It's called behind the curve. It's an hour and a half long and it stars mark Sargeant.I've not seen the video but there is this official trailer:
Okay. So I hope this isn't crap.
Bob Knodel & His Ring Laser Gyroscope Experiment by FlatEarth.ws | Jeranism proves the globe..; "That's interesting" by The Plane Truth |
Bob Knodel of globebusters is a LIAR and a SATANIST and getting THE BOOT Beyond Flat Earth! by Awake Souls |
I like Sargeant personally, especially in the talks I've had with him. I'll likely see it, though I won't be happy about it as I'm sure they did not treat us fairly - especially given Bishop's scathing review.If you like Mark Sargent then you'd better put him straight on the flat-earth map.
Al Biruni: One of the Greatest Pioneers of Science (https://themuslimtimes.info/2012/01/01/al-biruni-the-great-pioneer-of-science/)Here is more on Al-Biruni's Measuring the earth's radius 1000 years ago (https://www.thinkib.net/mathhlsl/blog/19923/measuring-the-earths-radius-1000-years-ago)
The early Muslims duplicated the technique of Eratosthenes, to measure the circumference of the earth, 200 years before Al Biruni. But, that technique had a basic flaw. Al Biruni came up with a better idea, to measure the circumference of the earth, based on trigonometry.
(https://themuslimtimesdotinfodotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/lunar_eclipse_al-biruni1-e1365410091459.jpg)
An illustration from Biruni’s Persian book. It shows different phases of the moon.
It's not just unfair treatment. Behind the Curve contains fraud in how it depicts the Jeran experiment. If I had the power to submit announcements on this website I would one for this website as well, with a title of "Behind the Curve: Scientific Fraud". Netflix is bringing many people into the discussions and they just need to know.So would you care to show how Jeran Campanella's experiment did go down?
That is clearly not how the experiment went down. It is pretty pathetic that anyone would need to resort to fraud to support their model.
On the Jeran experiment itself, we can only characterize its depiction in the film as clear scientific fraud. We read the following from an account of a self-proclaimed Round Earth proponent who was present at the event (https://www.reddit.com/r/flatEarth/comments/7sc4w5/about_the_cringiest_thing_youll_see_today/dt5gzyr/) [ archive link ] :
"In about 10 tries, with the light held waist-high at 17 feet above water we never clearly saw it through the center panel hole. On one of the attempts, maybe the fourth of ten, we clearly saw it when Enrique lifted it over his head. On that one, Jeran asked him to raise it and lower it a few times, and it would appear when Enrique raised it and vanish when he lowered it. That was the "gasp" moment. Jeran said, "that's interesting." I noted it was the prediction for a round Earth. When they repeated the whole procedure, it did not happen again. I suggested having Enrique move from side-to-side a bit when occluded by the panel, in case it was lateral alignment that was off. Jeran accepted the suggestion, but it made no observable difference."
Of about ten observations, the fourth observation was the only one where the event occurred, and the only one which was published in the documentary. Nine of the ten trials did not see the event. The above description of inconsistency suggests the presence of curving light rays in the experiment—refraction. The manner in which the experiment was portrayed in the film by the producers further suggests dishonesty. Had the results of all ten trials been honestly presented it would have, assuredly, been a far different segment.
The documentary does not show the times the event did not occur. Misrepresentation of that nature is called scientific fraud.I have to agree here.
From the tfes.org main page:QuoteOn the Jeran experiment itself, we can only characterize its depiction in the film as clear scientific fraud. Well read the following from an account of a self-proclaimed Round Earth proponent who was present at the event (https://www.reddit.com/r/flatEarth/comments/7sc4w5/about_the_cringiest_thing_youll_see_today/dt5gzyr/) [ archive link ] :
"In about 10 tries, with the light held waist-high at 17 feet above water we never clearly saw it through the center panel hole. On one of the attempts, maybe the fourth of ten, we clearly saw it when Enrique lifted it over his head. On that one, Jeran asked him to raise it and lower it a few times, and it would appear when Enrique raised it and vanish when he lowered it. That was the "gasp" moment. Jeran said, "that's interesting." I noted it was the prediction for a round Earth. When they repeated the whole procedure, it did not happen again. I suggested having Enrique move from side-to-side a bit when occluded by the panel, in case it was lateral alignment that was off. Jeran accepted the suggestion, but it made no observable difference."
Of about ten observations, the fourth observation was the only one where the event occurred, and the only one which was published in the documentary. Nine of the ten trials did not see the event. The above description of inconsistency suggests the presence of curving light rays in the experiment—refraction. The manner in which the experiment was portrayed in the film by the producers further suggests dishonesty. Had the results of all ten trials been honestly presented it would have, assuredly, been a far different segment.
The documentary does not show the times the event did not occur. Misrepresentation of that nature is called scientific fraud.
From the tfes.org main page:QuoteOn the Jeran experiment itself, we can only characterize its depiction in the film as clear scientific fraud. Well read the following from an account of a self-proclaimed Round Earth proponent who was present at the event (https://www.reddit.com/r/flatEarth/comments/7sc4w5/about_the_cringiest_thing_youll_see_today/dt5gzyr/) [ archive link ] :
"In about 10 tries, with the light held waist-high at 17 feet above water we never clearly saw it through the center panel hole. On one of the attempts, maybe the fourth of ten, we clearly saw it when Enrique lifted it over his head. On that one, Jeran asked him to raise it and lower it a few times, and it would appear when Enrique raised it and vanish when he lowered it. That was the "gasp" moment. Jeran said, "that's interesting." I noted it was the prediction for a round Earth. When they repeated the whole procedure, it did not happen again. I suggested having Enrique move from side-to-side a bit when occluded by the panel, in case it was lateral alignment that was off. Jeran accepted the suggestion, but it made no observable difference."
Of about ten observations, the fourth observation was the only one where the event occurred, and the only one which was published in the documentary. Nine of the ten trials did not see the event. The above description of inconsistency suggests the presence of curving light rays in the experiment—refraction. The manner in which the experiment was portrayed in the film by the producers further suggests dishonesty. Had the results of all ten trials been honestly presented it would have, assuredly, been a far different segment.
The documentary does not show the times the event did not occur. Misrepresentation of that nature is called scientific fraud.
In the end we have the word of the documentary makers vs Jeran and some bloke on reddit. We'll probably never know exactly what happened, and that's exactly why real science is done with a more formal structure.This is true, too. More visibility into what happened would be nice if it is claimed we only saw one side of the thing.
In the end we have the word of the documentary makers vs Jeran and some bloke on reddit. We'll probably never know exactly what happened, and that's exactly why real science is done with a more formal structure.This is true, too. More visibility into what happened would be nice if it is claimed we only saw one side of the thing.
Still, the playing field should be even for all participants.
Fraud is fraud. It was depicting a scientific subject. The subject was dishonestly presented. It seems pretty sad and desperate that anyone would need to resort to, or defend, fraud to support their position.
Fraud is fraud. It was depicting a scientific subject. The subject was dishonestly presented. It seems pretty sad and desperate that anyone would need to resort to, or defend, fraud to support their position.
It's no more fraud than The Bishop Experiment.
What about the countless other people all over YouTube who do report seeing convexity at such distances?Fraud is fraud. It was depicting a scientific subject. The subject was dishonestly presented. It seems pretty sad and desperate that anyone would need to resort to, or defend, fraud to support their position.
It's no more fraud than The Bishop Experiment.
Wrong. It is the same water convexity experiment that has been performed for over 150 years, by Rowbotham, this society, and by people all over YouTube, who report seeing no convexity at such distances and further.
Fraud is fraud. It was depicting a scientific subject. The subject was dishonestly presented. It seems pretty sad and desperate that anyone would need to resort to, or defend, fraud to support their position.
It's no more fraud than The Bishop Experiment.
Wrong. It is the same water convexity experiment that has been performed for over 150 years, by this society, and by people all over YouTube, who report seeing no convexity at such distances and further.
Evidence has been provided that BTC's depiction of the experiment was fraudulent, and you have no words other than to double down on your support of fraud with "well, how about THIS". You apparently are unable to justify the fraud that takes place in the film. Pretty terrible that anyone would continue to support it.
What about the countless other people all over YouTube who do report seeing convexity at such distances?
Links to recent experiments please. Seriously, you can't explain satellites or the path of the sun.Fraud is fraud. It was depicting a scientific subject. The subject was dishonestly presented. It seems pretty sad and desperate that anyone would need to resort to, or defend, fraud to support their position.
It's no more fraud than The Bishop Experiment.
Wrong. It is the same water convexity experiment that has been performed for over 150 years, by Rowbotham, this society, and by people all over YouTube, who report seeing no convexity at such distances and further.
Evidence has been provided that BTC's depiction of the experiment was fraudulent, and you have no words other than to double down on your support of fraud with "well, how about THIS". You apparently are unable to justify the fraud that takes place in the film. Pretty terrible that anyone would continue to support it.
Now we are talking about satellites? What does that have to do with the fraud in the documentary that you guys are spreading all over the place? It is fraud and you guys should just own up to it.Experiment details please.
What about the countless other people all over YouTube who do report seeing convexity at such distances?
That's fine. Rowbotham reported sinking as well in some environments, which is why the Bedford Canal and it's narrow passageways was selected.
No one is calling those people liars. Rowbotham calls into question the validity of Aristotile's first proof that the earth is a globe based on the inconsistency of the effect.
It is fairly well established that people can and have seen further than what RET should allow.
Now we are talking about satellites? What does that have to do with the fraud in the documentary that you guys are spreading all over the place? It is fraud and you guys should just own up to it.
Bob says that he never touched the device and Jeran says that the Behind The Curve documentary team was given the role of documenting the whole experiment with video and then they refused to provide him with a copy.
Bob says that he never touched the device and Jeran says that the Behind The Curve documentary team was given the role of documenting the whole experiment with video and then they refused to provide him with a copy.
I don't think it matters whether he touched the device or not. He seemed to speak with tremendous knowledge of the device and about the experiment itself. He sure seemed like an authority in the movie.
And Jeran, all words.
Both could provide evidence but choose not to even when pressed by the community.
Bob says that he never touched the device and Jeran says that the Behind The Curve documentary team was given the role of documenting the whole experiment with video and then they refused to provide him with a copy.
I don't think it matters whether he touched the device or not. He seemed to speak with tremendous knowledge of the device and about the experiment itself. He sure seemed like an authority in the movie.
And Jeran, all words.
Both could provide evidence but choose not to even when pressed by the community.
What are you talking about? We do have evidence that the depiction of the experiment was fraudulent.
It's not just unfair treatment. Behind the Curve contains fraud in how it depicts the Jeran experiment. If I had the power to submit announcements on this website I would write one for this website as well, with a title of "Behind the Curve: Scientific Fraud". Netflix is bringing many people into the discussions and they just need to know.Write one up and I'll post it here and on our facebook page.
That is clearly not how the experiment went down. It is pretty pathetic that they would need to resort to fraud to support their model.
Bob says that he never touched the device...But Bob did say that the results obtained by the people that did touch the device were a serious problem for FET.
Bob says that he never touched the device and Jeran says that the Behind The Curve documentary team was given the role of documenting the whole experiment with video and then they refused to provide him with a copy.
What about the countless other people all over YouTube who do report seeing convexity at such distances?
That's fine. Rowbotham reported sinking as well in some environments, which is why the Bedford Canal and it's narrow passageways was selected.
No one is calling those people liars. Rowbotham calls into question the validity of Aristotile's first proof that the earth is a globe based on the inconsistency of the effect.
It is fairly well established that people can and have seen further than what RET should allow.