Flat Earth Experiment

Quote

Tom, peer review is done by people who have scientific qualifications to do it. Otherwise it isn't peer review. So, you must show us what scientific qualifications Lady Bount had otherwise it isn't peer review.

What kind of scientific qualifications are required to look across a body of water?

Tom you and I both know that it's all just mumbo-jumbo to keep us from understanding the true shape of our planet. This is there way to keep us from being accredited.

Quote

Tom, peer review is done by people who have scientific qualifications to do it. Otherwise it isn't peer review. So, you must show us what scientific qualifications Lady Bount had otherwise it isn't peer review.

What kind of scientific qualifications are required to look across a body of water?

Nothing. But then you agree that this wasn't peer review at all. This was just picnic where people looked across a body of water and this kind of thing doesn't count in science. To state that it was peer review you must produce some evidence that person who did it has some scientific education and degree. I don't have problem if you refer in future to it as picnic where Lady Blount observed results of repeated experiment which Rowbotham did earlier.

Quote

And the reason for it is simple. As has been stated on this site a numerous amounts of times, ENaG is full of flawed and incorrect data, experiments and logic.

A statement isn't proof.

There is strong corroborating evidence suggesting that the experiments in Earth Not a Globe are true. Independent researchers have reproduced the experiments and have attested to their validity.

A woman named Lady Bount was among the first to peer review Rowbotham's work:

"The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

Mrs. Peach recently found a reference of photographic evidence from The English Mechanic, a scientific journal:

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.
"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.
The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".

Tom, you do realize that you (well, Dr. Rowbotham and Lady Bount) just disproved bendy light, don't you?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2009, 11:32:55 PM

Quote

Tom, peer review is done by people who have scientific qualifications to do it. Otherwise it isn't peer review. So, you must show us what scientific qualifications Lady Bount had otherwise it isn't peer review.

What kind of scientific qualifications are required to look across a body of water?

Nothing.

Good, then Lady Bount's results stand as truth.

This was just picnic where people looked across a body of water and this kind of thing doesn't count in science. To state that it was peer review you must produce some evidence that person who did it has some scientific education and degree. I don't have problem if you refer in future to it as picnic where Lady Blount observed results of repeated experiment which Rowbotham did earlier.

Much of Lady Bount's upbringing is unknown, but she was a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (F.R.S.L.). Some of her publications are listed in my signature link.

Tom, you do realize that you (well, Dr. Rowbotham and Lady Bount) just disproved bendy light, don't you?

Actually they disproved that the earth is a globe. Thanks for keeping up.

Quote

Tom, you do realize that you (well, Dr. Rowbotham and Lady Bount) just disproved bendy light, don't you?

Actually they disproved that the earth is a globe. Thanks for keeping up.

Yes, and in proving that the earth is flat, they also proved that light doesn't bend.

Quote from: zork on April 20, 2009, 12:49:37 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2009, 11:32:55 PM

Quote

Tom, peer review is done by people who have scientific qualifications to do it. Otherwise it isn't peer review. So, you must show us what scientific qualifications Lady Bount had otherwise it isn't peer review.

What kind of scientific qualifications are required to look across a body of water?

Nothing.

Good, then Lady Bount's results stand as truth.

 Only result was that she saw something but she doesn't have any required scientific background therefore the possibility that she interpreted results wrongly are very high. So, it does not in any way stand as truth.

Much of Lady Bount's upbringing is unknown, but she was a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (F.R.S.L.). Some of her publications are listed in my signature link.

So it was a picnic for people who were related to literature. So it will be referred as so.

Only result was that she saw something but she doesn't have any required scientific background therefore the possibility that she interpreted results wrongly are very high. So, it does not in any way stand as truth.

What kind of "scientific background" is required to look across a body of water and see a white calico sheet? 

Quote

Only result was that she saw something but she doesn't have any required scientific background therefore the possibility that she interpreted results wrongly are very high. So, it does not in any way stand as truth.

What kind of "scientific background" is required to look across a body of water and see a white calico sheet? 

How do you know that she really saw what she said that she saw?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 12:53:21 PM

Quote

Only result was that she saw something but she doesn't have any required scientific background therefore the possibility that she interpreted results wrongly are very high. So, it does not in any way stand as truth.

What kind of "scientific background" is required to look across a body of water and see a white calico sheet? 

How do you know that she really saw what she said that she saw?

Because her account was corroborated by Mr. Clifton, who took a photo of the scene for Lady Blount to publish in her monthly journal The Earth.

Quote from: markjo on April 20, 2009, 12:56:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 12:53:21 PM

Quote

Only result was that she saw something but she doesn't have any required scientific background therefore the possibility that she interpreted results wrongly are very high. So, it does not in any way stand as truth.

What kind of "scientific background" is required to look across a body of water and see a white calico sheet? 

How do you know that she really saw what she said that she saw?

Because her account was corroborated by Mr. Clifton, who took a photo of the scene for Lady Blount to publish in her monthly journal The Earth.

Would you please post a copy of this alleged photo?

Would you please post a copy of this alleged photo?

You can find the photo in backissues of Lady Blount's journal The Earth.

Quote from: markjo on April 20, 2009, 01:25:54 PM

Would you please post a copy of this alleged photo?

You can find the photo in backissues of Lady Blount's journal The Earth.

I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.

I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.

I don't have it, but you can find back issues at the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department. There's a special Flat Earth collection.

Quote from: markjo on April 20, 2009, 02:28:25 PM

I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.

I don't have it, but you can find back issues at the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department. There's a special Flat Earth collection.

errm http://google.liv.ac.uk/search?q=flat+earth&site=Library&access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=Library&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=Library

Thought not

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 03:04:49 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 20, 2009, 02:28:25 PM

I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.

I don't have it, but you can find back issues at the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department. There's a special Flat Earth collection.

errm http://google.liv.ac.uk/search?q=flat+earth&site=Library&access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=Library&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=Library

Thought not

Search harder.

http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/06101601.html

Quote from: markjo on April 20, 2009, 02:28:25 PM

I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.

I don't have it, but you can find back issues at the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department. There's a special Flat Earth collection.

Sorry, but I don't have access to the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department either.  Do you have a source closer to Ithaca, NY that would have it?

BTW, have you ever actually seen this alleged photograph, or are you just taking someone's word for it that it exists and it depicts what is claimed?  Have you verified the authenticity of the photograph?  Have you examined it for tampering?

Sorry, but I don't have access to the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department either.  Do you have a source closer to Ithaca, NY that would have it?

It's also available at the Library of Congress, which holds one of the largest Flat Earth collections on earth.

BTW, have you ever actually seen this alleged photograph, or are you just taking someone's word for it that it exists and it depicts what is claimed?  Have you verified the authenticity of the photograph?  Have you examined it for tampering?

Why would I need to see the photograph? I don't base my contention that Lady Bount did the experiment on a photograph. The validity and honesty of an experiment is based on peer review.

Quote

Sorry, but I don't have access to the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department either.  Do you have a source closer to Ithaca, NY that would have it?

It's also available at the Library of Congress, which holds one of the largest Flat Earth collections on earth.

The conspiracy has a Flat Earth collection?   

Sorry, but I don't live near Washington, DC either and I'm not planning any trips anytime soon.

Quote

BTW, have you ever actually seen this alleged photograph, or are you just taking someone's word for it that it exists and it depicts what is claimed?  Have you verified the authenticity of the photograph?  Have you examined it for tampering?

Why would I need to see the photograph? I don't base my contention that Lady Bount did the experiment on a photograph. The validity and honesty of an experiment is based on peer review.

So you have never seen a photograph that you are trying to admit into evidence?  Tsk, tsk.  Where is the peer review of that photograph?

The conspiracy has a Flat Earth collection?   

Sorry, but I don't live near Washington, DC either and I'm not planning any trips anytime soon.

Washington DC is about a four hour drive away from New York. There's nothing stopping you if you truly wanted to see the original material.

Where is the peer review of that photograph?

Read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Quote

The conspiracy has a Flat Earth collection?   

Sorry, but I don't live near Washington, DC either and I'm not planning any trips anytime soon.

Washington DC is about a four hour drive away from New York. There's nothing stopping you if you truly wanted to see the original material.

Maybe 4 hours from New York City, but I don't live in NYC.  DC is about 8 hours from where I live.  I've been through there a few times.  It's not a day trip, especially if traffic is bad.

Quote

Where is the peer review of that photograph?

Read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

I thought that the photograph was to peer review Rowbotham's work. 

Quote

Only result was that she saw something but she doesn't have any required scientific background therefore the possibility that she interpreted results wrongly are very high. So, it does not in any way stand as truth.

What kind of "scientific background" is required to look across a body of water and see a white calico sheet? 

What kind of peer review is "looking across a body of water and trying to see a white calico sheet"? It's not peer review in any aspect, so yes, you don't need "scientific background" to look across water and it is also not a peer review. So, the statement stands that it was picnic for looking across water, not peer review. And the result was not truth.

Quote from: monkeybradders on April 20, 2009, 03:26:17 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 03:04:49 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 20, 2009, 02:28:25 PM

I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.

I don't have it, but you can find back issues at the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department. There's a special Flat Earth collection.

errm http://google.liv.ac.uk/search?q=flat+earth&site=Library&access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=Library&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=Library

Thought not

Search harder.

http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/06101601.html

That's golden. My favourite part is below. I've made the key points bold.

"Immediate Source of Acquisition
Donated to the Science Fiction Foundation at the North East London Polytechnic in 1971. The archive was then moved to the University of Liverpool Special Collections and Archives in 1993 as part of the Science Fiction Foundation Collection"

Epic!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 03:29:13 PM

Quote from: monkeybradders on April 20, 2009, 03:26:17 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 03:04:49 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 20, 2009, 02:28:25 PM

I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.

I don't have it, but you can find back issues at the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department. There's a special Flat Earth collection.

errm http://google.liv.ac.uk/search?q=flat+earth&site=Library&access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=Library&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=Library

Thought not

Search harder.

http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/06101601.html

That's golden. My favourite part is below. I've made the key points bold.

"Immediate Source of Acquisition
Donated to the Science Fiction Foundation at the North East London Polytechnic in 1971. The archive was then moved to the University of Liverpool Special Collections and Archives in 1993 as part of the Science Fiction Foundation Collection"

Access Conditions

Access is open to bona fide researchers

A bona fide FE researcher.  Now there's an oxymoron.   

Maybe 4 hours from New York City, but I don't live in NYC.  DC is about 8 hours from where I live.  I've been through there a few times.  It's not a day trip, especially if traffic is bad.

Travel arrangements are your problem, not mine.

I thought that the photograph was to peer review Rowbotham's work. 

The experiments peer review each other.

Tom, Tom cooooooo eeeeiii Tom
Anything about you reference material being filed under "Science Fiction" i'm assuming you knew this and you're happy with it because a man like you wouldn't reference somthing without reading it first.

Tom, Tom cooooooo eeeeiii Tom
Anything about you reference material being filed under "Science Fiction" i'm assuming you knew this and you're happy with it because a man like you wouldn't reference somthing without reading it first.

The handlers are free to file the donated literature however they want, just like when I file NASA's space propaganda books under "Religion" in my personal library.

Quote from: monkeybradders on April 21, 2009, 04:04:30 PM

Tom, Tom cooooooo eeeeiii Tom
Anything about you reference material being filed under "Science Fiction" i'm assuming you knew this and you're happy with it because a man like you wouldn't reference somthing without reading it first.

The handlers are free to file the donated literature however they want, just like when I file NASA's space propaganda books under "Religion" in my personal library.

So why do you think that they handled it under

Science Fiction

?

Obviously many people have read it and chose to classify it as so.

So why did they not conclude that the earth must be flat, after reading such evidence? Well, go back to my other post and you will see that:

...ENaG is full of flawed and incorrect data, experiments and logic.

We have threads on this site debunking ENaG and Robotham's flawed experiments, we also have this:

...scientists would have confirmed this and all agreed to a flat earth. But that didn't happen. So guess what that must mean.

Which is talking about why scientists, after reading the book didn't believe it.

Now we have this:

That's golden. My favourite part is below. I've made the key points bold.

"Immediate Source of Acquisition
Donated to the Science Fiction Foundation at the North East London Polytechnic in 1971. The archive was then moved to the University of Liverpool Special Collections and Archives in 1993 as part of the Science Fiction Foundation Collection"

I have now enough trust that ENaG is truly flawed, after doing my own research and observations and conclude that its just a work of fiction, but servers as a good way to teach about open mindness.

So why do you think that they handled it under Science Fiction?

It's not a librarian's job to read through the books they bring in. It's not their job to understand every one of the thousands of pieces of literature on their shelves, or to agree with anything.  A librarian's job is to categorize based on snap judgment, slap some numbers onto the binding, and put it on a shelf somewhere. A librarian is not obligated to read even a single page of a book before filing it.

Now we have this:

Quote

That's golden. My favourite part is below. I've made the key points bold.

"Immediate Source of Acquisition
Donated to the Science Fiction Foundation at the North East London Polytechnic in 1971. The archive was then moved to the University of Liverpool Special Collections and Archives in 1993 as part of the Science Fiction Foundation Collection"

The librarians over at the Library of Congress filed their Flat Earth books under Science Reference Guides. That must be incontrovertible proof that Flat Earth Theory is true and everyone at the Library of Congress is an FE'er, right?

Your arguments are lame, just like your "proof."

Quote

Maybe 4 hours from New York City, but I don't live in NYC.  DC is about 8 hours from where I live.  I've been through there a few times.  It's not a day trip, especially if traffic is bad.

Travel arrangements are your problem, not mine.

OK Tom, let me see if I have this straight.  You claim that there is a photograph commissioned by Lady Blount that supposedly supports Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment.  Yet you admit that you have never actually seen that photograph so you have no idea of what is actually shown in that photograph or if it really supports Rowbotham's results.  Why should I waste my time doing your research for you?  It's your claim that this photograph exists and supports your claim that Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment demonstrates a flat earth, therefore it's your burden of proof to provide the evidence, not mine.  In other words, please provide a copy of that photograph or stop presenting it as evidence.

Quote

I thought that the photograph was to peer review Rowbotham's work. 

The experiments peer review each other.

You keep using that term (peer review).  I don't think it means what you think it means. [/Princess Bride reference]

Check me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that photograph taken 20 years after Rowbotham died?  How does one peer review someone else's work done 20 years after one's own death?