my evidence

 Anyway the additional land mass that you can see when it's zoomed in, is so insignificant, that its not a case of perspective; it's just a case of zooming in on something that's difficult to make out because is very small, far away and blends in with the ocean. you are making it out to be something it's not.  

We are talking about a large island here, not a ship getting too far away for the human eye to see, and then being able to see it with a telescope. We are talking about an island being viewed at different hights, with a very good lense. The higher you go, the more of the island is visable, substantially more. So do seriously think, that if on that image taken at 40 something feet, he had used an even more powerful lense, that the island would have risen back up back to it's former glory?

Below is another version.  Again, I took the 2 original photos and switched them to negative.  Then I changed the gamma and contrast to make it easier to see.

When I overlay the 2 images, I see the same amount of landmass appearing above the water in both images.  I don't see any additional landmass appearing as you claim to see.  Again, maybe my eyes are bad.



I'm not sure if the image is showing or not, so here is a link: http://picasaweb.google.com/damon.hill/Desktop/photo#5145758786560700978




And here is another one, this time I didnt switch it to negative.  I only increased the contrast and shadows.


http://picasaweb.google.com/damon.hill/Desktop/photo#5145764249759101506

Pwned.

So, Tom, you're suggesting that in order to restore a sunken object (as has been proven possible), I simply need to increase my height... thus increasing how far I can see? I know RE agrees with that (as has been explained). What gets me is:

Additionally, the fog of the semi-transparent atmosphere only allows one to see so far before all distant bodies are obscured and faded beyond recognition. The atmosphere is filled with atoms and molecules - all of which are not transparent.

This is your answer to my horizon question in another thread. If this were correct, then you would not be able to "restore" the pictures in the way you did, short of some very advanced interferometry (which would require you to actually be there and record).

Also, in case anyone else didn't notice, Tom only chose to pick out 2 pictures, blow them up to where you cant see crap, and then draw a couple of black lines across them to try and prove cpt_bthimes wrong. (which by the way he failed at doing)  And thats it.

He completely ignored the rest of the evidence and pictures.

Way to go Tom.  Again you have proved absolutely nothing.

thanks guys.  i'll post more in this later, but for now i just want to try to save people (re or fe) some time by suggesting you hold off on the post-processing of these low-res versions (good job though btw).  the usable resolution doesn't improve much with an order of magnitude more pixels, due to atmospheric haze, but with the contrast stretching going on, it's now obvious that severe sharpening and compression artifacts have been introduced by flikr that aren't there in the origs. 

except bishop: you can keep knocking yourself out, you i don't care bout.

We are talking about an island being viewed at different hights, with a very good lense. The higher you go, the more of the island is visable, substantially more. So do seriously think, that if on that image taken at 40 something feet, he had used an even more powerful lense, that the island would have risen back up back to it's former glory?

thanks.  i also took a set of images from fixed location/elevation but with widely varying focal lengths, from something like 34mm to 640mm, 35mm equiv.  they're in the album.  this was just to debunk the rowbotham bs.

i'll post more later.  and tear bishop's self-contradictory bs to shreds.

Quote

Yeah, and the rest of the island is hidden below the 'hill of water' as you say, what's you're point? The island is still in the picture whether you zoom in on it or not, it's just hard to see because it is very small. you haven't risen anything up, you've just spread the pixles out in the picture. 

No. I did not "spread the pixels" by enlarging the images in Photoshop.  I have only enlarged the pixels by 900% in each of the two images. The photographer's optical zoom with his camera lens in image two is what caused the additional landmass to appear.

Quote

How do you explain the picture of that island on page 2 of this thread that was taken at 42 feet or something?

As one increases his altitude he is pushing the vanishing point of perspective back. The vanishing point in FE theory is what causes bodies to become merged with the horizon line, appearing to intersect with the earth.

      An ant has a horizon located a few inches away.

      A mouse has a horizon located about six feet away.

      A human has a horizon located about thirty miles away.

      An eagle has a horizon located over a hundred miles away.

The higher you go the farther back the vanishing point is pushed, which is why man can see far distant lands the higher he goes.

I'm sorry, I don't trust you enough not to believe that the photos weren't "doctored" by you. You're part of a FE conspiracy to keep us in ignorance.
/sarcasm

Rather than using inaccurate techniques to make assumtions based on 4 and a half pxels, why don't you post your own "gathered" proof for FE, as you have continously said you will do?

thanks guys.  i'll post more in this later, but for now i just want to try to save people (re or fe) some time by suggesting you hold off on the post-processing of these low-res versions (good job though btw).  the usable resolution doesn't improve much with an order of magnitude more pixels, due to atmospheric haze, but with the contrast stretching going on, it's now obvious that severe sharpening and compression artifacts have been introduced by flikr that aren't there in the origs. 

except bishop: you can keep knocking yourself out, you i don't care bout.


i'll post more later.  and tear bishop's self-contradictory bs to shreds.

By the way, I used irfanview to "sharpen" the pictures to make them a little easier to see.  So thats probably where some of the sharpening artifacts are coming from. But even with "flickr crippled" pictures, Tom is still proven wrong as usual. 

Also, I noticed something about those "proof" photos of Tom's. While the perspective effect says that we should be able to restore sunken images to their former glory, all this magnification has done is prove that there was a little bit of land sticking over the horizon. There was no increase in height, and there was no sudden revelation that there was something sitting behind the haze.

I know this was obvious. Leave me alone. It was 1AM when I first looked 

By the way, I used irfanview to "sharpen" the pictures to make them a little easier to see.  So thats probably where some of the sharpening artifacts are coming from. But even with "flickr crippled" pictures, Tom is still proven wrong as usual. 

Nope. When I did it I saw additional landmass exactly as my images show. Even more landmass would be visible if the author had actually used a quality telescope instead of a simple camera lens as suggested by the Flat Earth Literature.

As it is his photographs have hardly a zoom applied. Not enough to reverse the effect to any sufficient degree, and not enough to contradict the many accounts in the Flat Earth Literature.

Once you RE'ers have any actual evidence to present we can talk further. But as it is now, there is nothing to discuss other than the inability for you to follow basic instructions. It's pathetic to the extreme that any of you argue past the second post of this thread. The accounts and testimonials in the Flat Earth Literature say that a good telescope is required to see past the vanishing point. Not a Camera's lens. Therefore all images in this thread are inadmissible as evidence.

I find it curious that your post count keeps resetting to 0 then going back to what it is now showing us. DANIEL.

Quote

By the way, I used irfanview to "sharpen" the pictures to make them a little easier to see.  So thats probably where some of the sharpening artifacts are coming from. But even with "flickr crippled" pictures, Tom is still proven wrong as usual. 

Nope. When I did it I saw additional landmass exactly as my images show. Even more landmass would be visible if the author had actually used a quality telescope instead of a simple camera lens as suggested by the Flat Earth Literature.

As it is his photographs have hardly a zoom applied. Not enough to reverse the effect to any sufficient degree, and not enough to contradict the many accounts in the Flat Earth Literature.

Once you RE'ers have any actual evidence to present we can talk further. But as it is now, there is nothing to discuss other than the inability for you to follow basic instructions. It's pathetic to the extreme that any of you argue past the second post of this thread. The accounts and testimonials in the Flat Earth Literature say that a good telescope is required to see past the vanishing point. Not a Camera's lens. Therefore all images in this thread are inadmissible as evidence.

In before the Asskicking

Firstly, care to back up your precious literature with a little fact? How about those photos? cpt_bthimes has made me curious as to their nature.

Secondly, his lense was plenty sufficient. I could knock out a fucking elephant with that thing. As for your accusations of it being "simple", do you even know how both an optical telescope and camera lens work? Shock horror, it's the same principle. And if you'd bothered to read it's specs, you would find that it actually exceeds what is "required" by your FE literature.

And lastly, just because I'm curious, did you actually look at his archive? Or did you just see it fit to condemn it all as inadmissible because "the wrong equipment was used" (refer to my previous point).


As I've said before, a true scientist presents facts and evidence to support his claims. Only a fucktard sees it fit to sit back and just say "sorry, I don't believe you". With that kind of attitude, you have no credibility and therefor will stop acting as though you do. Grow a brain, and please show your evidence. It's the only way you're coming out of this with any dignity.

a good telescope is required to see past the vanishing point. Not a Camera's lens. Therefore all images in this thread are inadmissible as evidence.

A telephoto camera lens is a good telescope.  In fact, as cpt_bthimes has said, a high quality telephoto lens is often able to achieve better angular resolution (magnification) than the telescopes of the 1800s.  If the lens that bthimes is using has better magnification and light gathering power than the spyglass used by Rowbotham, why would bthimes be unable to reverse the sinking ship effect?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2007, 01:08:01 PM

a good telescope is required to see past the vanishing point. Not a Camera's lens. Therefore all images in this thread are inadmissible as evidence.

A telephoto camera lens is a good telescope.  In fact, as cpt_bthimes has said, a high quality telephoto lens is often able to achieve better angular resolution (magnification) than the telescopes of the 1800s.  If the lens that bthimes is using has better magnification and light gathering power than the spyglass used by Rowbotham, why would bthimes be unable to reverse the sinking ship effect?

There's no point in pointing it out... Mr. Bishop is like a boxer with no hook... all he can do is jab. Have you ever seen a boxing match won by jabbing?

Firstly, care to back up your precious literature with a little fact? How about those photos? cpt_bthimes has made me curious as to their nature.

You can do that yourself. It's not my responsibility to hold your hand through the established literature.

Secondly, his lense was plenty sufficient. I could knock out a fucking elephant with that thing. As for your accusations of it being "simple", do you even know how both an optical telescope and camera lens work? Shock horror, it's the same principle. And if you'd bothered to read it's specs, you would find that it actually exceeds what is "required" by your FE literature.

The picture of the lens he posted on page one isn't the lens he used. That's a telescopic lens. He posted it with vague wording to fudge the issue and "prove wrong" the assertion of a lens not providing the magnification power of a telescope.

On page two in response to the question "is that your lens?" he states:

"i wish!  that's not my lens.  i tried to find the page that listed the expected list price but couldn't.  i remember it (from several months ago) being expected to sell beyond $10k.  my lens is a reasonably priced tamron 200-400mm, don't remember the cost."

And lastly, just because I'm curious, did you actually look at his archive? Or did you just see it fit to condemn it all as inadmissible because "the wrong equipment was used" (refer to my previous point).

Since the wrong equipment was used, his images show the effect no better than a human eye would. We already know that there is a perspective effect at the limits of human vision. Read the literature.

As I've said before, a true scientist presents facts and evidence to support his claims. Only a fucktard sees it fit to sit back and just say "sorry, I don't believe you". With that kind of attitude, you have no credibility and therefor will stop acting as though you do. Grow a brain, and please show your evidence. It's the only way you're coming out of this with any dignity.

We already have presented our facts. The methods and testimonials are in the Flat Earth literature linked in my signature. Your refusal to read them is not my problem.  Lazyness is not an excuse.

A telephoto camera lens is a good telescope.  In fact, as cpt_bthimes has said, a high quality telephoto lens is often able to achieve better angular resolution (magnification) than the telescopes of the 1800s.  If the lens that bthimes is using has better magnification and light gathering power than the spyglass used by Rowbotham, why would bthimes be unable to reverse the sinking ship effect?

Too bad the image of the telephoto lens he posted on page one is not lens he showed us is not the lens he used. Read the thread closer. Then stop posting.

On page two in response to the question "is that your lens?" he states:

"i wish!  that's not my lens.  i tried to find the page that listed the expected list price but couldn't.  i remember it (from several months ago) being expected to sell beyond $10k.  my lens is a reasonably priced tamron 200-400mm, don't remember the cost."

Quote

A telephoto camera lens is a good telescope.  In fact, as cpt_bthimes has said, a high quality telephoto lens is often able to achieve better angular resolution (magnification) than the telescopes of the 1800s.  If the lens that bthimes is using has better magnification and light gathering power than the spyglass used by Rowbotham, why would bthimes be unable to reverse the sinking ship effect?

Too bad the image of the telephoto lens he posted on page one is not lens he showed us is not the lens he used. Read the thread closer. Then stop posting.

But he also stated that his own lens gets exactly the same magnification as the one he posted.

Too bad the image of the telephoto lens he posted on page one is not lens he showed us is not the lens he used.

I am aware of that, Tom.  I never said that that was his lens.  Read my post.

However, Bthimes did say:

my lens is a reasonably priced tamron 200-400mm, don't remember the cost.

I have used a telescope from the 1800 before, the apparent magnification was laughable, as was the quality of the optics.  Thus, I would be highly surprised if Rowbotham was able to do better than bthimes with modern equipment.  However, if you are able to find a technical description of Rowbothams equipment (better than 'a good telescope') we will be able to know for sure if bthimes equipment is on par with Rowbotham's.

Quote

Firstly, care to back up your precious literature with a little fact? How about those photos? cpt_bthimes has made me curious as to their nature.

You can do that yourself. It's not my responsibility to hold your hand through the established literature.

So your response to my question "Please back up your statement with some fact" is "no, go find your own?". Can you imagine what would have happened if Einstein said "no, go find your own General Relativity".

I also notice that yet again, you have neglected to mention these photos.

Quote

Secondly, his lense was plenty sufficient. I could knock out a fucking elephant with that thing. As for your accusations of it being "simple", do you even know how both an optical telescope and camera lens work? Shock horror, it's the same principle. And if you'd bothered to read it's specs, you would find that it actually exceeds what is "required" by your FE literature.

The picture of the lens he posted on page one isn't the lens he used. That's a telescopic lens. He posted it with vague wording to fudge the issue and "prove wrong" the assertion of a lens not providing the magnification power of a telescope.

On page two in response to the question "is that your lens?" he states:

"i wish!  that's not my lens.  i tried to find the page that listed the expected list price but couldn't.  i remember it (from several months ago) being expected to sell beyond $10k.  my lens is a reasonably priced tamron 200-400mm, don't remember the cost."

You just love taking things out of context, don't you. Right below that:

my lens actually provides the same magnification as that giant lens, believe it or else.  ...just at fantastically slower speeds proportional to the fantastically lower cost.

.
And I am 100% that modern lenses, even from the "lower cost" range have a much better resolution/magnification than the telescopes of the 1800's. Why then, are we unable to duplicate rothbowam's findings? Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the results of the time you did it?

Quote

And lastly, just because I'm curious, did you actually look at his archive? Or did you just see it fit to condemn it all as inadmissible because "the wrong equipment was used" (refer to my previous point).

Since the wrong equipment was used, his images show the effect no better than a human eye would. We already know that there is a perspective effect at the limits of human vision. Read the literature.

His "wrong" equipment have better specs than the "right" equipment. Therefor, we would expect more accurate results.

Quote

As I've said before, a true scientist presents facts and evidence to support his claims. Only a fucktard sees it fit to sit back and just say "sorry, I don't believe you". With that kind of attitude, you have no credibility and therefor will stop acting as though you do. Grow a brain, and please show your evidence. It's the only way you're coming out of this with any dignity.

We already have presented our facts. The methods and testimonials are in the Flat Earth literature linked in my signature. Your refusal to read them is not my problem.  Lazyness is not an excuse.

Care to try these "methods" for yourself and tell us how it goes? Hearsay and second-hand knowledge is defined as being inadmissible in science. The whole point of the scientific method is to gather first hand evidence. cpt did plenty of this gathering... where's your first hand data?

Nope. When I did it I saw additional landmass exactly as my images show. Even more landmass would be visible if the author had actually used a quality telescope instead of a simple camera lens as suggested by the Flat Earth Literature.

As it is his photographs have hardly a zoom applied. Not enough to reverse the effect to any sufficient degree, and not enough to contradict the many accounts in the Flat Earth Literature.

Once you RE'ers have any actual evidence to present we can talk further. But as it is now, there is nothing to discuss other than the inability for you to follow basic instructions. It's pathetic to the extreme that any of you argue past the second post of this thread. The accounts and testimonials in the Flat Earth Literature say that a good telescope is required to see past the vanishing point. Not a Camera's lens. Therefore all images in this thread are inadmissible as evidence.

OK.  Let me get this straight...

1) You accept his pictures as evidence as long as it allows you to magnify them and then somehow magically see more landmass appear.  Thereby proving the FE model as you stated.

2) If 1 is true (and it is since you zoomed in and some how could "see more" landmass) then that means that his camera and lens does have enough zoom to "reverse the effect".

3) However, once you were proven wrong on one and two, you now state that his photos have "hardly any zoom applied.  Not enough to reverse the effect to any sufficient degree".  Even though you said they did because you saw more landmass appear.

4) Since you state that "all images in this thread are inadmissible as evidence" does that mean that you were lying when you used those same images to say you did see more landmass and that it did prove the FE?

And just so you dont forget what you said:

So as we can see, bthimes' own images prove that the perspective effect can be reversed through the use of optical zoom.

But he also stated that his own lens gets exactly the same magnification as the one he posted.

I don't care. It's not a telescope. It's a camera lens.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-200-400-Canon-Canon-AF-Camera/dp/tech-data/B00004ZD45/ref=de_a_smtd

As we can read from the specs, the Tamron 200-400mm lens only has a magnification ratio of 1:6.1. Which means that the lens can only really makes the scene 6.1 times bigger.

This is extremely incomparable to amature astronomer telecopes which can provide a 1:400 ratio magnification.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2007, 01:32:44 PM

Too bad the image of the telephoto lens he posted on page one is not lens he showed us is not the lens he used.

I am aware of that, Tom.  I never said that that was his lens.  Read my post.

However, Bthimes did say:

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 19, 2007, 12:18:28 AM

my lens is a reasonably priced tamron 200-400mm, don't remember the cost.

I have used a telescope from the 1800 before, the apparent magnification was laughable, as was the quality of the optics.  Thus, I would be highly surprised if Rowbotham was able to do better than bthimes with modern equipment.  However, if you are able to find a technical description of Rowbothams equipment (better than 'a good telescope') we will be able to know for sure if bthimes equipment is on par with Rowbotham's.

"A good telescope" is a relative term. Relative to the 1800's, I could probably make my own of the same quality.

My computer is 4 years old. It was considered top quiality when I bought it, but now it has no hope of running the latest games.

My car is 21 years old. Back in the day, it was considered a race car. Today, it's still decent, but current cars crap all over it.

You see how relative time makes things?

Let me repost this so it doesn't get lost on the previous page...
----------

Nope. When I did it I saw additional landmass exactly as my images show. Even more landmass would be visible if the author had actually used a quality telescope instead of a simple camera lens as suggested by the Flat Earth Literature.

As it is his photographs have hardly a zoom applied. Not enough to reverse the effect to any sufficient degree, and not enough to contradict the many accounts in the Flat Earth Literature.

Once you RE'ers have any actual evidence to present we can talk further. But as it is now, there is nothing to discuss other than the inability for you to follow basic instructions. It's pathetic to the extreme that any of you argue past the second post of this thread. The accounts and testimonials in the Flat Earth Literature say that a good telescope is required to see past the vanishing point. Not a Camera's lens. Therefore all images in this thread are inadmissible as evidence.

OK.  Let me get this straight...

1) You accept his pictures as evidence as long as it allows you to magnify them and then somehow magically see more landmass appear.  Thereby proving the FE model as you stated.

2) If 1 is true (and it is since you zoomed in and some how could "see more" landmass) then that means that his camera and lens does have enough zoom to "reverse the effect".

3) However, once you were proven wrong on one and two, you now state that his photos have "hardly any zoom applied.  Not enough to reverse the effect to any sufficient degree".  Even though you said they did because you saw more landmass appear.

4) Since you state that "all images in this thread are inadmissible as evidence" does that mean that you were lying when you used those same images to say you did see more landmass and that it did prove the FE?

And just so you dont forget what you said:

So as we can see, bthimes' own images prove that the perspective effect can be reversed through the use of optical zoom.

So your response to my question "Please back up your statement with some fact" is "no, go find your own?". Can you imagine what would have happened if Einstein said "no, go find your own General Relativity".

In response to a random critic demanding proof of his work, I'd imagine Einstein directing them to the literature authored by himself or his colleagues.

And I am 100% that modern lenses, even from the "lower cost" range have a much better resolution/magnification than the telescopes of the 1800's. Why then, are we unable to duplicate rothbowam's findings? Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the results of the time you did it?

No. Telescopes are not computers. Telescopes are very simple instruments. It's a lens and a tube. The fabrication of lenses have been perfected since the time of Newton. Even the Ancient Greeks could make lenses. A telescope does not evolve over time in the way that computers do. Does a mousetrap from 2005 catch mice any better than a mousetrap of the 1800's?

Quote

But he also stated that his own lens gets exactly the same magnification as the one he posted.

I don't care. It's not a telescope. It's a camera lens.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-200-400-Canon-Canon-AF-Camera/dp/tech-data/B00004ZD45/ref=de_a_smtd

As we can read from the specs, the Tamron 200-400mm lens only has a magnification ratio of 1:6.1. Which means that the lens can only really makes the scene 6.1 times bigger.

This is extremely incomparable to amature astronomer telecopes which can provide a 1:400 magnification.

the needs of an astronomer are surely different to the needs of someone viewing an island a couple of dozen miles across the water.  The fact is that it was a fair test, because he used the same equipment at different hights and saw substantially different results. You don't accept it because you don't want to accept it.

Quote

So your response to my question "Please back up your statement with some fact" is "no, go find your own?". Can you imagine what would have happened if Einstein said "no, go find your own General Relativity".

In response to a random critic demanding proof of his work, I'd imagine Einstein directing them to the literature authored by himself and his colleagues.

And yet you have done neither of those things.

And I am 100% that modern lenses, even from the "lower cost" range have a much better resolution/magnification than the telescopes of the 1800's. Why then, are we unable to duplicate rothbowam's findings? Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the results of the time you did it?

No. Telescopes are not computers. Telescopes are very simple instruments. It's a lens and a tube. The fabrication of lenses have been perfected since the time of Newton. Even the Ancient Greeks could make lenses. A telescope does not evolve over time in the way that computers do. Does a mousetrap from 2005 catch mice any better than a mousetrap of the 1800's?
[/quote]
Lenses which have been perfected over the last 200 years. Modern lenses don't have as many imperfections, and are much smoother, allowing for greater resolution and clarity. But this is all moot.

You cannot first use pictures as evidence, then debunk them. It simply doesn't work like that. Any five year old knows that.

OK Tom.  Let's just say you are somehow right on this and his camera lens is not as good as a telescope from the 1800s.  Regardless, I am still waiting for you to sort out your lies and contradictions from earlier.  See my post above.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2007, 01:50:12 PM

Quote

But he also stated that his own lens gets exactly the same magnification as the one he posted.

I don't care. It's not a telescope. It's a camera lens.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-200-400-Canon-Canon-AF-Camera/dp/tech-data/B00004ZD45/ref=de_a_smtd

As we can read from the specs, the Tamron 200-400mm lens only has a magnification ratio of 1:6.1. Which means that the lens can only really makes the scene 6.1 times bigger.

This is extremely incomparable to amature astronomer telecopes which can provide a 1:400 magnification.

the needs of an astronomer are surely different to the needs of someone viewing an island a couple of dozen miles across the water.  The fact is that it was a fair test, because he used the same equipment at different hights and saw substantially different results. You don't accept it because you don't want to accept it.

QFT. I like your thinking.

the needs of an astronomer are surely different to the needs of someone viewing an island a couple of dozen miles across the water.  The fact is that it was a fair test, because he used the same equipment at different hights and saw substantially different results. You don't accept it because you don't want to accept it.

The Flat Earth Literature very specifically says that a telescope is required to see past the perspective effect. Does a device which magnifies a scene with a 1:6.1 ratio sound like a telescope to you?

No. A camera lens is not a telescope. Go ahead and ask your nearest priest if a camera lens is a telescope.

An average amature astronomer's telescope might provide a 1:400 ratio magnification. Therefore there is no comparison. Therefore the images are not representative of a scene as seen out of a telescope.

An average amature astronomer's telescope might provide a 1:400 ratio magnification.

That is undoubtedly true of modern telescopes.  However, I am highly skeptical of the claim that such magnification could be accomplished by a handheld spyglass in the 1800's.  Could you please provide a source?


EDIT:  I am, of course, assuming that the telescope used by Rowbotham was the kind which appears in tENaG diagrams.  A hand held refractor.  I am assuming that Rowbotham did not write the astronomer royal and obtain a temporary lease on a 20-inch refractor.  I take it this is a valid assumption?