my evidence

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".

I see.

The reason photos are not used as evidence, manifested in cpt_bthimes.

From Bthime's new post:


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

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2312/2123896257_394f235340.jpg?v=0

...

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.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2312/2123896257_394f235340.jpg?v=0


These two images seem to have the exact same url and address. Therefore not only does he have trouble following instructions, but he is a liar as well.

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.

None of those images were taken with a proper telescope. Not to mention that the ship in image 3.b which claims to be a zoomed in image is exactly the same as the one which is shown unzoomed at an altitude of 12 feet.

and Tom has proven my point...

Ignore 99% of what's there and complain about "not following instructions" and a supposed duplicate image.

Quote

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.

None of those images were taken with a proper telescope.

Holy crap, you even proved my point further!   WOW!


Let me point out the part you obviously ignored:

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)

From Bthime's new post:

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

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2312/2123896257_394f235340.jpg?v=0

...

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.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2312/2123896257_394f235340.jpg?v=0
[/list]

These two images seem to have the exact same url and address. Therefore you are a liar.

huh?  not sure i follow your logic there, lt. lie detector.  perhaps you can show me where i asserted that they were two separate images?  or perhaps you can show me assertions of contradictory attributes?  or perhaps you can show me were i made the disclaimer that "no image is repeated, not even to illustrate different principles?"  why wouldn't i just have made a renamed copy if i wanted to lie?  (it is interesting to observe how rediculously quick you are to accuse other of lying, btw.  compulsive liars think everyone else constantly lie as well and are unable to trust anyone.)

the same photo is illustrating two different things, jackass.  in one case, a series of zooms.  in the other case, a series of elevations.  that image is the intersection of zoom and elevation in the two series.  in both cases, the photos were specified with the same elevation, same focal length, same subject, same day, same location, same time.  oh, yeah, and same filename and url.[/i]

but thanks for noticing.  funny though, you didn't notice the same "phenomenon" of one other photo also in two different series, in the previously posted collection of (non-cropped) images, also illustrating two different but purposes with a (non-accidental and non-surprising) intersection of zoom and elevation.

dumbass.  what other stupid fucking distractions can you come up with?

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)

When you move up in altitude you are pushing the vanishing point back. The vanishing point is what causes the bodies to appear to intersect with the surface of the earth.

Once a receding ship's hull meets the the horizon line it will intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the sun's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent beyond the resolution of the human eye (or of a camera). The vanishing point is created when the perspective are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

The vanishing point of a receding body is defined by the altitude receding body. Every receding body has a different vanishing point depending on its altitude above the surface of the earth. A ship, for example, will reach its vanishing point sooner than a flock of birds overhead.

The vanishing point is also defined by the altitude of the observer. When the observer increases his altitude he is increasing the distance to the vanishing point for all bodies on or near the earth. This is why when you ascend into the air in an airplane far and distant lands can be seen, which could not be seen from the ground. This is also why a half sunken ship can be restored by walking to the top of a three story building. By increasing his altitude, the observer is increasing the distance to his vanishing point.

n 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.

Holy crap, you even proved my point further!   WOW!

How do his images prove anything? The shot he claims to be an optically magnified image of the ship links to the exact same address as the shot which he claims to be an unzoomed picture of the ship at an altitude of 12 feet.

Not to mention that he didn't use a sophisticated telescope like Dr. Rowbotham says is required.

Tom Bishop=Fail
cpt_bthimes=Epic W1n

How do his images prove anything? The shot he claims to be an optically magnified image of the ship links to the exact same address as the shot which he claims to be an unzoomed picture of the ship at an altitude of 12 feet.

Not to mention that he didn't use a sophisticated telescope like Dr. Rowbotham says is required.

NO!  The images you mentioned as duplicate are images in section 3.  I am referring to the images 2A thru 2C.

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.

NO!  The images you mentioned as duplicaet are images in section 3.  I am referring to the images 2A thru 2C.

When one increases his altitude he is pushing back his vanishing point, which is why the distance to an ant's horizon is a number of orders of magnitude nearer than a human's.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Not to mention that he didn't use a sophisticated telescope like Dr. Rowbotham says is required.

As an aside, you keep calling Rowbotham "Doctor", and the link in your signature writes "Phd." after his name. But the degree of "Phd." was not even awarded in England in the nineteenth century.

you are grasping at straws bishop.  it's just painful to watch, seriously.  you talk but are utterly incapable of doing.  anything.  you really need to leave this discussion to people who are not functionally retarded.  don't you get it?  everyone is laughing at you.  even the fe'ers and devils advocates (whether or not they agree with what this evidence demonstrates or the veracity of re arguments made) are staying the hell away.  this thread would die without your idiocy, and that would be fine with me.  because you idiocy is not debate.  it is not rational.  what we have here is a handful of reasonable and rational people banging their heads against a wall over an idiot who is in way over his head and whose brain is so unchangeable and overloaded that it is about to explode.  it is not good for you, and it is not good for anyone engaging you.  everyone just needs to stop.  let the thread die, if that's what results.  the robustly documented evidence speaks for itself, it doesn't need much debate.

if anyone wants to debate, debate my "700x" hypothesis.  (except you, bishop.  we've all read rowbotham's lunacy and need no more copy/pasting of it.)

But the degree of "Phd." was not even awarded in England in the nineteenth century.

Did you graduate from your elementary school?

what we have here is a handful of reasonable and rational people banging their heads against a wall over an idiot who is in way over his head and whose brain is so unchangeable and overloaded that it is about to explode.

So what does that say about you?

Quote

But the degree of "Phd." was not even awarded in England in the nineteenth century.

Did you graduate from your elementary school?

Irrelevant. It is relevant that you seem to be claiming academic authority for Rowbotham that he never had. For you keep calling Rowbotham "Doctor", and the link in your signature writes "Phd." after his name. But the degree of "Phd." was not even awarded in England in the nineteenth century.

reminds me of an online cartoon:
a car passes by with a bumper sticker that says "voldemort votes republican". the main character retorts, "what a stupid sticker: voldemort lives in england!"

Robotham was not a Doctor, not a scientist, he was a debater!

None of those images were taken with a proper telescope. Not to mention that the ship in image 3.b which claims to be a zoomed in image is exactly the same as the one which is shown unzoomed at an altitude of 12 feet.

you have already accepted evidence from a canon digital rebel + 400mm lens, used in directly "proving" (aka misrepresenting) that more camera lens restores sunken cities to unsunken state.  devestating proof, no less, in your words.

there's nothing more you can say about the subject of optics, or "rowbotham's" mysterious and completely fucking undocumented optical requirements.  consistency matters, even for issues of your kind of dogma where you just make shit up as you go.

edit: fixed the second link which immediately debunks bishop's misrepresentation.

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 20, 2007, 01:37:53 PM

what we have here is a handful of reasonable and rational people banging their heads against a wall over an idiot who is in way over his head and whose brain is so unchangeable and overloaded that it is about to explode.

So what does that say about you?

indeed!

reminds me of an online cartoon:
a car passes by with a bumper sticker that says "voldemort votes republican". the main character retorts, "what a stupid sticker: voldemort lives in england!"

Robotham was not a Doctor, not a scientist, he was a debater!

a master debater.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2007, 01:19:58 PM

None of those images were taken with a proper telescope. Not to mention that the ship in image 3.b which claims to be a zoomed in image is exactly the same as the one which is shown unzoomed at an altitude of 12 feet.

you have already accepted evidence from a canon digital rebel + 400mm lens, used in directly "proving" (aka misrepresenting) that more camera lens restores sunken cities to unsunken state.  devestating proof, no less, in your words.

Please explain Tom.  Do not post anything else until you do.

Please explain Tom.  Do not post anything else until you do.

Good luck with that request. 

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 20, 2007, 01:50:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2007, 01:19:58 PM

None of those images were taken with a proper telescope. Not to mention that the ship in image 3.b which claims to be a zoomed in image is exactly the same as the one which is shown unzoomed at an altitude of 12 feet.

you have already accepted evidence from a canon digital rebel + 400mm lens, used in directly "proving" (aka misrepresenting) that more camera lens restores sunken cities to unsunken state.  devestating proof, no less, in your words.

Please explain Tom.  Do not post anything else until you do.

i provided the wrong immediate link to my original debunking post (it was still reachable but with more clicks than i intended).  here it is: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17770.msg310327#msg310327.

got something fer ya, bishop.  i've discovered our cure.  for you.

you see, you have the wrong belief system!  it's so obvious now.  the earth isn't flat.  it's hollow!  (a hollow sphere, that is, and we...or you, at least...live on the inside of it, not the outside.)

here is infallible evidence of this obvious fact.  it is far more conclusively proven than your foolish existing beliefs.  you were kind of close, you just didn't take your beliefs far enough.  why, just look out your window, and it will be obvious to you that we live inside a sphere.

run along now!

Tom knows about this stuff already.

got something fer ya, bishop.  i've discovered our cure.  for you.

you see, you have the wrong belief system!  it's so obvious now.  the earth isn't flat.  it's hollow!  (a hollow sphere, that is, and we...or you, at least...live on the inside of it, not the outside.)

here is infallible evidence of this obvious fact.  it is far more conclusively proven than your foolish existing beliefs.  you were kind of close, you just didn't take your beliefs far enough.  why, just look out your window, and it will be obvious to you that we live inside a sphere.

run along now!

A hollow earth??  But that's just ridiculous!

A hollow earth??  But that's just ridiculous!

Agreed. It's nearly as ridiculous as a flat earth...

A hollow earth??  But that's just ridiculous!

Pot calling the kettle black?

Quote

NO!  The images you mentioned as duplicaet are images in section 3.  I am referring to the images 2A thru 2C.

When one increases his altitude he is pushing back his vanishing point, which is why the distance to an ant's horizon is a number of orders of magnitude nearer than a human's.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

So you can only see a certain distance before it is too far away... I can accept that but now how come if you go higher up effectively increasing your distance away from the object now you can see further?

it would seem bishop has abandoned this thread, although he only posted once tonight.  not that i lament his departure.  for once, i am relieved.  his arguments were getting so pathetic, ignorant, and, well...desperate-sounding.  he got pretty badly p0wned, and partially by his own incessant drivel coming back to betray him no less.  in the end, he just flat ran out of arguments as he grasped for increasingly desperate straws (including an incredibly lame [and ironic] attempt at demonstrating me to be a liar). 

to my memory, not a single fellow fe'er or even devil's advocate has jumped in to defend him.  (i was hoping they would, potentially for some actual real, honest debate.) 

i'd say this thread is pretty much dead.  too bad.  re wins, though i say that with no chest-thumping.  there doesn't even seem to be anyone to remind me that "you can't just say that".  and i genuinely wish it hadn't worked out that simply. 

but who knows: maybe with bishop's m.o. of distraction gone, some real debate might pick up.  isn't anyone going to challenge my methods?  or scrutinize the reported details?  or try harder than bishop's lame-ass attempt to catch a contradiction?  hell, it would be almost impossible for me not to have made a single mistake with so many days involved and such a huge volume of data collection, reporting, and 7.7gb of photos tediously sorted through over too many days.  why not more image analyses?  to "find" some not-so-sunken-afterall portions of island out of the noise via contrast-stretching (ala bishop)?  hell, i've even noticed a few visual oddities - which i think are clearly attributable to slight and ultimately inconsequential inferior mirage effects on one or two of the more still days - but who am i to say for sure?