Tom Bishop demonstrates that the earth is flat. Really? (Parts 1&2 merged)

In this post Tom Bishop describes some interesting observations he did with his telescope. I advice to read the article before read my post.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18114.msg319626#msg319626

In it we read that from Pacific Grove to Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz there are 33.4 miles (53.8 km). But measuring the distance with the ruler of Google Earth it results that it's really 22,36 miles (36 km).



Of course i'm not going to create a thread about a venial mistake like this; but it's indeed a good clue that Mr. Bishop didn't pay much attention in his experiments, which appear to be rather anecdotic and off-hand. This will help us to understand what really happened.

He says also: "With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see..."

Let's see Lovers Point.



Closer:



If you look at the first pic, you see that State Beach in Santa Cruz is due North from Pacific Grove, slighty tilted to West; from Lovers Point is impossible to see that beach, you can look only towards South-East.

The direction is totally wrong, where was Mr. Bishop looking at?
Let's see.



Mr. Bishop was looking at the beach near Sand City, that is at 3.3 miles (5.3 km) from Lovers Point!

If we read carefully what Bishop did post, some suspect should have crossed our minds. He says: "Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs."

From 22.36 miles (36 km) it's impossible to see such details. We have to take into account not only the resolution power of the telescope, but first of all the effect of such amount of air, albeit very clear.

At this point someone could say: "well, they are not 22,36 mi (36 km) but it's 3.3 miles (5.3 km) after all. Perhaps is yet possible to say something about the rotundity of the earth or lack thereof"

O.K., let's keep seeing.

I noticed that when the mouse cursor in Google Earth is placed near the shore of Sand City beach, it shows a strange fact. The altitude is noticeable, altough it's very close to the water.



If you run the mouse cursor along all the beach near the water you will see various altitudes, from 4 even to 14 metres (13 to 46 feet). How the hell is shaped this beach?

(Post too long. Got '404 error'. To be continued...)

Whilst Tom Bishop may be approaching 60, he's still a very smart and attractive man. He regularly takes his 23 year old girlfriend to Lover's Point for a roll in the sand. I understand she's a model from the Czech Republic.
Anyway, if on one such day when Tom has his young girlfriend, with her boundless sexual energy and pert breasts wrapped up in his strong and powerful arms, it should be quite understandable that should he snatch a glance across water before turning his attention back to the writhing moist girl, he may mistake one landmark for another. It however, does not take away from the fact that despite his elevation of only 20 inches or so above the water, the distractive lure of a sweetly scented nymph and his glasses somewhat steaming up, he was able to snatch a glimpse of land before returning his attention to the Eastern European beauty who was rifling his Speedos.

is that a derailment attempt? because i see no actual contribution their? the article accurately points out numerous errors in his observation of which we need explanations.

A first clue: in this page (whose content has nothing to do with our discussion)

http://www.oc.nps.edu/ripex/sbe2/summary/steep.htm

they say: "...Sand City, California where the beach is composed of a steep beach face...". Steep beach face?

But these movies resolve the mistery. See the Sand City beach:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Paragliding in sand City

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ridge Soaring in Sand City, California

others:
h t t p://w w

h t t p://w w

h t t p://w w

(strip spaces. Got error. But are the same as the first two)

The coast is really raised above the water over there! And is that coast that Mr. Bishop saw.

Let's do a bit of math, using the same Bishop's method, as he exposed in his post. Well then, the distance from Lovers Point to Sand City beach is 3.3 miles (5.3 km). Applying the formula let's find how much the visual drops.

According to the official measures the earth has an average radius of 6,371 km

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius

square root(6371**2 + 5.3**2) - 6371 = 2.20 metres (7.23 feet)

This does mean that from Lovers Point you can see an object tall as such or taller.

If you roughly calculate the mean altitude of Sand City beach in Google Earth you will find a bigger value than that. This does mean that the observations of Mr. Bishop are perfectly consistent with a round earth!

But we aren't done yet. The poster says: "I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing." Indeed he's talking about water, that is certainly lower than the dunes of the beach. Let's go back to Lovers Point. He was "laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level". But he was on the ground, not in the water. I would bet that he was meaning "20 inches above ground level" Use the "mouse cursor trick" in Google Earth on Lovers Point beach and you will see various altitudes, 1 metre, 2, 3, up to 5 (3.28 to 16.40 feet). Where was exactly Mr. Bishop? He didn't bother to say it. In this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

we learn that the horizon if you are at height 'h' from ground can be calculated with: d=3.57xsquare root(h), where h is in metres and d (distance of horizon) in km.

If e.g. Tom Bishop was 20 inches (=0.5 metres) in a point located 2 metres above sea level, we have: d = 3.57 x square root(2.5) = 5.64 km (3.5 miles), that is more than the distance Lovers Point - Sand City beach! No wonder he did see the water.

Once again, all that is perfectly compatible with a round earth.

The post we are talking about was inserted in this Wiki page:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence

that contains "proofs" that the earth is flat. The Bishop's contribute is really the most important.

Now Mr. Bishop should do two things:

1) To go in a point of Pacific Grove faced openly at the Bay aiming the telescope exactly at Lighthouse State Beach with the aid of a compass;

2) Let us know what he sees.

I can't wait.

Youtube has the answers, you delirious weirdoes!
" class="bbc_ftp new_win" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
How we know the earth is round, explained in a way a child could understand! How do I know? I am a child. You guys are idiots.

But we aren't done yet. The poster says: "I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing." Indeed he's talking about water, that is certainly lower than the dunes of the beach.

Refraction probably helped too.

Now Mr. Bishop should do two things:

1) To go in a point of Pacific Grove faced openly at the Bay aiming the telescope exactly at Lighthouse State Beach with the aid of a compass;

2) Let us know what he sees.

I can't wait.

Better yet, get some pictures of it and post them up.

so how come we havnt had a response from tom on this? im sure he has read it? i mean he has either made quite a fundimental mistake or out right fudged the rusults on purpose. 

Many replies in this thread got deleted, why?
There is a gap between 14 January (post of 29silhouette) and today 25 January (post of Pythagoras). Mods, is it possible to fix it? Thank you.

yeah i noticed that why is this mods? we will just have to keep the thread up untill we get a response.

2 pages of this thread were removed because none of it was on topic. Not a single person had anything to add. The comments weren't even about the topic. Whooping, cheering and back-slapping are deemed low-content. As is bumping and the harassment of Tom Bishop.

If you have anything else to add to the OP feel free, but the thread will not be allowed to run on for several pages of moronic chit-chat. The OP is directed at Tom. None of the other FErs can really comment.
Therefore if you don't get a response from Tom, that's pretty much the end of the thread. I'll add, its up to Tom whether he comments or not. Not you.

Because the low-content abuse was so widespread, no action was taken. If you continue to take this thread down that path however, I'll close this thread due to its then obvious 'inciteful nature' and issue bans/ warnings depending on the severity of the abuse.

Finally there are far more RErs on this site than FErs. Therefore we cannot be expected to answer every single post. We'd probably need to out post you all 6:1 to do that, and we haven't any more time than you to spend on this site. Being as some of you seem to run 8-10 hour shifts on here, do not be surprised when we are unable to answer all of your queries. You will have to wait patiently and deal with disappointment. The amount of goading and general insulting of FErs is getting to a level where action will need to be taken. I'm very fed up with it.

Post on topic or don't post.

The bumping/goading stops here. I hope this is clear.

The OP is directed at Tom. None of the other FErs can really comment.
Therefore if you don't get a response from Tom, that's pretty much the end of the thread. I'll add, its up to Tom whether he comments or not. Not you.

We can say Tom answered. In the Wiki page about the 'Experimental Evidence' in favor of a Flat Earth the link to Tom's post has disappeared. The page results edited 24 January 2013.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence

I took it off because the pictures were missing and the equations don't really make sense without the illustrations.

I don't really understand the argument in the OP. It seems that the argument in this thread is that I was on the wrong beach. But you can see that there are other beaches. A beach doesn't need to have white sand to be a beach.



Now, admittedly at times it can be difficult to identify the tiny figures looking across the Monterey Bay with a telescope, but one can clearly see the yellow beaches and the single story buildings on the other side. In a previous thread on this topic a Santa Cruz student even posted that he could see the one and two story buildings when looking across the bay to Monterey with his naked eye.

...I don't really understand the argument in the OP. It seems that the argument in this thread is that I was on the wrong beach...

Indeed.
OP says you were looking at the wrong beach.

I don't really understand the argument in the OP. It seems that the argument in this thread is that I was on the wrong beach. But you can see that there are other beaches. A beach doesn't need to have white sand to be a beach.

Please send us a photograph of the place from which you made the observations, since all the "beaches" I see in Lovers' Point are pretty much places for mountain climbers with climbing equipment, except one.

Anyhow, you are asking people to suddenly stop looking for explanations on how you saw beachballs, frisbees and people, and now you only see one or two story buildings. Why would you expect somebody that suddenly changes his version of the accounts to fit his detractors' objections to be a credible witness?

Seeing houses at that distance is not that surprising, since houses are generally constructed several meters above sea level. People on the beach make a strong argument if you have the correct telescope to see them, because they may be centimeters away from the water, but only a madman will construct his house less than 3 meters above low tide level. I am not sure at all that the curvature of the Earth will impede seeing houses at a distance of some 30 kilometers.

If the current version is that you see houses that may be 3 meters or more above sea level, that may or may not be seen from the level of the floor and up because the resolution of the telescope will not give you enough definition to know, and you do not know exactly which houses you are seeing so you cannot go and make measurements, the answer has to be "well, you saw houses; good for you".

On top of the above, refraction is still a problem, but lets not go there for the moment.

You can go back to the rocks at Lovers' Point, get a friend to go to Santa Cruz and place a building-size banner right by the sea (one with very clear white and red horizontal lines, each one meter wide, for example) and take the photo that will change the world. You know that it will be a piece of cake since you already have done the preliminary observations, so it is a clear path to scientific celebrity for a couple hundred bucks. Not a bad investment.