my evidence

Quote

If somebody posted pictures using a device with a magnification power of 40, which showed that half-sunken ships were not being restored, would that convince you of a curvature to the earth?

Yes. If someone actually could follow the simple, basic, and straightforward instructions in the Flat Earth Literature for restoring half-sunken ships I would be convinced of the results.

That's why you fail. All your literature is outdated, inaccurate bullshit written by idiots who believed the earth is flat.

Quote

If somebody posted pictures using a device with a magnification power of 40, which showed that half-sunken ships were not being restored, would that convince you of a curvature to the earth?

Yes. If someone actually could follow the simple, basic, and straightforward instructions in the Flat Earth Literature for restoring half-sunken ships I would be convinced of the results.

Great! Could you please point me to just one or two paragraphs or passages or chapters or essays in the Flat Earth literature that lay out these instructions? I want to have something to refer to when I do this experiment for myself and post the results.

Yes. If someone could actually follow the simple, basic, and straightforward instructions in the Flat Earth Literature for restoring half-sunken ships I would be convinced of the results.

That is exactly what bthimes has done.  By your own admission, Rowbotham was probably using a small refracting telescope (i.e. a spyglass, which by design CAN NOT have power or the optical quality of a Newtonian.)

The only practical difference between bthimes' and Rowbotham's set up is that bthimes is able to attach a camera to the end of his telescope.

I say again, both in practical magnifying power and in function, A telephoto lens IS a refracting telescope.  If I drew you a basic optical diagram of a refracting telescope, and of a simple telephoto lens, the two would be completely indistinguishable, both in form and in function.

If Rowbotham claimed to observe a given effect with a portable refracting telescope, it should be duplicatable with a telephoto lens.  Especially so, given the fact that Rowbotham's telescope was a refractor (i.e. not a Newtonian, and consequently severely limited in magnifying power) and portable (Even more limiting on it's magnification.)

Quote

Please don't use words you don't know the meaning to. Or, at least, google them beforehand.

Google tells me that Newton's first telescope in the 1600's had a magnification power of 40. Therefore I'm setting that figure as the minimum power of Rowbothams quality telescope of the 1800's.

I did call the local astronomy store here (yes it's cool and it's dedicated souly to astronomy) and asked what the zoom ratio was for a standard spyglass... I was told that in the 1800's the dual lense standard spyglass was around 1.8 to 2.4, however there were in fact tri-lense models just coming on the market that would have increased it to a smidge over 3 to possibly 4 depending on the maker.

I'd trust a guy who sells telescopes over you anyday. I want looking on the net, and couldn't find the specifications to Rothbowam's telescope. Pray tell, where are you getting your information from? Please give me a credible link with which to verify that he had decent zoom and resolving power?

Quote

I'm curious. If you were in the 1800's, what would you consider to be powerful? Electricity was in it's infancy. Flight was reserved for birds. Most diseases were fatal. How exactly would Rothbowam be able to tell us 21st century folk what a good lens is?

By looking at the listed power of the telescopes of his time, or prior. That's how.

Huh? So you're suggesting that a 19th century man could beat us in optics? Well, good thing we didn't build massive mirrors on Earth to look at things with. Ooops... sorry.

Of course, we wouldn't be having this debate if Rowbotham had specified what type of telescope he was using, including what its magnification was.

Any good scientist knows to specify even the most minute details of his experiment, such as equipment used, location, etc.  This is done so that the experiment may be repeated by another.  Including such details leaves little room for doubt in the repeat outcome of the experiment whether the result is confirming or null.  This is a highly regarded standard in all scientific work.

That being said, Rowbotham fails in this respect.  He fails to provide us with enough details about his experiment (the magnification of his telescope) that we may confirm it with any certainty.  Thus, we are only rooting in the dark trying to repeat the results of his experiment.

This is just one of many examples in which Rowbotham fails to adhere to the standards of scientific rigor.  This makes his claims inadmissable as scientific evidence and incapable of being proven by the scientific method.

We are then left to other sources of information.  Tom has claimed that the Flat Earth Society and he himself have repeated Rowbotham's experiments with positive results.  We would all like to see these results very much.  The records of these experiments should be very detailed indeed and be full of quantitative measurements, such as the magnification, brand, height, location of the telescope along with weather conditions.  The detail should be such that anyone on this site could repeat the experiment with virtually no ambiguity.

The plain fact is that Rowbotham isn't clear enough for us to repeat his experiments with any certainty.  We need those experiments of yours, Tom.  If they are rigorous enough, we can finally put this issue to rest.

Of course, we wouldn't be having this debate if Rowbotham had specified what type of telescope he was using, including what its magnification was.

Any good scientist knows to specify even the most minute details of his experiment, such as equipment used, location, etc.  This is done so that the experiment may be repeated by another.  Including such details leaves little room for doubt in the repeat outcome of the experiment whether the result is confirming or null.  This is a highly regarded standard in all scientific work.

That being said, Rowbotham fails in this respect.  He fails to provide us with enough details about his experiment (the magnification of his telescope) that we may confirm it with any certainty.  Thus, we are only rooting in the dark trying to repeat the results of his experiment.

This is just one of many examples in which Rowbotham fails to adhere to the standards of scientific rigor.  This makes his claims inadmissable as scientific evidence and incapable of being proven by the scientific method.

We are then left to other sources of information.  Tom has claimed that the Flat Earth Society and he himself have repeated Rowbotham's experiments with positive results.  We would all like to see these results very much.  The records of these experiments should be very detailed indeed and be full of quantitative measurements, such as the magnification, brand, height, location of the telescope along with weather conditions.  The detail should be such that anyone on this site could repeat the experiment with virtually no ambiguity.

The plain fact is that Rowbotham isn't clear enough for us to repeat his experiments with any certainty.  We need those experiments of yours, Tom.  If they are rigorous enough, we can finally put this issue to rest.

Here here! Well stated, and well summarized.

That is exactly what bthimes has done.  By your own admission, Rowbotham was probably using a small refracting telescope (i.e. a spyglass, which by design CAN NOT have power or the optical quality of a Newtonian.)

The only practical difference between bthimes' and Rowbotham's set up is that bthimes is able to attach a camera to the end of his telescope.

I say again, both in practical magnifying power and in function, A telephoto lens IS a refracting telescope.  If I drew you a basic optical diagram of a refracting telescope, and of a simple telephoto lens, the two would be completely indistinguishable, both in form and in function.

If Rowbotham claimed to observe a given effect with a portable refracting telescope, it should be duplicatable with a telephoto lens.  Especially so, given the fact that Rowbotham's telescope was a refractor (i.e. not a Newtonian, and consequently severely limited in magnifying power) and portable (Even more limiting on it's magnification.)

Nowhere in Earth Not a Globe does Robotham say that he is using a small refracting telescope. In fact he suggests that he is using a rather expensive quality one of significant power.

Quotes from Earth Not a Globe:

"On looking with a sophisticated telescope over and along the flags, from A to B, the line of sight fell on the lower part of the larger flag at B. The altitude of the point B above the water at D was 5 feet, and the altitude of the telescope at A above the water at C was 5 feet; and each intervening flag had the same altitude. Hence the surface of the water C, D, was equidistant from the line of sight A, B; and as A B was a right line, C, D, being parallel, was also a right line; or, in other words, the surface of the water, C, D, was for six miles absolutely horizontal."

"And if watched with a pretty good telescope the light of the sun may be seen slowly descending the mountain sides, and at length to light up the plains and valleys below; thus making those parts which but a short time before were intensely black, now white as the snows of winter. And in those basin-like mountains (the craters) the shadows on one side may be seen descending far down on the opposite side, thereby revealing their vast proportions and mighty depths."

The author, with a good telescope, went into the water; and with the eye about 8 inches above the surface, observed the receding boat during the whole period required to sail to Welney Bridge. The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! There could be no mistake as to the distance passed over, as the man in charge of the boat had instructions to lift one of his oars to the top of the arch the moment he reached the bridge.

"On the shore near Waterloo, a few miles to the north of Liverpool, a good telescope was fixed, at an elevation of 6 feet above the water. It was directed to a large steamer, just leaving the River Mersey, and sailing out to Dublin. Gradually the mast-head of the receding vessel came nearer to the horizon, until, at length, after more than four hours had elapsed, it disappeared. The ordinary rate of sailing of the Dublin steamers was fully eight miles an hour; so that the vessel would be, at least, thirty-two miles distant when the mast-head came to the horizon. The 6 feet of elevation of the telescope would require three miles to be deducted for convexity, which would leave twenty-nine miles, the square of which, multiplied by 8 inches, gives 560 feet; deducting 80 feet for the height of the main-mast, and we find that, according to the doctrine of rotundity, the mast-head of the outward bound steamer should have been 480 feet below the horizon."

Many other experiments of this kind have been made upon sea-going steamers, and always with results entirely incompatible with the theory that the earth is a globe."

"We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view;"

Here here! Well stated, and well summarized.

You haven't won. Neither of you have coherently proven your model. Rowbotham tells us that a telescope of considerable power will restore a half-sunken ship. Therefore he is using a rather high grade telescope. You've yet to contradict him.

Yes. If someone could actually follow the simple, basic, and straightforward instructions in the Flat Earth Literature for restoring half-sunken ships I would be convinced of the results.

indeed (see below).  and bishop, the "flat earth literature" is neither straightforward, nor does it have any value whatsoever to the scientific process.  what are the results?  some sketches and nonsensical narrative.  very little in the way of objective measurement or methodology documentation  it is, in a word, shit.  the more you go on about it, the more your ignorance and frantic dogmatic obsession shows.

...As a rebuttal, lets check this image against other sea-level images of Toronto from across Lake Ontario taken on days with different weather and wave conditions:

(misrepresented photo of toronto debunked here.)

This image was taken from http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html, where the photographer describes it as a "View of Toronto Skyline (53km across the lake) through [a] Canon Rebel digital camera [with a] 28 to 400mm zoom [lens]."
...
This particular image is devastating to the globe theory, because at 30 miles across Lake Ontario the earth should drop nearly 600 feet (60 stories). Quite clearly, we can see objects at the bottom of the Toronto skyline that are not 600 feet in hight....

end - of - story.  period.  no other debate about telescopes, refractors, or rowbotham's spyglass matter - bishop has already acknowledged that he finds my camera equipment acceptable for rowbotham proof/disproof.  which of course assumes i give a shit what he thinks in the first place...which i don't.

this "devastating" proof of rowobotham's "magnification restoring sunken city" effect, as submitted by bishop, was done with practically the exact same equipment i have.  (mine is slightly better actually.  as a side-note, this was a purposeful and gross misrepresentation by bishop of the original author's data - see links above for proof of bishop's blatant and calculated fraud.)

edit: minor grammar.

"...sophisticated telescope...pretty good telescope...good telescope...good telescope...a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view..."

i'm getting the picture that rowbotham thought he had a "pretty good telescope" (wtf?) or something.  well, i do believe that any magnifying device was held to be "sophisticated" and/or "pretty good" in the 1800s.

what, again, is this supposed to be evidence for?  that rowbotham had a "pretty good telescope"?  since when is "pretty good" a useful objective description in science?

again, to point out the obvious: good science is exhaustively documented.  it is not enough to say "a pretty good telescope".  that is shit for a robust, documented, repeatable methodology.  you will note that my original data has all relevant details, including: lat/long, elevation, date, precise time to the second, hotlinked map with precise pushpin location, camera model, iso, shutter speed, f-stop, focal length, white balance, shooting direction, environmental factors, and other relevant data.

This is just one of many examples in which Rowbotham fails to adhere to the standards of scientific rigor.  This makes his claims inadmissable as scientific evidence and incapable of being proven by the scientific method.

well put.  i've been saying that since i got here.  more people need to be aware of it.

We are then left to other sources of information.  Tom has claimed that the Flat Earth Society and he himself have repeated Rowbotham's experiments with positive results.  We would all like to see these results very much.  The records of these experiments should be very detailed indeed and be full of quantitative measurements, such as the magnification, brand, height, location of the telescope along with weather conditions.  The detail should be such that anyone on this site could repeat the experiment with virtually no ambiguity.

The plain fact is that Rowbotham isn't clear enough for us to repeat his experiments with any certainty.  We need those experiments of yours, Tom.  If they are rigorous enough, we can finally put this issue to rest.

yup!

i'm getting the picture that rowbotham thought he had a "pretty good telescope" (wtf?) or something.  well, i do believe that any magnifying device was held to be "sophisticated" and/or "pretty good" in the 1800s.

It means that in order to contradict Rowbotham you will need to take your pictures with a telescope comparable to the magnification power of the most sophisticated portable astronomer's telescope of the 1800's. The 1800's were the golden era of telescopes.

Here's a hint: The sophisticated telescopes of the Victorian era didn't provide a magnification ratio of 1:6.1

well, i do believe that any magnifying device was held to be "sophisticated" and/or "pretty good" in the 1800s.

Magnifying devices weren't invented in the 1800's.  Try 2000 B.C by the Greeks.

The telescopes of the 1800's were rather sophisticated.

Read a book.

Quote

i'm getting the picture that rowbotham thought he had a "pretty good telescope" (wtf?) or something.  well, i do believe that any magnifying device was held to be "sophisticated" and/or "pretty good" in the 1800s.

It means that in order to contradict Rowbotham you will need to take your pictures with a telescope comparable to the magnification power of the most sophisticated portable astronomer's telescope of the 1800's. The 1800's were the golden era of telescopes.

Here's a hint: The sophisticated telescopes of the Victorian era didn't provide a magnification ratio of 1:6.1

let me see if i understand this correctly: you actually expect me to just "believe" the word of a fucking idiot who didn't document his equipment or methodology for shit, about his single-sourced and unconfirmed claim that his handheld scope was  "pretty good"?  you are truly dumber than i thought. 

just leave.  this is so tedious.  you are a tick on the nutsack of society.  you suck the time away from intelligent people, believing you to be legitimate in your profound and supernatural ignorance.  you are a joke. 

i've already proven outright that you love my camera for producing evidence of rowbotham's sinking-ship effect.  get over it, be a man, pony up, and move on - and quit hijacking this thread with your incessant, grating ignorance.

Quote

Here here! Well stated, and well summarized.

You haven't won. Neither of you have coherently proven your model. Rowbotham tells us that a telescope of considerable power will restore a half-sunken ship. Therefore he is using a rather high grade telescope. You've yet to contradict him.

That takes the cake as the most ignorant statement I've seen from so you far, albeit I've only been here for two days.

"Neither of you have coherently proven your model": We have, you just refuse to accept it. How then, do you propose we prove it to you?

"Rowbotham tells us that a telescope of considerable power will restore a half-sunken ship.": Considerable by 19th century standards. This has been tried and disproved, not to mention attempted (and disproved again) by one of our own members.

"Therefore he is using a rather high grade telescope.": What? He says it, so he must be using a powerful telescope? That is a complete non-sequitur. Look that word up if you must know what it means.

- It's pointless anyway. Tom is not going to provide any of his own evidence... this much is obvious.

- He wants to argue about optics, when there's nothing to argue over. He doesn't understand what he is calling "Magnification Ratio" means. If he researched it, then he'd understand the variables involved, and see that the telephoto lens you used is far superior to anything they had when Rowbotham did his experiments, especially considering the fact that telescopes built for cameras - (by the way telephot lenses are.... telescopes) these days are coated to reduce / eliminate glare and flaring.

- He will refute evidence even if it was produced with a perfect telescope by providing some off the wall story about how it's not the same type Rowbotham used so that must be the difference or something crazy .. so there's no point. Tom blatently refuses to accept anyone's research as plausible other than Rowbotham's

- There are countless articles I've found from Rowbotham's time that consistently debunked his claims. He was even clobbered once for disputing the results of an experiment done *together* between he and another man side by side. Both set up poles at distances observable 100ft away from each other. Rowbotham was the only one that could "see" no variance, whereas the other gentleman, and everyone in the crowd observed otherwise.

- There are many articles regarding his evasive lecture tactics. Whenever tagged with a difficult question, his favorite saying was "I think you've had quite enough time now... let's let someone else ask a question." - Whether the person had already asked a question or not!

This is nothing more than one man's attempt to knock down anyone's empirical evidence that is provided. The few things brought up in various places on this site that can't be explained by anyone for the FE model, Tom ignores. Everything else in his mind is debunked by the observations and cynicism of a man who fancied himself a scientist.

There's nothing more to be done. Anyone who wants to do more go ahead, but I guarantee that Tom will knock it down with some lame excuse just like this time.

Talk to you later all, and Tom - c'mon already this is pitiful. I mean it's not even aggravating anymore it's just .. I don't know .. saddening to see someone keep pulling this kind of junk when by now you've obviously figured out what's going on. We all know that if you actually took the time to take a "good telescope" to take a gander accross 33 miles of water, you simply saw an enlarged version of what your eyes already told you, therefore I can no longer give any credence to your stories or information you try to provide.

- Optimus

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2007, 06:48:12 PM

Quote

Except that, based on the limited material that Bishop has given us, it seems like Rowbotham was not using a Newtonian reflector telescope, but a much less powerful and more portable refractor.

Earth Not a Globe does not specify whether Robotham was using a reflector or a refractor. You're making things up.

However, Rowbotham does say that he was able to make his observations using a telescope of considerable power. Therefore we must assume that he was using a refractor.

I'm curious. If you were in the 1800's, what would you consider to be powerful? Electricity was in it's infancy. Flight was reserved for birds. Most diseases were fatal.

Actually, Rowbotham himself was a pioneer in the art of pharmaceuticals, so he probably had a vast array of cures for all kinds of ailments.  In addition to proving the true shape of the earth once and for all, he also had a traveling medicine show.  The man was a saint.

Quote from: Chacotay on December 19, 2007, 06:54:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2007, 06:48:12 PM

Quote

Except that, based on the limited material that Bishop has given us, it seems like Rowbotham was not using a Newtonian reflector telescope, but a much less powerful and more portable refractor.

Earth Not a Globe does not specify whether Robotham was using a reflector or a refractor. You're making things up.

However, Rowbotham does say that he was able to make his observations using a telescope of considerable power. Therefore we must assume that he was using a refractor.

I'm curious. If you were in the 1800's, what would you consider to be powerful? Electricity was in it's infancy. Flight was reserved for birds. Most diseases were fatal.

Actually, Rowbotham himself was a pioneer in the art of pharmaceuticals, so he probably had a vast array of cures for all kinds of ailments.  In addition to proving the true shape of the earth once and for all, he also had a traveling medicine show.  The man was a saint.

We're arguing optics, not medicine. Also, he didn't prove anything - his experiment has been disproved and debunked. Refer to cpt_bthimes experiment/observations for more information.

Also, he didn't prove anything - his experiment has been disproved and debunked.

The man was a saint and I'm going to have to ask you to stop maligning his name in this fashion! 

Quote from: Chacotay on December 19, 2007, 11:47:52 PM

Also, he didn't prove anything - his experiment has been disproved and debunked.

The man was a saint and I'm going to have to ask you to stop maligning his name in this fashion! 

I have no quarrels with the man himself. Simply his experiment. It was unscientific at the time, and it's been disproved.

roundy don't you dare hijack this thread.  take it to myspace please.

Quote from: Lord Z on December 19, 2007, 02:23:36 AM

The fact that you spent over 40 hours taking photographs of the Horizon just for evidence against Tom Bishop means that you fail, automatically.

No, it means that he's committed to what he believes... and that he had too much time on his hands.

It's also the mark of a great scientist. You believe that computer your using was made by fucktards doing no work and criticising everyone else?

I believe my computer was made by myself. I know this because I made it. The parts were made on an automated assembly line.

This thread is full of classic Tom Bishop and cpt-bthimes.

Epic win for the forum.

I believe my computer was made by myself. I know this because I made it. The parts were made on an automated assembly line.
...

Oh yeah? Well prove it! Just because you believe it happened, then go on to say that you made it, doesn't prove that you did. And how do you know those parts came off the assembly line? Did you go to the factory and watch them being made? How can you prove without question that the components for your computer are not just artefacts from our future being sent back to us to learn quicker?

Sounds all very shady to me...

*pft* whatever.. lol 

I'm off to bed, nighters Z and everyone.
- Optimus

in the morning (time for bed now), i'm going to upload to my flikr album, 1:1 pixel crops of select photos, by popular request.  why?  remember i'm using a free flikr account, which downsamples everything to 1024px wide.  furthermore, some people (actually only bishop) are technically challenged and think that the default view of 500px wide is the max, and don't notice the larger options.  so, i took 500px by 281px crops of select photos, so that flikr would not resize them.  the result are insanely cropped portions of each image. 

in addition, i took most of the crops from the original raw files where available (one camera doesn't record raw) - with all of the raw parameters reset to baseline, so there is generally less contrast and there are zero sharpening artifacts, unless introduced by flikr.  the uploaded jpeg quality is extra high, unless crapped on by flikr.

so i was thinking about this.  we have an unusual situation of having essentially a fixed and very small image size (500px wide) regardless of actual image pixel count (due to flikr auto-resampling limitations), as long as image size > 500px wide.  the original could have been 100 megapixels taken with a 1,000x zoom lens having a 1 meter objective lens.  yet the image, once posted to a free flikr account, would resolve detail no better when resampled to 500px wide than, say, a snappy camera.  but relatively tiny crops of the original giant photo, each at 500px wide, would effectively (and actually) be ultra magnified, with real usable angular resolution emerging where it (sort of) wasn't before. 

therefore, with this fixed display size issue, the total pixel count is not the variable determining angular resolution: instead, it is the fixed-width image's magnification factor.  (with many other variables of course.)  cropping factor becomes essentially analgous to magnification factor - up to a point: approaching and beyond 1:1 source:screen pixels, no additional effective angular resolution is realized, pixels just get bigger (or the resulting image smaller).  and of course, the apparent optical quality also gets worse, not better.  in this special case, cropping (while not exceeding 1:1 pixels) is similar in principle to the optical equivalent of higher magnification eyepieces on telescopes, or lens multiplier adapters on camera lenses: angular resolution may increase (probably as some logarithmic function as other variables slowly overtake magnification factor in determining angular resolution), while the optical properties and qualities of the scope are not improved (and appear to worsen).  the image seems to get blurrier even under optimal focus, small lens imperfections become more apparent, and with optical doubling and eyepieces at least, the amount of light gathered drops.  and that is not even counting atmospheric effects: more noticeable haze and temperature-related distortion, which quickly swamp even the modest lenses.

in the case of my 500px-wide crops coming sometime later in the morning (actually already there on flikr - i'll just image-link to them here for convenience), i've calculated that the maximum effective magnification factor with the crops to be 700x.  it's not really important to this debate if that's accurate or not, or whether the line of reasoning is even sound or not.  clearly, i'm playing around with this logic and asking for input on it's legitimacy (max?). 

the crops of the photos are themselves provided just to overcome the annoying downsampling limitation of flikr.


here is how i arrived at a 700x magnification factor (keep a close eye on those assumptions):

• magnification factor for tamron 200-400mm lens (according to bishop, for whatever that's worth): 6.1x
• cropping factor of digital rebel xti sensor (relative to 35mm-size sensor that lens was designed for): 1.6x (coincidental similarity)
• resulting maximum magnification factor for tamron lens on digital rebel xti body: 6.1x * 1.6x = 9.76x
• megapixels from canon digital rebel xti: 3888*2592/1000/1000 = 10.08 mp
• megapixels from flikr-tailored 1:1 crops: 500*281/1000/1000 = 0.14 mp
• ratio of original to cropped: 10.08 mp / 0.14 mp = 71.73
• resulting final lens multiplier after sensor/lens crop, and image crop: 9.76x * 71.73x  = 700.06x

like i said, the 1:1 crops are on flikr now, just not organized well (the last 15 photos in this set).

Nowhere in Earth Not a Globe does Robotham say that he is using a small refracting telescope. In fact he suggests that he is using a rather expensive quality one of significant power.

Very well, I was going on the assumption that Rowbotham was using (as you said) a refractor.  And based on the diagrams in tENaG, I was assuming it was rather a small one.  However, I am willing to assume that this was not the case.

What then, Tom, will suffice as a 'significant power' telescope to you?  Even though Rowbotham's telescope was probably not a newtonian, would exceeding the "40 power magnification" of the basic Newtonian telescope be enough?

me thinks that Max Fagin has something cooking.   


Oh and Tom, I'm still waiting for an explanation:

----------
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.

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?

don't forget, he already accepted evidence from a canon digital rebel + 400mm lens as proof, in proving that more camera lens restores sunken cities to unsunken state.  devestating proof, no less, in his words.

there's nothing more he can say about the subject of optics.  consistency matters, even for issues of his kind of dogma where you just make shit up as you go.

edit: this is probably when bishop disappears from the thread.  finally, we are rid of that tick.  (his leaving a tough thread is the only concession of defeat that we ever get out of him.  because he has no balls, no integrity, and no honor.)  oh and how he does hate to not not just be thoroughly debunked - but beaten silly - by his own stupid mouth.

or, he'll come up with some gem like "cities are excluded.  you need 100,000 times that much zoom to restore islands of similar height and distance away.  that's because islands contain anti-zoom crystals created by the conspiracy.  cities do not.  how do i know this?  because the earth is flat, obviously.  therefore, since i can't think of anything more creative than that, it is true.  you lose." 

yep, you just never know with bishop.  he's just a loose canon of cowardice and bullshit.

ok so here's a more organized presentations of the 1:1 zoom pics than on flikr as promised. 

as i argued here with yet unknown success, the effective magnification factor on these crops - without "digitally zooming" beyond 1:1 pixel ratio - is effectively 700x; due to the unusual fact that we are limited to 500px width on flikr (e.g. the full-size pics were severely shrunken).  obviously the apparent visual quality has worsened significantly at 1:1 pixel zoom as a result - some of that is due to the fact that 1:1 pixel zoom just isn't very pretty due to the camera's bayer pixel pattern, and some due to straining the limits of the optics.  but by far the bulk of the reason for the poor image quality is simply due to the fact that the 400mm lens is already exceeding the useful magnification for the distances involved, due to the atmospheric haze and shimmer and other distortion of even these most nearly "perfect" pacific coast days.  my optical lens doubler and 50x stabilized binoculars made that much *very* clear, no pun intended.  (or as bishop is stupidly font of saying: there too many atoms to look through.)  fortunately, it is not too obscured to see that very large-scale objects are clearly "sunken" and "restored" (or clearly not).  also since the horizon is usually much closer depending on the elevation of the shot, it is usually razor sharp.

the "700x effective magnification" argument may or may not be valid, i certainly won't pretend it is without more expert weigh-in.  i'd like to hear what max thinks about it, for starters.  if you have an opinion on the argument or want to see the assumptions, calculations, and more arguments behind it, click on the link above.

either way, the 700x argument doesn't matter to the evidence; the evidence is what it is, and shows what it shows: magnification does not restore the islands, cargo ships, or bridges.  (even on the island series of several shots covering a 1,733x increase in magnification factor, over two cameras, taken at the same time, location, and elevation.)

the evidence also clearly demonstrates that increasing your viewing elevation *does* fully "restore" sunken islands, boats, and bridges.

finally, although this is not about the bishop troll, the evidence also proves conclusively that he lied about his beach story.  just made it up.  before this, just simple reason (e.g., kids splashing in the water in 55 degree water on a chilly day, and being able to resolve a frisbee) already told us that it was just a bunch of convenient made-up shit.  not to mention the fact that after a month of nearly daily badgering to just commit to someday providing the photographic evdidence, he repeated weasled out of doing so.  which of course is no surprise, we already knew that bishiop is a compulsive liar and a serial self-contradictor anyway.


but on to the photos:

all photos are all hotlinked to their flikr sources, with full description of location, elevation, exact date/time, focal length, camera make and model, relative ordinal position in their originally intended photos series, tag-linked to google earth screenshots (for visual location reference), tag-linked to their original but greatly shrunken counterparts, and finally, all with full camera exif data available through the appropriate flikr links.

1) this first pic shreds, once and for all, bishop's "viewing the beach from 33 miles away" bs.  even as viewed form 120 ft. elevation, and from just 10.0 miles away, there is not enough angular resolution, and too much haze, to discern people.  much less frisbees.  even at 10 mp, people are less than one pixel high (there did seem to be people there - motion and the occasional glint seemed to confirm that at the time, plus it is one of the most popular beaches in the bay area).  bishop's telescope has a resolving power of  1.03arc*sec.  anyone should be able to bust out the trig and calculate 1) could he resolve, with eye on telescope, the difference between a child and a teenager from 33 miles away; and 2) could he resolve a frisbee vs. something else such as a boomerang or softball.




2) cargo ship - elevation comparisons  the following sereis of three shots (from an original series of 6) is of a large cargo ship (or it could be a oil tanker...my girlfriend would know but i'm embarrassed to get her in on this), at an unknown distance but i'm estimating it at about 10 miles (it seemed less than half-way in between myself and the farallon islands at a known 28 miles away, when viewed from a high enough elevation and allowing for perspective).

2.a) shot from approx 4 ft. above water level.  notice that the horizon appears comparatively "closer", sharper, and more raggedy due to minor undulations of the water (on an otherwise low-surf day).  not to mention, the fact that at 624mm (35mm effective) zoom, or effectively 700x magnification, the ship is clearly, unambiguously on the other side of, mostly below, and much farther than - the horizon.




2.b) shot from approx 25 ft. above water level.  zomg, it is starting to un-sink itself!  notice how the horizon seems farther away (but still significantly closer than the ship), smoother, and a little less sharp.




2.c) shot from approx 150 ft elevation.  fully "restored".  horizon line is behind the ship, farther away and hazier than the ship, very smooth, and significantly less optically sharp.




3) different cargo ship, different day - magnification factor comparisons  both shots are from the same location and approx 12 ft. above water level.  i roughly and indirectly estimated the distance to be 15 miles, based on its relative size in image compared to previous series [assuming similarly sized ship], whose distance in turn was estimated relative to its location more directly between the farallon islands [of known distance] and the shot location.

3.a) shot from 12 ft. above water level at focal length of 320mm (35mm effective).  looks slightly "sunken".  notice, even this is clearly past the useful limit of angular resolution due to atmospheric haze (on a fantastically clear ca pacific coast day), for resolving any useful detail other than large shape outlines and the horizon line.




3.b) shot with twice as much magnification power.  still exactly as "sunken", proportionally.




4) same cargo ship as immediately above - but elevation (rather than magnification) comparisons  all shots are made with a focal length of 624mm (35mm effective).

4.a) shot from approx 6 ft above water level.  we can just see the top sticking above the horizon.  (note: i didn't have a raw file for this one for some reason.  [i often switch between raw+jpeg and jpeg-only modes, and have a "hot-button" remapped for that purpose - due to card space concerns, as well as other reasons such as capturing panoramas or rapid-fire sequential action shots without filling up the card and waiting forever.] this is a jpeg straight off the camera, but still internally processed by the internal digic chip for more contrast, plus some sharpening applied, and some other subtle things such as post-contrast noise-reduction.)




4.b) shot from approx 12 ft. above water level.  whadday know, a ship seems to be emerging from the depths...or from below the horizon, whatever floats your boat.




4.c) shot from approx 30 ft. above water level.




5) farallon islands - zoom comparisons (covering 1,733x spread in magnification factor).  the islands are 28 miles away.  all shots are from the same location and 300 ft. elevation, with two different cameras having very different lenses and sensor sizes.  (a canon digital rebel xti + tamron 200 - 400mm lens; and a canon powershot s5 is, with built-in 12x zoom lens.) as usual, all focal lengths are normalized to 35mm equivalent necessary for comparison with very different sensor sizes, and for ease of repeatable methodology by others people with cameras of potentially very different [focal length number : actual fov] properties.

5.a) 36mm.  the islands are very small in the frame even at this extreme crop level.  they look partially sunken.




5.b) 126mm.  the islands appear three and a half times larger in the frame as in the previous shot, yet are no more "restored".




5.c) 432mm.  again, we have a nearly three and a half times increase in magnification factor over the immediately previous image.  the islands extend well past the severely cropped viewing frame, but are still not "restored" in the slightest.  i chose to center on the nearly sunken middle portion, since some have used that area in other, previously posted images for enhancement analyses.




5.d) 624mm.  nearly one and a half times increase in magnification factor over the immediately previous image.  the island is engulfed by the severely cropped frame.  it is still just as sunken.

also note there are no children visibly splashing in the water, nor frisbees in the air.  (although there is no beach nor human population to speak of on this approx 1.5 km visible oblique stretch of ragged rocky "coast", even if such a beach wouldn't be clearly below the horizon.  at any rate we certainly have not even remotely enough visibility due to the haze and distortion of 28 miles of dense atmo - even on a fantasically clear pacific coast day as this, and at an effective 700x crop to 1:1 pixel zoom - to see, say for example, sea lions or even any of the larger [than a frisbee] birds up higher on the island, who frequent it so much that the islands are plastered white.  bishop's "33 mile away beach" yarn debunked again.




6) farallon islands from a lower elevation  - focal length comparisons  both shots from same location and 245 ft. elevation.

6.a) 328mm (35mm equiv) focal length.  the island is partially "sunken".  particularly, the part in the middle (visible in part or total in other shots) is beyond and below the horizon.




6.b) exactly twice the focal length as above.  the island is not restored - and again, we are beyond the usefulness of more magnification being able to resolve more detail, due to atmospheric conditions.



edit: fixed zoom calc link

Tom,  before you reply to what cpt_bthimes just posted, I want you to hit the delete key and get rid of the paragrpah you copied and pasted to show how he didn't use a Newtonian refractor from the 1800s and therefore he cant properly restore sunken ships or land.

Now that you are done, please try to refute the evidence provided that shows:

1) That you can't see people, kids, frisbees, or any other object from only TEN MILES AWAY, let alone 33 miles.

2) That when you take pictures of a "sunken" cargo ship from eye level and then move to an elevation of 150ft, you can restore a "sunken" cargo ship. (Regardless of whether or not cpt_bthimes used the hubble telescope or a cheap disposable Walgreen camera, the magnification doesnt matter)
 
3) That you can't see people, kids, frisbees, or any other object from TWENTY EIGHT MILES AWAY, let alone 33 miles.

2) That when you take pictures of a "sunken" cargo ship from eye level and then move to an elevation of 150ft, you can restore a "sunken" cargo ship. (Regardless of whether or not cpt_bthimes used the hubble telescope or a cheap disposable Walgreen camera, the magnification doesnt matter)

Did Tom even try to deny this?

No, but as Tom usually does, and has done this entire thread, he will ignore 99% of the evidence provided and will instead try to complain that the "proper telescope wasn't used therefore all your evidence is inadmissable".