The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: cdenley on June 17, 2009, 07:31:21 AM
-
http://books.google.com/books?id=efc3AAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA215,M1
To summarize, Hampden offered a wager to any scientific man that would accept that the earth is flat. Wallace accepted the wager. An experiment was conducted on the Bedford Level, which both agreed to. The experiment showed the earth was not flat. Hampden expressed himself satisfied then paid the wager. He then called Wallace a "liar" and a "swindler" in his publications, which resulted in him being sued for libel.
In an unrelated thread, Tom Bishop claims that neither party had agreed on the outcome of the experiment, and the wager wasn't paid. Are there any reliable sources which contradict the article I linked to above? Are there any FE'ers willing to make a similar wager? Unfortunately, I don't live near the Bedford Level, but I do live near Lake Michigan.
-
Yes. Tom has repeatedly told you to read this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-History-Infamous-Idea/dp/140504702X
(http://media.us.macmillan.com/jackets/500H/9780312382087.jpg)
I own a hardback copy of it. It's also worth pointing out that Garwood is not a FE'er; her opinions are in no way biased towards the FE movement.
-
Yes, but I don't have access to the book, so why don't you post her sources? Obviously, her book itself is not a reliable account of the experiment, since she could not have witnessed the experiment or interview anyone who did. I'm aware she is not a FE'er, so there may very well be a reliable source which contradicts the article I found. I would appreciate if you provide the source, since you own the Garwood book.
-
You can acquire the book from Amazon or a book store, just like we did.
-
http://books.google.com/books?id=efc3AAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA215,M1
To summarize, Hampden offered a wager to any scientific man that would accept that the earth is flat. Wallace accepted the wager. An experiment was conducted on the Bedford Level, which both agreed to. The experiment showed the earth was not flat. Hampden expressed himself satisfied then paid the wager. He then called Wallace a "liar" and a "swindler" in his publications, which resulted in him being sued for libel.
In an unrelated thread, Tom Bishop claims that neither party had agreed on the outcome of the experiment, and the wager wasn't paid. Are there any reliable sources which contradict the article I linked to above? Are there any FE'ers willing to make a similar wager? Unfortunately, I don't live near the Bedford Level, but I do live near Lake Michigan.
You are correct in all your facts. Tom Bishop is not.
The Bedford Level experiment is so old, I'm amazed that grown people are actually using it to this day. It is nothing but another distraction.
Even if you take the lawsuit completely out of context like Tom Bishop tried to, it proves that Hampden was a liar who was willing to say anything to discredit his opponent. It proves that he did not take the science as the most important goal, but winning the bet strictly. This speaks to the motives of everyone here on the FE side. It is winning that matters, not science, truth or what you believe.
NEEMAN and Tom Bishop work for the publisher and are making money from the sale of the book. They are part of a conspiracy to make FE a common place theory and they are making money along the way.
-
Yes, but I don't have access to the book, so why don't you post her sources? Obviously, her book itself is not a reliable account of the experiment, since she could not have witnessed the experiment or interview anyone who did. I'm aware she is not a FE'er, so there may very well be a reliable source which contradicts the article I found. I would appreciate if you provide the source, since you own the Garwood book.
I'm sorry, but we aren't going to dissect her years of research into free bits of information for you. She kindly wrote a book in order to bring our idea to light, and we won't eat out of her book sales by giving it away for free.
-
You can acquire the book from Amazon or a book store, just like we did.
Maybe if I can find it in the library, I might read it, but that is besides the point since her book itself is not evidence. Can you provide any reliable accounts of the experiment or wager from that time period which contradict mine?
-
Does anyone else think it's strange that one book written by one individual is taken in such high regard by this group?
-
Yes, but I don't have access to the book, so why don't you post her sources? Obviously, her book itself is not a reliable account of the experiment, since she could not have witnessed the experiment or interview anyone who did. I'm aware she is not a FE'er, so there may very well be a reliable source which contradicts the article I found. I would appreciate if you provide the source, since you own the Garwood book.
I'm not sure it'll do you any good, as you won't have access to the sources either (she references a few in this section), but here is how it's listed in here bibliography (at least I think this is the source you need):
ULIV (University of Liverpool), SFF (Science Fiction Foundation Collection), FES (Flat Earth Society Papers), SS (Samuel Shenton), R.M. Lynch to SS, 13 October 1968; T.T. Gardner to SS, 13 October 1968.
That's what's referenced, but I don't see how it can help you. Buy the book.
Does anyone else think it's strange that one book written by one individual is taken in such high regard by this group?
When we're talking about FET history, then the only book published in recent times concerning that history is very useful, especially as it's an unbiased book written by someone who doesn't believe the Earth is flat. Honestly, there just isn't any other reputable publication which looks into FET history so exhaustively or impartially.
-
Since her sources seem to be flat earth literature, Hampden authored articles in flat earth literature, and Hampden was found by the court to have lied in his articles regarding his wager, I think it is fair to assume that the account of the experiment where Hampden lost is the correct one.
-
You can acquire the book from Amazon or a book store, just like we did.
Maybe if I can find it in the library, I might read it, but that is besides the point since her book itself is not evidence. Can you provide any reliable accounts of the experiment or wager from that time period which contradict mine?
Here is a limited preview available from Google Books* http://books.google.com/books?id=Q1a_JhB9VQMC&pg=PP1&dq=christine+garwood#PPP1,M1
*Google is a suspected member of the conspiracy, so read at your own risk.
-
It's also worth pointing out that Garwood is not a FE'er; her opinions are in no way biased towards the FE movement.
Ah but ...
What if she were a secret member of The Flat Earth Society?
A "Flat Earth Spook", if you will?
Then she might be presenting us with false evidence and we'd never know!
I am forced to be this suspicious because that's how conspiracies function, right - through subterfuge, disinformation and lies?
-
Obviously, her book itself is not a reliable account of the experiment, since she could not have witnessed the experiment or interview anyone who did.
Explain to me exactly why the account of a historical event provided by an internet surfer with zero expertise on the subject in a forum thread, trumps the account of the same event provided by an eminent science historian in a published work on the subject?
How on Earth do you consider yourself capable of evaluating the reliability of an expert book you haven't even read?
-
Explain to me exactly why the account of a historical event provided by an internet surfer with zero expertise on the subject in a forum thread, trumps the account of the same event provided by an eminent science historian in a published work on the subject?
How on Earth do you consider yourself capable of evaluating the reliability of an expert book you haven't even read?
I didn't realize the 1871 article which I referenced was written by an "internet surfer". Did you read my post? Obviously the book itself would not be a reliable historical account, and I don't see how you can disagree. The sources she used while writing her book may be a different story. I suppose you can say that her summary of the historical event is as reliable as her sources, assuming she interpreted the original account accurately and without bias. This is why I was asking for reliable evidence which contradicts the article I found.
-
Wow, you guys are still going 'round about that stupid book?
How does a book prove anything? Appeal to authority? Has anyone looked up the public record or contacted the NY Times? How about anything else? I realize this is a rather small issue (about the already proven-stupid Bedford Level circus), but is this one, single book the only thing there is to confirm the story?
I think Wikipedia should be admissible here simply because anyone here can edit it... oh and it has something that those people call "REFERENCES." Don't be frightened by them. It's just how REAL scientists confirm their statements. I find the information on this subject in particular seems to match with other sources.
-
Are you seriously suggesting that Christine Garwood doesn't make use of referencing? Her bibliography is massive and draws on painstaking investigation of original sources wherever possible. Wikipedia citations are often merely of other websites.
-
Since her sources seem to be flat earth literature, Hampden authored articles in flat earth literature, and Hampden was found by the court to have lied in his articles regarding his wager, I think it is fair to assume that the account of the experiment where Hampden lost is the correct one.
Garwood doesn't claim that Hampden won the bet; she simply says that there was a disagreement between the umpires, and that Hampden and Wallace both believed they had won the bet, which is what Tom Bishop claims. She references a large amount of correspondence between neutral and invovled parties, as well as FE literature and other accounts from the period.
-
Garwood doesn't claim that Hampden won the bet; she simply says that there was a disagreement between the umpires, and that Hampden and Wallace both believed they had won the bet, which is what Tom Bishop claims. She references a large amount of correspondence between neutral and invovled parties, as well as FE literature and other accounts from the period.
I read the chapter in the google books preview provided in this thread. It was very interesting and much more detailed than the account in the article I found. Although the bibliography was not available in the preview I read, I will take your word for it that she references a neutral correspondence when describing the outcome of the final experiment. I concede that the article I found may not be entirely accurate. I appreciate the link provided by markjo, as well as details provided by NEEMAN.
Now that I have read such a detailed account of the wager, I would be interested in how FE'ers would interpret the result of the experiment. If you're not familiar with the result, you can read about it in the preview provided above.
-
Now that I have read such a detailed account of the wager, I would be interested in how FE'ers would interpret the result of the experiment. If you're not familiar with the result, you can read about it in the preview provided above.
Well, the language Garwood uses to describe the experiment implies that she believes Wallace won the bet, and that Hampden and co. simply decided to ignore the obvious. However, the historical evidence itself does not really prove anything either way. The only people who can really know are the ones who looked through the telescope.
-
The deal between the two men was for a years worth of pay. Of course each side would declare themselves the winner when a year's worth of pay was at stake. Neither of the men were particularly prominent and a loss would mean living in poverty.
-
Now that I have read such a detailed account of the wager, I would be interested in how FE'ers would interpret the result of the experiment. If you're not familiar with the result, you can read about it in the preview provided above.
Well, the language Garwood uses to describe the experiment implies that she believes Wallace won the bet, and that Hampden and co. simply decided to ignore the obvious. However, the historical evidence itself does not really prove anything either way. The only people who can really know are the ones who looked through the telescope.
Except Hampden admitted that the top of the furthest marker appeared lower than the one between it and the telescope, even though they were all at the same height. That would indicate that the earth was round.
-
The deal between the two men was for a years worth of pay. Of course each side would declare themselves the winner when a year's worth of pay was at stake. Neither of the men were particularly prominent and a loss would mean living in poverty.
Tom, so you agree that both sides had reason to lie about the results? If so, then can we just drop this discussion and declare accounts of this wager to be inadmissible as evidence for either side?
-
The deal between the two men was for a years worth of pay. Of course each side would declare themselves the winner when a year's worth of pay was at stake. Neither of the men were particularly prominent and a loss would mean living in poverty.
Tom, so you agree that both sides had reason to lie about the results? If so, then can we just drop this discussion and declare accounts of this wager to be inadmissible as evidence for either side?
I never said that it was evidence for any side. You guy are the ones who keep bringing it up.
-
Except Hampden admitted that the top of the furthest marker appeared lower than the one between it and the telescope, even though they were all at the same height. That would indicate that the earth was round.
No comment, Tom?
-
Read Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood. Hampden and his referee looked into the telescope and announced that they had won the wager. They even jumped for joy in celebration.
The same night of the experiment Hampden accosted Wallace in a pub and demanded him to declare that he was the lesser scientist.
-
I never said that it was evidence for any side. You guy are the ones who keep bringing it up.
Wrong. Please read the links in your signature. It's listed right there.
The Bedford Level Experiment, including Lady Blount's pictures, appears to be one of the most significant and influential Flat Earth experiments ever - and it is almost certainly the most (in)famous.
Therefore it is wrong for Tom Bishop to try to dismiss it as being of little interest to Flat Earth Theory.
Besides, it is probably the only time ever when a Flat Earther and a Round Earther have done the same experiment at the same time, and as such it is vitally important that we come to a proper historical appreciation of the facts of the case.
Or, and here's an idea:
Why don't we re-create the experiment? Surveying equipment must be of a higher quality than that available a hundered years ago.
Before doing this, though, we would need assurance from the Flat Earth Community that there will be no a posteriori (after the event) objections on the basis that "light bends upwards".
Edit: you could even invite the press and The BBC to cover the event - there's no such thing as bad publicity, after all!
-
Why don't we re-create the experiment? Surveying equipment must be of a higher quality than that available a hundered years ago.
Before doing this, though, we would need assurance from the Flat Earth Community that there will be no a posteriori (after the event) objections on the basis that "light bends upwards".
Edit: you could even invite the press and The BBC to cover the event - there's no such thing as bad publicity, after all!
Is there a senior member of The Flat Earth Society living in the UK who would be prepared to engage in this recreation?
I would be happy to coordinate the invigilation efforts for the Round Earth camp.
I would suggest that the most appropriate people to contact at The BBC would be the producers of the week-day 'magazine programme' "The One Show" - they might even stump up the funds to hire the surveyors for the day.
-
Read Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood. Hampden and his referee looked into the telescope and announced that they had won the wager. They even jumped for joy in celebration.
The same night of the experiment Hampden accosted Wallace in a pub and demanded him to declare that he was the lesser scientist.
You clearly aren't reading my posts. I already told you I read that chapter! You should also take your own advice, as you seem to be ignoring a very important part of your own book.
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that. Under usual circumstances this would be interpreted as evidence of the earth curving gently away from the observer, but Carpenter claimed that the equal intervals between the cross-hair, the centre marker and the Old Bedford Bridge marker proved that all three points were in a straight line.
-
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that. Under usual circumstances this would be interpreted as evidence of the earth curving gently away from the observer, but Carpenter claimed that the equal intervals between the cross-hair, the centre marker and the Old Bedford Bridge marker proved that all three points were in a straight line.
So "Carpenter claimed" that the three marker posts were in a straight line which was sloping down away from the theodolite/telescope?
That would imply that the Beford Level itself was sloping down away from the theodolite/telescope ...
Which would be impossible as it is a stagnant (non-flowing) stretch of canal - the central point of the experiment.
Was Carpenter - a Flat Earther, I presume - an idiot?
-
So "Carpenter claimed" that the three marker posts were in a straight line which was sloping down away from the theodolite/telescope?
That would imply that the Beford Level itself was sloping down away from the theodolite/telescope ...
Which would be impossible as it is a stagnant (non-flowing) stretch of canal - the central point of the experiment.
Was Carpenter - a Flat Earther, I presume - an idiot?
He was a flat-earther and Hampden's referee. The chapter is worth reading.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q1a_JhB9VQMC&pg=PP1&dq=christine+garwood#PPP1,M1
-
Isn't anybody going to address the result of the experiment?
-
They do not address anything which does not either support a flat earth, or that they can't make up pseudo-science to make FET fit what is observed.
-
Hampden and his referee looked into the telescope and announced that they had won the wager. They even jumped for joy in celebration.
-
Was Carpenter - a Flat Earther, I presume - an idiot?
-
As Tom conveniently points out one small snippet of the book he himself has been touting, and ignores the rest of the work.
Well done, scientist Tom.
-
Hampden and his referee looked into the telescope and announced that they had won the wager. They even jumped for joy in celebration.
Regardless of what idiotic conslusions they drew or proofs they ignored, I was asking about the results of the experiment, not the wager.
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that. Under usual circumstances this would be interpreted as evidence of the earth curving gently away from the observer, but Carpenter claimed that the equal intervals between the cross-hair, the centre marker and the Old Bedford Bridge marker proved that all three points were in a straight line.
-
No one can say what Hampden and Carpenter observed except Hampden and Carpenter.
After looking into the telescope they obviously saw that they had won. That same evening Hampden even confronted Wallace in a pub and demanded that he declare himself the lesser scientist.
-
After looking into the telescope they obviously saw that they won. That same evening Hampden even confronted Wallace in a pub and demanded that he declare himself the lesser scientist.
Is that the same Hampden who was convicted for libel towards Wallace?
If so it doesn't say much about his trustwortyness, does it?
-
It's not libel if it's true.
-
It's not libel if it's true.
Since it was determined to be libel, then obviously it wasn't true.
-
It's not libel if it's true.
But what did the court say, Tom?
Hampden was convicted of libel towards Wallace.
Or, to put it in modern language:
Hampden was a dishonest lying little shit!
Why the hell are you defending him?
-
It's not libel if it's true.
Since it was determined to be libel, then obviously it wasn't true.
Courts aren't the arbiters of truth.
-
It's not libel if it's true.
Since it was determined to be libel, then obviously it wasn't true.
Courts aren't the arbiter of truth.
Actually, in this case they were. What do you think that libel cases are all about? ???
-
What do you think that libel cases are all about? ???
Defamation of character.
-
People are wrongly imprisoned all the time, even in the modern day. In Victorian Britain, the same was true, even more than today. Hampden was imprisoned as the result of deliberate, aggressive legal action by his globularist enemies, who sought to cement their fallacious notions into the public mind by obliterating their opposition. Hampden stood by his beliefs in the face of heinous globular skullduggery, martyring himself and facing imprisonment and bankruptcy in the name of truth.
-
It's not libel if it's true.
Since it was determined to be libel, then obviously it wasn't true.
Courts aren't the arbiters of truth.
They are if one defines truth as "beyond all reasonable doubt" - as anyone who has done jury service, as I have, knows all too well.
Courts are a cornerstone of a civilised and democratic society - and if you choose to reject this notion, then you should choose to live as an "outlaw" and go and live in a hut in some forest or wasteland somewhere.
-
They are if one defines truth as "beyond all reasonable doubt"
Which no sane person would.
-
They are if one defines truth as "beyond all reasonable doubt"
Which no sane person would.
It is the definition that any reasonable person would agree with ...
And that is the basis of a civilised and cooperative society, I would suggest.
"Sanity" is far too subjective and personal a concept to be used.
I may think that Levee, for example, is "bat shit crazy" ...
And he is free to think the same of me ...
What we have to do is to learn to live and interact with each other in a reasonable way.
Idealists may disagree, but idealists are some of the most dangerous people around.
-
It is the definition that any reasonable person would agree with ...
No it isn't. If new evidence comes to light, it doesn't change what the truth is, only our perception of it.
-
No one can say what Hampden and Carpenter observed except Hampden and Carpenter.
After looking into the telescope they obviously saw that they had won. That same evening Hampden even confronted Wallace in a pub and demanded that he declare himself the lesser scientist.
Are you now saying that the book you referenced repeatedly about this wager and list in your signature link which has its own sticky is incorrect? Did you read the quote I took directly from your own book? It clearly stated Carpenter's observations, as well as how he claimed to interpret what he saw. You are beginning to appear as dense as Carpenter and Hampden were by ignoring what has been put in front of you.
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that. Under usual circumstances this would be interpreted as evidence of the earth curving gently away from the observer, but Carpenter claimed that the equal intervals between the cross-hair, the centre marker and the Old Bedford Bridge marker proved that all three points were in a straight line.
-
It is the definition that any reasonable person would agree with ...
No it isn't. If new evidence comes to light, it doesn't change what the truth is, only our perception of it.
You appear to have a poor understanding of how The British Justice System functions.
Either that, or you enjoy "trolling".
-
You appear to have a poor understanding of how The British Justice System functions.
You appear to have a poor understanding of the fact that the justice system does not define the truth.
-
It is the definition that any reasonable person would agree with ...
No it isn't. If new evidence comes to light, it doesn't change what the truth is, only our perception of it.
You appear to have a poor understanding of how The British Justice System functions.
Either that, or you enjoy "trolling".
I'm British, and I can tell you right now the that British justice system doesn't function at all. This is why, when you turn on the news, there's always at least one article about a man who raped three girls and only got 4 years imprisonment, or someone driving a lorry killing six people in a motorway collision and receiving 3 years with bail after 6 months. If you think the British justice system works, you have a warped sense of what is "reasonable."
Beyond all "reasonable" doubt also caused an innocent man to be jailed for the best part of 10 years in the Jill Dando murder case.
-
You appear to have a poor understanding of how The British Justice System functions.
You appear to have a poor understanding of the fact that the justice system does not define the truth.
The Justice System is a practical tool to promote the security and well-being of society at large - as well you know.
Whereas "The Truth" that you are talking about is an academic and elusive concept.
Therefore I suspect that you are trying - as you often seem to do - to deflect the debate into an area that is less dangerous for your Flat Earth POV.
Besides, if one could only "bang up" murderers and rapists if their guilt was proved absolutely then our prisons would be empty and society would "go to Hell in a handcart"!
-
The Justice System is a practical tool to promote the security and well-being of society at large - as well you know.
That is its intended function, whether it is successful or not in performing this function is open to debate. Regardless, that does not make its judgements in any way relevant to the truth.
-
The Justice System is a practical tool to promote the security and well-being of society at large - as well you know.
That is its intended function, whether it is successful or not in performing this function is open to debate.
That's why I said "promote", not achieve.
-
That's why I said "promote", not achieve.
I would prefer to keep this thread on subject, rather than debate how well the British Justice System works. They still haven't addressed the results of the experiment as observer by Carpenter.
-
I'm not sure we can to be honest. What he observed is something only he can know. Remember, Christine Garwood is not a FE'er, and like I said, her beliefs are apparent in the writing. All I'm saying is that it is best to discuss the facts, and not the way they are presented.
-
I'm not sure we can to be honest. What he observed is something only he can know. Remember, Christine Garwood is not a FE'er, and like I said, her beliefs are apparent in the writing. All I'm saying is that it is best to discuss the facts, and not the way they are presented.
It's not about the way facts are presented, but what she states Carpenter actually observed.
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.
-
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.
The word I've bolded and underlined is key here. Only he can know what he saw. And frankly, you can suppose whatever you like. The fact remains that I have done nothing of the sort.
-
It's not about the way facts are presented, but what she states Carpenter actually observed.
Please read the actual book. Garwood interjects her opinions as fact all throughout her work.
-
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.
The word I've bolded and underlined is key here. Only he can know what he saw. And frankly, you can suppose whatever you like. The fact remains that I have done nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Any chance that we can get you to watch those quote tags? It makes it harder to keep track of who really said what when you delete too many open quote tags.
-
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.
The word I've bolded and underlined is key here. Only he can know what he saw. And frankly, you can suppose whatever you like. The fact remains that I have done nothing of the sort.
Any chance that we can get you to watch those quote tags? It makes it harder to keep track of who really said what when you delete too many open quote tags.
For you, anything.
-
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.
The word I've bolded and underlined is key here. Only he can know what he saw. And frankly, you can suppose whatever you like. The fact remains that I have done nothing of the sort.
Any chance that we can get you to watch those quote tags? It makes it harder to keep track of who really said what when you delete too many open quote tags.
For you, anything.
Thanks buddy. :-*
-
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.
The word I've bolded and underlined is key here. Only he can know what he saw. And frankly, you can suppose whatever you like. The fact remains that I have done nothing of the sort.
All you pointed out is the account of his observations didn't quantify how much the height of the markers appeared to decrease. However, it is very clear the markers did appear to decrease in height, which is what I was asking you to comment on.
-
It's not about the way facts are presented, but what she states Carpenter actually observed.
Please read the actual book. Garwood interjects her opinions as fact all throughout her work.
I read the chapter relevant to this thread. Are you actually suggesting that what she claims Carpenter observed was according to her opinion? How much of the chapter do you think is fictitious, and why did you reference it? If the book is full of lies, why should I read it?
-
I read the chapter relevant to this thread. Are you actually suggesting that what she claims Carpenter observed was according to her opinion?
Obviously, since he looked into the telescope and instantly saw that he had won. He even wrote a book about the experiment:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Water-not-Convex-Demonstrated-experiments/dp/B000WSMZQW
How much of the chapter do you think is fictitious, and why did you reference it? If the book is full of lies, why should I read it?
The book isn't full of lies. It's just intermixed with opinion. Garwood constantly interjects her opinion on what FE'ers "really" saw. Or what FE'ers "really" did. Or what their "real" motives were. But the bare facts are there.
-
I read the chapter relevant to this thread. Are you actually suggesting that what she claims Carpenter observed was according to her opinion?
Obviously, since he looked into the telescope and instantly saw that he had won. He even wrote a book about the experiment:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Water-not-Convex-Demonstrated-experiments/dp/B000WSMZQW
He claimed he won because the markers appeared to decreased in height, which he claimed to indicated a straight line angled downward, which is why he claimed to have won. This is clearly explained in the book you referenced which I quoted in this thread. However, since the markers and telescope were at the same height, the top of the markers should overlap on a flat earth. Carpenter's observation indicated the earth is round. Would you agree?
-
Obviously, since he looked into the telescope and instantly saw that he had won. He even wrote a book about the experiment:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Water-not-Convex-Demonstrated-experiments/dp/B000WSMZQW
Currently unavailable.
We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock.
Also, no comments or reviews listed. Unable to determine if Amazon has ever sold or plans on ever selling a copy. I'm not saying that there is anything sinister afoot. It just seems that this source is conveniently unavailable.
-
I read the chapter relevant to this thread. Are you actually suggesting that what she claims Carpenter observed was according to her opinion?
Obviously, since he looked into the telescope and instantly saw that he had won. He even wrote a book about the experiment:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Water-not-Convex-Demonstrated-experiments/dp/B000WSMZQW
He claimed he won because the markers appeared to decreased in height, which he claimed to indicated a straight line angled downward, which is why he claimed to have won. This is clearly explained in the book you referenced which I quoted in this thread. However, since the markers and telescope were at the same height, the top of the markers should overlap on a flat earth. Carpenter's observation indicated the earth is round. Would you agree?
"Light bends upwards" ...
"It's all a conspiracy" ...
"When I look out of my window I can see The Earth is flat" ...
Blah, blah, blah ...
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit ...
-
I read the chapter relevant to this thread. Are you actually suggesting that what she claims Carpenter observed was according to her opinion? How much of the chapter do you think is fictitious, and why did you reference it? If the book is full of lies, why should I read it?
It isn't full of lies, but if you read it closely, you will see that she does put a certain 'spin' on things. The facts are never tampered with, and for this reason it is an excellent resource for anyone interestd in the history of FET, but you need to be aware that her opinion does occasionally colour her description.
-
Please read the actual book. Garwood interjects her opinions as fact all throughout her work.
The book isn't full of lies. It's just intermixed with opinion. Garwood constantly interjects her opinion on what FE'ers "really" saw. Or what FE'ers "really" did. Or what their "real" motives were. But the bare facts are there.
Stating something as a fact which is not a fact is a lie. If she says Carpenter saw markers which appeared to decrease in height, then either she found a reliable account which indicated that, or she is full of shit. Which is it? Can the book be trusted or not?
-
It isn't full of lies, but if you read it closely, you will see that she does put a certain 'spin' on things. The facts are never tampered with, and for this reason it is an excellent resource for anyone interestd in the history of FET, but you need to be aware that her opinion does occasionally colour her description.
Uh huh. OK so is it fact that the court case was brought by Wallace against Hampden because Hampden started printing and distributing libelous leaflets about Wallace, and that Hapden was duely arrested and eventually ordered to pay damages which he managed to avoid paying by transfering his property to his son and declaring himself backrupt?
Or is it Christine Garwoods opinion?
Uh, is it a fact that this has nothing to do with what we're talking about? What is a fact is that you really need to visit this lin I keep giving you:
www.rif.org
www.hop.com is also good. Seriously, what I said is perfectly clear, so either take the time to read my posts or simply shut up.
-
No comment on the stated fact of what Carpenter observed?
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
Is this untrue? If so, then it is a lie, and the book is not a reliable source of information. If not, then how do you explain the markers appearing lower? Before you avoid answering the question yet again:
- The above quoted sentence is stated as a fact, regardless of "spin".
- His reaction to or interpretation of his observation is irrelevant.
- It is irrelevant how much lower the markers appeared below the cross-hair or each other, as any apparent height decrease from the first to second markers contradict a flat earth.
-
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.
The word I've bolded and underlined is key here. Only he can know what he saw. And frankly, you can suppose whatever you like. The fact remains that I have done nothing of the sort.
I have read the book myself, Garwood actually included the drawings of Carpenters observation. You can see for yourself what is meant by "somewhat".
-
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.
The word I've bolded and underlined is key here. Only he can know what he saw. And frankly, you can suppose whatever you like. The fact remains that I have done nothing of the sort.
I have read the book myself, Garwood actually included the drawings of Carpenters observation. You can see for yourself what is meant by "somewhat".
As I already said, how much the the markers appear below the cross-hair or each other is irrelevant. They're trying to avoid addressing the actual observation by arguing an irrelevant point.
Also, contrary to what NEEMAN says, they are disregarding this specific stated fact from Garwood's book because it contradicts their theory. However, the book is one of their most common resources, so I think it is safe to assume they treat stated facts which support their theory with much less skepticism. In other words, they "pick and choose the facts which seem to support [their] theory", as I said before.
-
I know, my comment was separate from your argument. I was addressing Neeman and Tom's point about not knowing what Carpenter saw through the telescope.
-
cdenley, you asked a question at the beginning of this article claiming what Tom Bishop argued was untrue and contradicted by your source. You asked for another source, and we satisfied you on that point. We're not picking or choosing facts. You asked:
In an unrelated thread, Tom Bishop claims that neither party had agreed on the outcome of the experiment, and the wager wasn't paid. Are there any reliable sources which contradict the article I linked to above?
And we have shown that this is exactly what happened. Now you're asking us a very different and very vague question:
Now that I have read such a detailed account of the wager, I would be interested in how FE'ers would interpret the result of the experiment. If you're not familiar with the result, you can read about it in the preview provided above.
My answer is that it was a long time ago, and to be honest, I'm not sure the experiment could prove anything either way. All current FE theories would predict the same results.
-
What result would you expect to see if the earth was round?
-
cdenley, you asked a question at the beginning of this article claiming what Tom Bishop argued was untrue and contradicted by your source. You asked for another source, and we satisfied you on that point. We're not picking or choosing facts. You asked:
In an unrelated thread, Tom Bishop claims that neither party had agreed on the outcome of the experiment, and the wager wasn't paid. Are there any reliable sources which contradict the article I linked to above?
And we have shown that this is exactly what happened. Now you're asking us a very different and very vague question:
Now that I have read such a detailed account of the wager, I would be interested in how FE'ers would interpret the result of the experiment. If you're not familiar with the result, you can read about it in the preview provided above.
My answer is that it was a long time ago, and to be honest, I'm not sure the experiment could prove anything either way. All current FE theories would predict the same results.
Yes, the point addressed in my original post was addressed. By the way, the contradiction was more than a claim, as I provided the article which you could have read for yourself. As I had indicated, once I read the reference you had given, I became curious about how a FE'er would explain the results. Do you insist that I start a new thread? It didn't seem too off-topic.
Since Rowbotham's Bedform Level experiment is often cited as evidence the earth is flat by FE'ers, then how could all FE theories predict these results? You don't all seem to believe in "bendy light", and that is the only explanation I have read so far. Also, last I checked, the official FET no longer accepted "bendy light".
-
My answer is that it was a long time ago, and to be honest, I'm not sure the experiment could prove anything either way. All current FE theories would predict the same results.
What does it matter how long ago it was? Current FE theory predicts that the far marker would appear below the closer one? Doesn't that contradict Rowbatham?
-
What does it matter how long ago it was? Current FE theory predicts that the far marker would appear below the closer one? Doesn't that contradict Rowbatham?
I'm not as big a fan of Rowbotham as some people are. I think he was a decent man who made a decent effort to prove that the Earth is flat, but I think he was off the mark on a number of things.
You don't all seem to believe in "bendy light", and that is the only explanation I have read so far. Also, last I checked, the official FET no longer accepted "bendy light".
I believe in the EA.
-
Fair enough, now that I know where you stand on that.
I have never seen any experimental data on EA that was independent of the earth being flat. From what do you base your belief of EA?
EDIT: I realize this could get very off topic, if you prefer I can post this in a new thread, as long as you are willing to respond.
-
Since Rowbotham's Bedform Level experiment is often cited as evidence the earth is flat by FE'ers, then how could all FE theories predict these results?
FET predicts the results just fine.
A woman named Lady Bount (http://www.zetetic.co.uk/zetetic.html) 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!".
How does your globe earth model explain those trials?
-
Fair enough, now that I know where you stand on that.
I have never seen any experimental data on EA that was independent of the earth being flat. From what do you base your belief of EA?
EDIT: I realize this could get very off topic, if you prefer I can post this in a new thread, as long as you are willing to respond.
To be perfectly honest, I'm simply not cut out to argue about the EA, so if you don't mind, I'd prefer not to- there are other people who are far more capable of doing so than I am. I'd probably mess it up.
-
Except that other experiment either contradicts the stated fact from your resource (Garwood's book), or Lady Bound had a superior mirage photographed. I've read about that photograph, but never actually seen it. Do you have a link handy?
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
Is this a lie or not? If not, how do you explain the results?
-
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
Is this a lie or not? If not, how do you explain the results?
Ok, seriously, that's either a very stupid or very philosophical question, and its not one I'm getting into here.
-
I never attacked EA, and I won't ask you to argue it. I just wanted to know what you base your belief off of.
-
I never attacked EA, and I won't ask you to argue it. I just wanted to know what you base your belief off of.
It just seems like a very reasonable explanation.
-
Ok, seriously, that's either a very stupid or very philosophical question, and its not one I'm getting into here.
You already gave me your explanation for the observed results (bendy light). Thanks by the way. That question was directed at Tom, since I don't believe he subscribes to the bendy light theory. Sorry if the post was confusing. He avoided answering the question by claiming that it was the opinion of Garwood. However, the sentence describing the observations was clearly stated as a fact. I'm trying to establish whether Tom accepts the stated fact from his book, or whether he thinks that Garwood's summary of Carpenter's observation was untrue. We need to establish this point before we can discuss the thread's topic further (Tom and I).
-
I never attacked EA, and I won't ask you to argue it. I just wanted to know what you base your belief off of.
It just seems like a very reasonable explanation.
You seem to reject the Bedford experiments alltogether, and by far that has been what most base their belief off of. At least according to my observation. Do you base your belief of FE the same way you base your belief of EA?
-
You seem to reject the Bedford experiments alltogether, and by far that has been what most base their belief off of. At least according to my observation. Do you base your belief of FE the same way you base your belief of EA?
Lets not turn this into a "why believe in FET" thread. I already have a thread for that.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29417.0
-
See this is different, since I have always understood Rowbatham as the reason for the belief in a flat earth. However in NEEMAN's case (correct me if I am wrong), he appears to have different reasons.
-
See this is different, since I have always understood Rowbatham as the reason for the belief in a flat earth. However in NEEMAN's case (correct me if I am wrong), he appears to have different reasons.
As indicated in the thread I linked to, if Rowbotham does not make them a believer, then the apparently flat piece of earth they see out their window does. I know you can't draw conclusions based on what you see out your window, and this has been debated in the relevant thread I linked to.
Now, to get back on topic, I found another source which confirms Carpenter's observations: Eccentric Lives and Peculiar Notions by John Michell.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZzDHPKxDkAwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0500013314&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=3
It also describes the other experiment Tom referred to. I would prefer to keep this thread on topic, though, unless you have the photograph (I can't find it).
-
NEEMAN already answered your question, Tom never will (I think it is against his programming).
-
I never attacked EA, and I won't ask you to argue it. I just wanted to know what you base your belief off of.
It just seems like a very reasonable explanation.
You seem to reject the Bedford experiments alltogether, and by far that has been what most base their belief off of. At least according to my observation. Do you base your belief of FE the same way you base your belief of EA?
Partly, but the main reason is slightly different. My realisation that the earth is probably flat (it should be noted that as a matter of principle I never discount the possiblity of anything, even a generally spherical earth) stemmed from a number of philosophical conclusions which I reached roughly a year ago. I must stress that my belief is not based on those conclusions; they merely helped me to approach all matters of logic and reason in a new way, and from this I came to the conclusion that the earth was probably flat. I hope you will forgive me for not expressing what those conclusions are and how I came to them, but I am currently trying to refine them to the point where I can incorporate them into a personal philosophical work, and until I have found the wording to express my ideas clearly and to my own satisfaction (a process which may take some years- I hope to have a draft by the time I am finished my degree, but even that is optimistic), I am not willing to express them at all. In summary, I want to collect and refine my thoughts before sharing them.
-
I never attacked EA, and I won't ask you to argue it. I just wanted to know what you base your belief off of.
It just seems like a very reasonable explanation.
You seem to reject the Bedford experiments alltogether, and by far that has been what most base their belief off of. At least according to my observation. Do you base your belief of FE the same way you base your belief of EA?
Partly, but the main reason is slightly different. My realisation that the earth is probably flat (it should be noted that as a matter of principle I never discount the possiblity of anything, even a generally spherical earth) stemmed from a number of philosophical conclusions which I reached roughly a year ago. I must stress that my belief is not based on those conclusions; they merely helped me to approach all matters of logic and reason in a new way, and from this I came to the conclusion that the earth was probably flat. I hope you will forgive me for not expressing what those conclusions are and how I came to them, but I am currently trying to refine them to the point where I can incorporate them into a personal philosophical work, and until I have found the wording to express my ideas clearly and to my own satisfaction (a process which may take some years- I hope to have a draft by the time I am finished my degree, but even that is optimistic), I am not willing to express them at all. In summary, I want to collect and refine my thoughts before sharing them.
I have no choice but to take your word on this, though I am disappointed because this leaves you and me with nothing to debate regarding flat earth theory. You do not put forth any argument in support of a flat earth to critique and examine, and the existing arguments for flat earth you appear for the most part to reject.
-
Given that mirages are capable of bending light either up or down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage
Can we trust these kinds of surveying experiments at all?
(If The Earth is flat and light bends upwards then it will appear round, and if The World is round and light bends down then it will appear flat.)
-
Given that mirages are capable of bending light either up or down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage
Can we trust these kinds of surveying experiments at all?
(If The Earth is flat and light bends upwards then it will appear round, and if The World is round and light bends down then it will appear flat.)
I don't think an inferior mirage can cause a stable image of a sinking ship or marker.
-
Given that mirages are capable of bending light either up or down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage
Can we trust these kinds of surveying experiments at all?
(If The Earth is flat and light bends upwards then it will appear round, and if The World is round and light bends down then it will appear flat.)
I don't think an inferior mirage can cause a stable image of a sinking ship or marker.
But a single-frame, snap-shot photo might be misleading?
Or perhaps a mirage always gives very obvious distortions?
-
Given that mirages are capable of bending light either up or down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage
Can we trust these kinds of surveying experiments at all?
(If The Earth is flat and light bends upwards then it will appear round, and if The World is round and light bends down then it will appear flat.)
I don't think an inferior mirage can cause a stable image of a sinking ship or marker.
But a single-frame, snap-shot photo might be misleading?
Or perhaps a mirage always gives very obvious distortions?
An inferior mirage is always distorted, as far as I know. Wouldn't the light be moving horizontally across the flat earth? I don't think this can cause the sharp change in temperature required to bend light.
-
What, if anything, did we conclude about the (historical) Bedford Level Experiment / Wager?
-
What, if anything, did we conclude about the (historical) Bedford Level Experiment / Wager?
It is strong evidence that the earth has curvature which would be consistent with RET. It is stronger historical evidence than Rowbotham's experiment since Carpenter's observations contradicted his own theory, which eliminated the possibility of bias. The reluctance of any FE'er to actually address these observations seems similar to Carpenter denying the fact that his observations would indicate the earth has curvature. They ignore inconsistencies with their belief.
-
A woman named Lady Bount (http://www.zetetic.co.uk/zetetic.html) 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.
Pardon me, but do I see that correctly (I mean 20 feet below part)? As the earth's surface curves at approximately 8 inches per mile (RE theory) I get 4 feet below horizon if watched at earth level and about 6 feet below horizon if observerd at the height of 2 feet. And if atmosperic refraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction) comes to play then maybe its possible to see all that stuff...
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).
I agree.
The curvature of the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in.
If first mile and a half gives 18 inch curvature then how the remaining four and a half mile gives 162 inch curvature instead of 54 inch?
If my calculations are wrong, then please correct me.
-
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).
I agree.
The curvature of the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in.
If first mile and a half gives 18 inch curvature then how the remaining four and a half mile gives 162 inch curvature instead of 54 inch?
If my calculations are wrong, then please correct me.
I think that you're confusing the curvature of the earth with the slope of a line .
-
...As the earth's surface curves at approximately 8 inches per mile (RE theory)
Really, RET math gives us an eight inch drop per mile? I never bothered to figure this out myself (never had a reason), but I never would have thought it to be that much.
If this is the case, couldn't one simply construct a simple apparatus consisting of a long tube say an eighth of a mile long (this is only about two football fields or so, right?) with a center tap. With both ends and the center tap held up in the air a bit, fill the tube with water. The level of the water in the three tube ends can be lined up with each other and sighted with a scope to check all three levels in the tube ends.
According to RET, the water level in the center tap should be a bit higher than the two ends, right? And likewise, according to FET, the three levels should all line up exactly.
Am I explaining this well enough?
-
I think that you're confusing the curvature of the earth with the slope of a line .
yep. sorry for mixing them up and thanks for pointing that out.
-
...As the earth's surface curves at approximately 8 inches per mile (RE theory)
Really, RET math gives us an eight inch drop per mile? I never bothered to figure this out myself (never had a reason), but I never would have thought it to be that much.
No, that's 8 inches for the first mile. The rate of drop increases for each additional mile.
-
...As the earth's surface curves at approximately 8 inches per mile (RE theory)
Really, RET math gives us an eight inch drop per mile? I never bothered to figure this out myself (never had a reason), but I never would have thought it to be that much.
No, that's 8 inches for the first mile. The rate of drop increases for each additional mile.
Of course, my bad. It's a curve. So an eighth of a mile would not be one inch as I figured then obiously. Still, my overall idea would be valid, I think.