argument about sun celestial gears etc,
maybe you should go with a basic map,
i mean us spherical earth beleiver, begin by the first step and did a basic map of the round earth, and we did explore all the place on it, refining it,
in your case you just omit the basic thing, started by explaning the edges, and your so called ice wall that repulse boat in a mysterious way,
explain also why there is no report what so ever of boat in the entire naval history that have go againts this so called magnetic field and couldt go any further
there is a lot to be explain before, the sun on the horizon, the celestial gears even your gravity with the stupid 94 meter second theory that we go upward,
anyway just my cup of tea onvce again you wil probably just ignore all of those cause this site is a joke

in your case you just omit the basic thing, started by explaning the edges, and your so called ice wall that repulse boat in a mysterious way,

The ice wall does not repulse boats in mysterious ways.

explain also why there is no report what so ever of boat in the entire naval history that have go againts this so called magnetic field and couldt go any further

I'm not sure where you read about "this so-called magnetic field," but it sounds like bunkum.

there is a lot to be explain before, the sun on the horizon, the celestial gears even your gravity with the stupid 94 meter second theory that we go upward,

I don't believe in celestial gears. I'm not sure anyone does. If you're going to criticize the model perhaps you could do so in a manner that actually addresses a real concern and not a straw man. Where did you come up with a "94 meter second theory"?