A question for you flat earthers...

If the world is flat, how come when you look out at an ocean with say, binoculars, and see a ship coming, how come you see the tips of the masts first, and then slowly the rest of the ship appears? If the earth is flat, you should be able to see all of it at the same time.

God intelligently bends the light, to test our faith.

Perhaps the most visually stunning fact which proves the earth as a plane is the sinking ship effect. As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to sink from the bottom up into the sea when it touches the horizon line. The Flat Earth Society found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship:

The sinking ship effect has been proven to be an effect purely perspective in nature. By viewing the scene through a telescope with sufficient zoom a half sunken ship can be restored with its hull in full view. Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove that the earth is a globe really proves it to be a plane.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship:

These accounts are demonstratively false as documented by Experiment #0013 in The RE Primer. Let's not forget that you refuse to provide contemporary proof with the lame excuse that no one makes a camera mount for your telescope (which is a lie).

Also:

These accounts are demonstratively false as documented by Experiment #0013 in The RE Primer. Let's not forget that you refuse to provide contemporary proof with the lame excuse that no one makes a camera mount for your telescope (which is a lie).

The accounts I've referenced clearly demonstrates that the globular assumption of sinking ships is in error, that the sinking ship effect is nothing more than a trick of perspective, an effect which could only occur on a plane surface. I've given multiple accounts of observers being able to look through the "hill of water" of the earth's supposed convexity and restore half-sunken ships to full view. This is sufficient evidence.

And, all you have to say is that all of these people are liars?

You've posted an excellent image of the effect. One just has to look at the scene through a telescope with sufficient zoom to see the ship restored in full, exactly as my sources discovered for themselves.

Quote

These accounts are demonstratively false as documented by Experiment #0013 in The RE Primer. Let's not forget that you refuse to provide contemporary proof with the lame excuse that no one makes a camera mount for your telescope (which is a lie).

The accounts I've references clearly demonstrates that the globular assumption of sinking ships is in error, that the sinking ship effect is nothing more than a trick of perspective, an effect which could only occur on a plane. I've given multiple accounts of observers being able to look through the "hill of water" of the earth's supposed convexity and restore half-sunken ships to full view. This is sufficient evidence.

And, all you have to say is that these people are liars?

You've posted an excellent image of the effect. One just has to look at the scene through a telescope with sufficient zoom to see the ship restored in full, exactly as my sources discovered.

Yes, these people are either lying, misquoted, or mistaken.

False. Go ahead and zoom with your software of choice to the skyline. You'll still not see the bottom portion of the CN Tower. You fail. Prove you claim. Provide your telescope model number. Take the two pictures and post them. Are you scared to try? What would Rowbotham say about your relying on the accounts of others when you can see for yourself, and document it, with such ease?

Quote

These accounts are demonstratively false as documented by Experiment #0013 in The RE Primer. Let's not forget that you refuse to provide contemporary proof with the lame excuse that no one makes a camera mount for your telescope (which is a lie).

The accounts I've references clearly demonstrates that the globular assumption of sinking ships is in error, that the sinking ship effect is nothing more than a trick of perspective, an effect which could only occur on a plane surface. I've given multiple accounts of observers being able to look through the "hill of water" of the earth's supposed convexity and restore half-sunken ships to full view. This is sufficient evidence.

And, all you have to say is that all of these people are liars?

Well, considering that all you really have to say about the people behind the mounds of evidence of what's really going on with the sinking ship effect (the curvature of the earth, of course) is that they're liars, wouldn't you say that's fair game? 

Yes, these people are either lying, misquoted, or mistaken.

There is no mistaking the explicit and detailed accounts I've provided, which clearly show that half-sunken ships were restored to full view with a telescope.

How does RE explain that?

False. Go ahead and zoom with your software of choice to the skyline. You'll still not see the bottom portion of the CN Tower. You fail. Prove you claim. Provide your telescope model number. Take the two pictures and post them. Are you scared to try? What would Rowbotham say about your relying on the accounts of others when you can see for yourself, and document it, with such ease?

Zooming in with software won't add the resolution a telescope will provide. In fact that's just dumb. Zooming in with software just pixilates the image, it does not add resolution or additional detail whatsoever.

I've already told you the other day that when I find a telescope with a camera mount I'll be more than happy to take some before and after shots to demonstrate the effect. You'll just have to wait until I can procure the equipment and come across a half-sunken ship.

I've already seen the effect for myself just by looking across my bay to the opposite coast with my current telescope. It really is quite a sight restoring a half-sunken coast to full view, proving that we truly do live upon a plane.

Well, considering that all you really have to say about the people behind the mounds of evidence of what's really going on with the sinking ship effect (the curvature of the earth, of course) is that they're liars, wouldn't you say that's fair game?  Huh

Sure, it's fair game. It's just hypocritical to the extreme for RE'ers to complain about FE'ers calling Conspiracy against NASA when they do it against our sources all the time.

Quote

Yes, these people are either lying, misquoted, or mistaken.

There is no mistaking the explicit and detailed accounts I've provided, which clearly show that half-sunken ships were restored to full view with a telescope.

How does RE explain that?

Again: these people are either lying, misquoted, or mistaken.

Quote

False. Go ahead and zoom with your software of choice to the skyline. You'll still not see the bottom portion of the CN Tower. You fail. Prove you claim. Provide your telescope model number. Take the two pictures and post them. Are you scared to try? What would Rowbotham say about your relying on the accounts of others when you can see for yourself, and document it, with such ease?

Zooming in with software won't add the resolution a telescope will provide. In fact that's just dumb. Zooming in with software just pixilates the image, it does not add resolution or additional detail whatsoever.

I've already told you the other day that when I find a telescope with a camera mount I'll be more than happy to take some before and after shots to demonstrate the effect. You'll just have to wait until I can procure the equipment and come across a half-sunken ship.

I've already seen the effect for myself just by looking across my bay to the opposite coast with my current telescope. It really is quite a sight restoring a half-sunken coast to full view, proving that we truly do live upon a plane.

False. Optical and digital zooms would both create the effect--if it existed. As we repeatedly tell you, there must be a camera mount for your alleged telescope. Provide the model number and we'll mail the mount to you. You have no reason for the delay if you're telling the truth. And why do you have to come across a half-sunken ship?

Quote

Well, considering that all you really have to say about the people behind the mounds of evidence of what's really going on with the sinking ship effect (the curvature of the earth, of course) is that they're liars, wouldn't you say that's fair game?  Huh

Sure, it's fair game. It's just hypocritical to the extreme for RE'ers to complain about FE'ers calling Conspiracy against NASA when they do it against our sources all the time.

No one is calling the FE errors a conspiracy. A few lies, a few errors, do not a conspiracy make. You attack a straw man.

Well, to be fair, I have called it a conspiracy, motivated by religion (difference being that there is actual evidence to support my conspiracy theory).  But I certainly wasn't doing that here, nor was anyone else.

BTW, Tom, how do you feel about the fact that Charles K Johnson believed the motivation behind the Round Earth Conspiracy was anti-Christian sentiment rather than money as you and this site have erroneously claimed?

Well, to be fair, I have called it a conspiracy, motivated by religion (difference being that there is actual evidence to support my conspiracy theory).  But I certainly wasn't doing that here, nor was anyone else.

Fair enough.

Charles Johnsons word is not gospel.  He could have been wrong.  (not that I am sure that I believe in the conspiracy, yet.  just saying...)

Charles Johnsons word is not gospel.  He could have been wrong.  (not that I am sure that I believe in the conspiracy, yet.  just saying...)

Well, Charles Johnson's word represented the official word of the real Flat Earth Society, so...

No, actually he was the International Flat Earth Society

Furthermore, its still irrelevant.  His word is still not gospel, even if he was the president of the International Flat Earth Society.  This doesn't make him all knowing about the conspiracies motivations.

I sob whenever this topic gets raised...

And makes me bite the heads off badgers...

I now have rabies...


Thank you VERY much, newbie!

Furthermore, its still irrelevant.  His word is still not gospel, even if he was the president of the International Flat Earth Society.  This doesn't make him all knowing about the conspiracies motivations.

Well of course not.  But as the president, his opinion does represent the official stance of the group as a whole.

Quote from: Username on October 07, 2007, 01:37:34 PM

Furthermore, its still irrelevant.  His word is still not gospel, even if he was the president of the International Flat Earth Society.  This doesn't make him all knowing about the conspiracies motivations.

Well of course not.  But as the president, his opinion does represent the official stance of the group as a whole.

Well, he is not president anymore. 

However, ignoring that, it does not make the opposing argument "erroneous" because it disagrees with the International Flat Earth Societies Dead President's opinion.


edit: say that (International Flat Earth Societies Dead President's promiss) five times fast

Quote from: Username on October 07, 2007, 01:37:34 PM

Furthermore, its still irrelevant.  His word is still not gospel, even if he was the president of the International Flat Earth Society.  This doesn't make him all knowing about the conspiracies motivations.

Well of course not.  But as the president, his opinion does represent the official stance of the group as a whole.

False. President Bush's opinion of immigration, for example, does not represent the official stance of the United States as a whole.

Again: these people are either lying, misquoted, or mistaken.

How does the RE model account for the fact that my sources have repeatedly shown the globular assumption of sinking ships to be in error, that the author of the book Terra Firma, David Wardlaw Scott, also tells us that sunken ships can be restored by the aid of a telescope.

Are they all liars and conspirators?

False. Optical and digital zooms would both create the effect--if it existed.

There is a clear and outstanding difference between optical and digital zooms. Any twelve year old knows this. The two are not comparable, and any supposition otherwise is laughable.

As we repeatedly tell you, there must be a camera mount for your alleged telescope. Provide the model number and we'll mail the mount to you. You have no reason for the delay if you're telling the truth. And why do you have to come across a half-sunken ship?

I have the Orion Starblast 4.5 EQ Reflector, but don't bother sending the camera mount because I've already provided sufficient evidence showing that the sinking ship effect is not proof of a round earth, and in fact demonstrates the earth to be a plane. Photography is not considered evidence on this forum, and it would be a waste of my time to collect something which is not considered evidence. After all, you would just call me a liar or a hoaxer afterwards.

I've given multiple accounts from different independent investigators showing that the globe theory is incorrect. We've seen that the sinking ship effect is reversible with a telescope. The ship's hull comes back completely. Direct first hand accounts are all we need. The testimonials I've given on page one are so powerful that no further evidence is necessary.

How does your RE model explain any of this?

Quote

Again: these people are either lying, misquoted, or mistaken.

How does RE explain the fact that my sources have repeatedly shown the globular assumption of sinking ships to be in error, that the author of the book Terra Firma, David Wardlaw Scott, also tells us that sunken ships can be restored by the aid of a telescope.

Are they all liars and conspirators?

Quote

Again: these people are either lying, misquoted, or mistaken.

Quote

False. Optical and digital zooms would both create the effect--if it existed.

There is a clear and outstanding difference between optical and digital zooms. Any twelve year old knows this. The two are not comparable, and any supposition otherwise is laughable.

Quote

False.

Quote

As we repeatedly tell you, there must be a camera mount for your alleged telescope. Provide the model number and we'll mail the mount to you. You have no reason for the delay if you're telling the truth. And why do you have to come across a half-sunken ship?

I have the Orion Starblast 4.5 EQ Reflector, but don't bother sending the camera mount because I've already provided sufficient evidence showing that the sinking ship effect is not proof of a round earth, and in fact proves the earth to be a plane. Photography is not considered evidence on this forum, and it would be a waste of my time to collect something which is not considered evidence. After all, you would just call me a liar afterwards.

I've given multiple accounts from different independent investigators showing that the globe theory is incorrect. Direct first hand accounts are all we need. The testimonials I've given on page one are so powerful that no further evidence is necessary.

You lose.

Your evidence is impugned. You committed to providing the pictures. You told us that the manufacturer didn't sell the camera mount. But look what I found on the manufacturer's website: SteadyPix Universal Camera Mount
Couples Camera to Any telescope for Through-the- Eyepiece Photos of the Moon and Planets!
This nifty device holds virtually any digital or film camera up to the eyepiece of any telescope to capture images of the Moon, planets, bright deep-sky objects, or terrestrial subjects. An improvement over existing designs, SteadyPix locks the camera lens in position at just the right distance and orientation relative to the eyepiece to achieve precise focus and centering of the image for afocal photography.

SteadyPix attaches directly to any standard 1.25" telescope eyepiece with one of two felt-lined eyepiece clamps provided (for standard or large-size 1.25" eyepieces). The camera threads on to a 1/4"-20 pedestal via the threaded hole in the camera body.

Eyepieces with long eye relief are recommended to minimize vignetting of images. Our Epic or Lanthanum series (standard, not Superwides) eyepieces are ideal. Fits 1.25" eyepieces only.


More info >


Item#       Description                                  Status           Qty               Price    
05228       SteadyPix Universal Camera Mount   In Stock                   $36.95



Reference: Orion

You lose.

Your evidence is impugned. You committed to providing the pictures. You told us that the manufacturer didn't sell the camera mount. But look what I found on the manufacturer's website: SteadyPix Universal Camera Mount.

It's nice of you to try and help out Gulliver. But that camera mount won't work with my $500 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-G1. I've already looked at that product. Didn't I tell you that I've already looked for the right camera mount for my equipment and came up empty-handed?

By acting this way you are simply in denial. I've already given you all the evidence you need to see that the sinking ship effect supports a Flat Earth. By continuing to stamp your foot and shout "prove it," you are doing a disservice to your fellow REers.

Well guess what, the earth was proven to be flat 150 years ago. Observational evidence by nearly every person on this earth attests to a Flat Earth. Hence, the earth is flat by pretense. The onus is on you to contradict the experimental evidence conducted by the Flat Earth Society. Don't ask me to do your own work for you.

I would buy an alternative camera, however, that would nullify my excuse and defy my ignorance which I just can't have.

Love you, Gulliver!

I would buy an alternative camera, however, that would nullify my excuse and defy my ignorance which I just can't have.

Love you, Gulliver!

Love you too!

Quote

You lose.

Your evidence is impugned. You committed to providing the pictures. You told us that the manufacturer didn't sell the camera mount. But look what I found on the manufacturer's website: SteadyPix Universal Camera Mount.

It's nice of you to try and help out Gulliver. But that camera mount won't work with my $500 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-G1. I've already looked at that product. Didn't I tell you that I've already looked for the right camera mount for my equipment and came up empty-handed?

By acting this way you are simply in denial. I've already given you all the evidence you need to see that the sinking ship effect supports a Flat Earth. By continuing to stamp your foot and shout "prove it," you are doing a disservice to your fellow REers.

Well guess what, the earth was proven to be flat 150 years ago. Observational evidence by nearly every person on this earth attests to a Flat Earth. Hence, the earth is flat by pretense. The onus is on you to contradict the experimental evidence conducted by the Flat Earth Society. Don't ask me to do your own work for you.

Nice new excuse. Sorry, but your excuse fails that the DSC-G1, as most any camera will, works with the mount.

Here's the proof:
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-G1

    * Overview
    * Design
    * Operation
    * Optics
    * Exposure
    * Performance
    * Specifications
    * Samples

Links
Model Name:    Sony Cyber-shot DSC-G1
Check Prices:    Check Now!
Photo Gallery URL:    
Device Forum URL:    
Manufacturer URL:    Mfr. Website
General
Model Number:    DSC-G1
Camera Format:    Compact
Currently Manufactured:    Yes
Retail Price:    $599.99
Street Price:    $518.47
Date Available:    2007-04-30
Tripod Mount:    Yes
================================
 Reference: Imaging Resource

Quote

Your evidence is impugned. You committed to providing the pictures. You told us that the manufacturer didn't sell the camera mount. But look what I found on the manufacturer's website: SteadyPix Universal Camera Mount.

It's nice of you to try and help out Gulliver. But that camera mount won't work with my $500 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-G1. I've already looked at that product. Didn't I tell you that I've already looked for the right camera mount for my equipment and came up empty-handed?

Tom, I will give you a camera that will work.  You heard me right: I will give you one.  I'll ship it to you.  On the condition of course that you promise to use it to take photos of ships on the horizon.

I'll go even further.  If somebody in the bay area (or anywhere) will drive over or ship me a powerful telescope (presumably more powerful what sounds to be TomB's crappy little refractor), I will personally and with fantastic care, drive it down to Monterrey on a brilliantly clear day (most days this time of year), set it up for him, and invite him out.  We'll look at ships over the horizon, agree on what we see (at least descriptively), and take some pictures.  Then I will gingerly repack it and ship it back with 24-hour turnaround from Tom's viewing.

(I watched the Blue Angels from Chrissy Field beach yesterday, and snapped some pics of boats over the horizon.  I'll upload them when I get around to downloading the 8gb of photos.)

Observational evidence by nearly every person on this earth attests to a Flat Earth. Hence, the earth is flat by pretense.

Observational evidence by nearly every person on this earth attests that people are trapped inside their TV and don't even know it.  Hence...there are people trapped in your TV by pretense.

Nice new excuse. Sorry, but your excuse fails that the DSC-G1, as most any camera will, works with the mount.

No it won't.

How exactly am I supposed to get this camera:



To work on this mount:



With this telescope:



The parts are incompatible, as any ten year old child can see.

Tom, I will give you a camera that will work.  You heard me right: I will give you one.  I'll ship it to you.  On the condition of course that you promise to use it to take photos of ships on the horizon.

I'll go even further.  If somebody in the bay area (or anywhere) will drive over or ship me a powerful telescope (presumably more powerful what sounds to be TomB's crappy little refractor), I will personally and with fantastic care, drive it down to Monterrey on a brilliantly clear day (most days this time of year), set it up for him, and invite him out.  We'll look at ships over the horizon, agree on what we see (at least descriptively), and take some pictures.  Then I will gingerly repack it and ship it back with 24-hour turnaround from Tom's viewing.

(I watched the Blue Angels from Chrissy Field beach yesterday, and snapped some pics of boats over the horizon.  I'll upload them when I get around to downloading the 8gb of photos.)

That's good bubbles. I accept your offer wholeheartedly. We can look across the bay, as I have done so many times already, and see that the earth truly is a plane.

I'll go even further.  If somebody in the bay area (or anywhere) will drive over or ship me a powerful telescope (presumably more powerful what sounds to be TomB's crappy little refractor), I will personally and with fantastic care, drive it down to Monterrey on a brilliantly clear day (most days this time of year), set it up for him, and invite him out.  We'll look at ships over the horizon, agree on what we see (at least descriptively), and take some pictures.  Then I will gingerly repack it and ship it back with 24-hour turnaround from Tom's viewing.

Here's what we'll do, bubbles. We won't even need to wait for a ship to depart from the harbour. You come over to Monterey with your camera, I'll secure a telescope, and we'll repeat together one of the bay experiments I preform regularly:

I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map.

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. 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 people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. 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 my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

IF the earth is a globe, and is 24,900 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach 30 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 600 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.

Here's the math:



Suppose that the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3,963 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangle as in the diagram.

Looking over a distance of 1 mile, we can use the theorem of Pythagoras:

a² = 3,963² + 1² = 15,705,370

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.000126 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.000126 - 3,963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth.

0.000126 miles = 12 in * 5,280 ft * 0.000126 mi = 7.98 inches

Hence after one mile the earth drops approximately 8 inches.


Ergo, looking across 30 miles the Pythagorean theorem becomes:

a² = 3963² +30² = 15,706,269

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.113549 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.113549 - 3,963 = 0.113549 miles above the surface of the earth

0.113549 miles = 5,280 ft * 0.113549 mi = 599.53872 feet

Hence after 30 miles the earth drops approximately 600 feet.


Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions. The last time I repeated this account before on this form the main response I get from RE proponents was to call me a liar.

With your testimony, we can help confirm that the earth truly is a plane.

That's good bubbles. I accept your offer wholeheartedly. We can look across the bay, as I have done so many times already, and see that the earth truly is a plane.

You heard it folks, Tom is game.  It's as good as signed with his own signature.

Alright so some questions for the community: I'm going to send him a Canon EOS Rebel 2000, practically brand new, and a few rolls of 35mm film.  400 ASA probably best.  (Nowadays Costco delivers prints and photo CD at the same time.  Recently they are very high-res, actually exceeding the resolution of the film [variously argued to be between 5 and 10mp effective resolution].)

Some questions: What adapter is he going to need to get?  Will the camera work on it without a lens?  (Preferably since that would result in much better pictures and would save me from also giving away a lens.)

Think about it folks: we have the opportunity to change the mind of one of FE's most fervent and irrational proponents.  His Rowbotham/"there's no sinking ship" argument is one of the founding pillars of his belief.  Pull that away, and things might get a little shaky, putting strain on any other supports that he cares to also examine more closely.  Never before in internet history has such an audacious thing been accomplished--someone changed their mind!  Not only that--to change it from unreason to reason.  This would make ABC Evening News.  I'd give away 20 cameras for this.