The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: iwanttobelieve on May 25, 2012, 05:30:11 PM
-
We all know Rowbotham was the greatest Zetetic of the 19th century.
And Master Willmore is fast becoming the front leader for the 21st.
I think this man, has to be the #1 for the 20th. He truly lives up to his namesake. Amazing.
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqILAIsBP3AYA88_7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBvajQ0N2VoBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDVjEyNw--?p=amazing+randi&vid=0BD598DA6651EF5EC10C0BD598DA6651EF5EC10C&l=&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fvideos%2Fthumbnail.aspx%3Fq%3D4699167247892650%26id%3D162adfc6c93ad03e58389174aeb2fe5c%26bid%3DDMFe71Fm2pjVCw%26bn%3DLargeThumb%26url%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.youtube.com%252fwatch%253fv%253dc0Z7KeNCi7g&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dc0Z7KeNCi7g&tit=James+Randi%26%2339%3Bs+fiery+takedown+of+psychic+fraud&c=29&sigr=11acd5fbf&
-
But James Randi is still alive in the 21st century. You'll have to organize a competition between Jim and Master Wil to be sure.
-
Don't bring up James Randi. That SOB owes Tom a million dollars and refuses to pay up.
-
Don't bring up James Randi. That SOB owes Tom a million dollars and refuses to pay up.
He owes me money also.
-
Don't bring up James Randi. That SOB owes Tom a million dollars and refuses to pay up.
Aww. :(
I think iwanttobelieve needs to make a "James Randi/Other SOBs Appreciation thread".
-
why Does Randi owe you money?
hundreds have sued him and no one has won.
-
Tom thinks that gravity meets the criteria of Randi's million-dollar challenge.
-
James Randi is a spherical fundamentalist. I suggest that if the above allegations are true that Tom Bishop take legal action against him just as the great John Hampden fought a legal battle against the globularist mystic Alfred Russell Wallace. Hampden was imprisoned for his beliefs, and is a true Zetetic hero.
-
the Amazing Randi gives out 1,000,000$ US to anyone that can conclusively prove in the supernatural.
What is supernatural about mythical gravity?
-
I'm curious as to the metrics used to qualify someone as the 'greatest zetetic' - care to go into more detail?
-
James Randi is a spherical fundamentalist. I suggest that if the above allegations are true that Tom Bishop take legal action against him just as the great John Hampden fought a legal battle against the globularist mystic Alfred Russell Wallace. Hampden was imprisoned for his beliefs, and is a true Zetetic hero.
Hampden was imprisoned for making death threats against Wallace.
-
Hampden was imprisoned for making death threats against Wallace.
You probably haven't read the official court transcript.
http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/LA313_Commercial_Law/Cases/Hampden_v_Walsh.html
That's right. The court found in favour of flat earther Hampden, and ordered swindlers Walsh and Wallace to give him his money back.
Now if you have a court transcript in favour of Wallace I'd be glad to see it. Wiki seems to be very shady on the fact that Wallace did not win the bet and a court found in Hampden's favour after he tried to rob the FEr of his money.
-
So your interpretation of the above document is that the court believed that Wallace had lost he wager and that the Earth is Flat?
-
Hampden was imprisoned for making death threats against Wallace.
You probably haven't read the official court transcript.
http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/LA313_Commercial_Law/Cases/Hampden_v_Walsh.html (http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/LA313_Commercial_Law/Cases/Hampden_v_Walsh.html)
That's right. The court found in favour of flat earther Hampden, and ordered swindlers Walsh and Wallace to give him his money back.
The court decided that the the challenge that Hampden made constituded an illegal wager was therefore entitled to get his money back. However, this does not change the fact that Hampden did unlawfully harass and threaten Walace's life on numerous occasions.
-
Thork, that case had nothing to do with who won the bet.
EDIT: Markjo beat me to it.
-
Thork talks about Wallace trying to swindle Hampden when even the court knew better. The court knew that Hampden had no intention of ever paying anyone.
The object of the plaintiff in offering the challenge he gave was not to ascertain a scientific fact, but to establish his own view in a marked and triumphant manner. To use a common phrase, his object was to back his own opinion. No part of the money staked was to go to the party by whom the experiment was to be made.
-
We have 3 accounts of the Bedford level experiment.
1) Rowbotham found the earth to be flat
2) Hampden and Wallace had inconclusive results and a legal battle which the FErs won.
3) Lady Blount found the earth to be flat.
Why do RErs insist on always going to the one that was inconclusive? there are two perfectly good other accounts. The Bedford Level experiment never ever proved the earth was round. Ever. But twice showed it to be flat. How desperate that RErs would try to pick the bones of the inconclusive result and try to sniff out some conclusive meaning and hold that up as the real result.
Twice the earth was proved flat. Once results were inconclusive.
So 2 for FE, 0 for RE. 1 result nullified. Arguing the earth is round seems an exercise in semantics when faced with information like this.
That's all you need to know about the Bedford level experiments. Let me leave you with this quote.
Rowbotham’s triumphant result stood until 1870, when naturalist, surveyor, and obvious crackpot Alfred Russel Wallace attempted to disprove the result. His endeavor ended only in a heated argument — and eventually a libel suit against the “planists.” (Round-earthers are clearly desperate men.)
-
James stated that Hampden was imprisoned for his belief in a flat earth. Hampden was actually imprisoned for libel, harrassment and threatening behaviour against Wallace, including sending a letter to Wallace's wife stating that her husband's head was going to be smashed to a pulp. Clearly the actions of a deranged man.
So why do you keep referring to the results of the Bedford Level Experiment instead?
-
Because its obvious that Wallace was trying to cheat Hampden. A court said as much. The other two results prove that can only be the case. And in seeking justice poor Hampden was driven to infuriation at the bone-headedness of globularists. I often want to smash the heads of round earthers to a pulp, myself. They are very annoying.
Mrs. Wallace,
Madam — If your infernal thief of a husband is brought home some day on a hurdle, with every bone in his head smashed to pulp, you will know the reason. Do you tell him from me he is a lying infernal thief, and as sure as his name is Wallace he never dies in his bed.
You must be a miserable wretch to be obliged to live with a convicted felon. Do not think or let him think I have done with him.
John Hampden
-
Did you read the court transcript that you posted? There was no evidence that Wallace was trying to cheat Hampden. The court case was decided on precedents set in other cases, and the legality of the wager that Hampden himself proposed and advertised in a newspaper.
-
Hampden's psychosis is likely due to phosphorus poisoning.
-
Because its obvious that Wallace was trying to cheat Hampden. A court said as much.
Actually, the court said pretty much the opposite:
http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/LA313_Commercial_Law/Cases/Hampden_v_Walsh.html
The object of the plaintiff in offering the challenge he gave was not to ascertain a scientific fact, but to establish his own view in a marked and triumphant manner. To use a common phrase, his object was to back his own opinion. No part of the money staked was to go to the party by whom the experiment was to be made.