The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Zogg on October 18, 2011, 05:49:36 AM

Title: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Zogg on October 18, 2011, 05:49:36 AM
According to the FAQ, the whole FET is based on two main arguments:

I already created a topic (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51323.0) which disproves the first argument. This topic is about the second argument.

So, some 19th century inventor claimed that earth is flat. On the other side, space agencies claim that the earth is round. Please tell me : Why should I believe Mister Rowbotham  rather than every manager, scientist, technician or astronaut who ever worked at NASA, ESA, ROSCOSMOS or any other space agency ?
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Thork on October 18, 2011, 06:24:07 AM
Dr Rowbotham was the founder of Zetetic astronomy. His methodology by starting again from the perspective of inquiry is flawless. One need only read his book ENaG to understand and be won over by his reasoning. Dr Rowbotham is the man who provided us with many of the tools needed to lift the lid on the conspiracy.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Zogg on October 18, 2011, 07:25:00 AM
Yes, I'm aware that you believe that Mister Rowbotham is right and that thousands of modern scientists are either wrong or liars. But why ? The only answer you have given so far is "Because he is right". It's the same as your conclusion that the earth is flat because it is flat.

One need only read his book ENaG to understand and be won over by his reasoning.

I have read parts of his book (here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za02.htm)) and I was far from being "won over" by his so-called reasoning. I found it full of faulty reasoning, anecdotical evidence,  unproven claims and elided problems. Not more and not less than any other pseudo-science botch.

(Of course, you will argue that I'm wrong about Mister Rowbotham  because I have been brain-washed by your NASA conspiracy, that the NASA conspiracy must exist because the earth is flat, and that the earth is flat because Mister Rowbotham said so. Perfect circular reasoning.)
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 18, 2011, 07:55:13 AM
Yes, I'm aware that you believe that Mister Rowbotham is right and that thousands of modern scientists are either wrong or liars. But why ? The only answer you have given so far is "Because he is right". It's the same as your conclusion that the earth is flat because it is flat.

Rowbotham's experiments and studies have been repeated numerous times.

The theories of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, et all, are all easily refuted. Earth Not a Globe goes through why they are mistaken and skewed.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Crustinator on October 18, 2011, 08:00:20 AM
Dr Rowbotham was an excellent man who excelled in everything he attempted, including medicine. When he played golf it is recorded that he usually scored at least 4 hole-in-ones per round.

Why should we doubt such a great man?
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 18, 2011, 09:16:59 AM
Dr Rowbotham was the founder of Zetetic astronomy. His methodology by starting again from the perspective of inquiry is flawless. One need only read his book ENaG to understand and be won over by his reasoning. Dr Rowbotham is the man who provided us with many of the tools needed to lift the lid on the conspiracy.

Rowbotham invented zeteticism in order to counter claims from his contemporaries about his reasoning not being scientifically founded.  When people said "But science shows us this" he countered with "But zentetics shows it is not true". 

I am not trying to disrespect Rowbotham, but after reading ENaG, his theory has so many holes that he had to invint a new kind of science to try to fill in the missing facts.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: jraffield1 on October 18, 2011, 12:41:30 PM
Yes, I'm aware that you believe that Mister Rowbotham is right and that thousands of modern scientists are either wrong or liars. But why ? The only answer you have given so far is "Because he is right". It's the same as your conclusion that the earth is flat because it is flat.

Rowbotham's experiments and studies have been repeated numerous times.

And each time there were repeated, the results were different.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Tausami on October 18, 2011, 01:40:29 PM
Yes, I'm aware that you believe that Mister Rowbotham is right and that thousands of modern scientists are either wrong or liars. But why ? The only answer you have given so far is "Because he is right". It's the same as your conclusion that the earth is flat because it is flat.

Rowbotham's experiments and studies have been repeated numerous times.

And each time there were repeated, the results were different.

Please provide evidence fir your outrageous claim.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 18, 2011, 02:16:49 PM
Rowbotham invented zeteticism
Incorrect.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 18, 2011, 02:26:21 PM
Rowbotham invented zeteticism
Incorrect.

Wow.  Thank you for sharing your knowledge and wisdom with us.  I wish I could produce such thought provoking posts such as "Incorrect".
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Crustinator on October 18, 2011, 04:15:39 PM
Rowbotham invented the internet, but because he was a flat earth believer his ideas were hushed up for many years.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 18, 2011, 04:19:37 PM
Everyone knows Al Gore invented the internet.   ::)
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 18, 2011, 04:30:51 PM
Rowbotham invented zeteticism
Incorrect.

Then you are calling Thork a liar.


Then your question is about Zeteticism. It is a form of investigation based on inquiry and was established along with the modern Flat Earth Society by Dr Samuel Rowbotham in 1849.

Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: jraffield1 on October 18, 2011, 05:40:22 PM
Yes, I'm aware that you believe that Mister Rowbotham is right and that thousands of modern scientists are either wrong or liars. But why ? The only answer you have given so far is "Because he is right". It's the same as your conclusion that the earth is flat because it is flat.

Rowbotham's experiments and studies have been repeated numerous times.

And each time there were repeated, the results were different.

Please provide evidence fir your outrageous claim.


[evidence]
In the year 1870, Alfred Russel Wallace repeated the Bedford level experiment and concluded that the Earth is round.
[/evidence]
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 18, 2011, 05:42:54 PM
Yes, I'm aware that you believe that Mister Rowbotham is right and that thousands of modern scientists are either wrong or liars. But why ? The only answer you have given so far is "Because he is right". It's the same as your conclusion that the earth is flat because it is flat.

Rowbotham's experiments and studies have been repeated numerous times.

And each time there were repeated, the results were different.

Please provide evidence fir your outrageous claim.


[evidence]
In the year 1870, Alfred Russel Wallace repeated the Bedford level experiment and concluded that the Earth is round.
[/evidence]

Ouch!  That hurts.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Thork on October 19, 2011, 02:44:29 AM
Wallace cheated and colluded with the 'judges' of the experiment. In 1876, three judges of the Queen's bench ruled in Hampden's favour and arbitrator Walsh was ordered to return Hampden's money.

You may read the entire official court transcript here (http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/LA313_Commercial_Law/Cases/Hampden_v_Walsh.html)

The FE'r successfully sued as a result of that experiment.

So

Rowbotham - Found earth flat
Wallace - Result nulled by court of law
Lady Blount - Found earth flat.

The only "ouch that hurts" is for RErs who don't know much about the subject. Those that do would avoid like the plague.

Bedford Level experiments only ever proved earth flat.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Tausami on October 19, 2011, 02:54:31 AM
Also, read ENaG
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: jraffield1 on October 19, 2011, 12:05:20 PM
Also, read ENaG

ENaG is outdated and the science used to prove that the Earth is flat is disproven daily.

For example, I have successfully debunked UA in this thread http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51318.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51318.0)
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2011, 01:28:43 PM
Wallace cheated and colluded with the 'judges' of the experiment. In 1876, three judges of the Queen's bench ruled in Hampden's favour and arbitrator Walsh was ordered to return Hampden's money.

You may read the entire official court transcript here (http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/LA313_Commercial_Law/Cases/Hampden_v_Walsh.html)

The FE'r successfully sued as a result of that experiment.

I read the transcript and found no mention of the judges concluding that Hampden cheated.  The money was returned because the court ruled that the wager itself was null and void.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Thork on October 19, 2011, 01:34:31 PM
So no one won the bet ... it was null and void.

You've been getting beaten up in the upper fora as of late. You might need a rest to recharge your comprehension skills.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: NTheGreat on October 19, 2011, 01:45:47 PM
I've never understood the obsession of what the outcome of the bet was. It's much easier to just look at the outcome of the experiment itself, rather than what either side said or did about it.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Tausami on October 19, 2011, 01:55:42 PM
I've never understood the obsession of what the outcome of the bet was. It's much easier to just look at the outcome of the experiment itself, rather than what either side said or did about it.

Not really, because an unbiased jury of their peers said that Wallace cheated.

Also, not to use an ad Hominem, but A.R. Wallace is also the guy who is the reason evolution isn't more widely accepted, proposed that theory about canals on Mars, and started the anti-vaccination campaign.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Other_controversies
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: rin112 on October 19, 2011, 02:24:59 PM
So no one won the bet ... it was null and void.
The bet, not the result.
You might need a rest to recharge your comprehension skills.
You too.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Tausami on October 19, 2011, 02:34:28 PM
So no one won the bet ... it was null and void.
The bet, not the reslt
Not really, because an unbiased jury of their peers said that Wallace cheated.

www.rif.org
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 19, 2011, 03:42:28 PM

Not really, because an unbiased jury of their peers said that Wallace cheated.

Also, not to use an ad Hominem, but A.R. Wallace is also the guy who is the reason evolution isn't more widely accepted, proposed that theory about canals on Mars, and started the anti-vaccination campaign.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Other_controversies

You should read better Wikipedia:

About Wallace so-called cheating:
"The judge for the wager, the editor of Field magazine, declared Wallace the winner, but Hampden refused to accept the result. He sued Wallace and launched a campaign, which persisted for several years, of writing letters to various publications and to organisations of which Wallace was a member denouncing him as a swindler and a thief. Wallace won multiple libel suits against Hampden, but the resulting litigation cost Wallace more than the amount of the wager and the controversy frustrated him for years"

About the canals on Mars:
"Wallace wrote the short book Is Mars Habitable? to criticise the claims made by Percival Lowell that there were Martian canals built by intelligent beings. "
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Thork on October 19, 2011, 03:51:25 PM
You should read better Wikipedia:

About Wallace so-called cheating:
"The judge for the wager, the editor of Field magazine, declared Wallace the winner, but Hampden refused to accept the result. He sued Wallace and launched a campaign, which persisted for several years, of writing letters to various publications and to organisations of which Wallace was a member denouncing him as a swindler and a thief. Wallace won multiple libel suits against Hampden, but the resulting litigation cost Wallace more than the amount of the wager and the controversy frustrated him for years"
I just know all the history as I have read dozens of sources. I linked a source before. Hampden sued Walsh. Not Wallace. He susccessfully sued the arbitrator for the amount. He won. The arbitration sucked.

About the canals on Mars:
"Wallace wrote the short book Is Mars Habitable? to criticise the claims made by Percival Lowell that there were Martian canals built by intelligent beings. "
How could anyone get trolled that hard? Wallace was a noob.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 19, 2011, 03:53:41 PM
Yo hae to do better than that to convive that he was a noob.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2011, 04:04:56 PM
So no one won the bet ... it was null and void.

You've been getting beaten up in the upper fora as of late. You might need a rest to recharge your comprehension skills.

A null and void bet does not mean that Hampden (who wouldn't even look through the theodolite) was right about the shape of the earth. 
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Thork on October 19, 2011, 04:08:02 PM
No. It means that the only instance where a rounder earther proved earth round with the Bedford level experiment, actually turned out to be because the arbitrator was friends with the round earther. (Wallace even paid Walsh's court costs for him).

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.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 19, 2011, 04:08:09 PM
By the way, why should Robothm texts be sacred texts?
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2011, 04:23:00 PM
No. It means that the only instance where a rounder earther proved earth round with the Bedford level experiment, actually turned out to be because the arbitrator was friends with the round earther. (Wallace even paid Walsh's court costs for him).

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.

The wager was nullified, not the results of the experiment.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Thork on October 19, 2011, 04:29:59 PM
The wager was nullified, because the arbitrator was no good at arbitrating. Therefore you will understand why we are not interested in that arbitrator's verdict.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 19, 2011, 04:38:37 PM
Aren't there more recent experiments (a bit more reliable)?
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: NTheGreat on October 19, 2011, 05:16:05 PM
Not really, because an unbiased jury of their peers said that Wallace cheated.

Someone else said Wallace cheated? There's plenty of stuff about the wager being void, but nothing about Wallace actually cheating.

It also seems odd that Wallace would be the one to cheat, given that it was, as far as I know, Hampden who designed the experiment, chose the location and chose the time.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Tausami on October 19, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
Not really, because an unbiased jury of their peers said that Wallace cheated.

Someone else said Wallace cheated? There's plenty of stuff about the wager being void, but nothing about Wallace actually cheating.

It also seems odd that Wallace would be the one to cheat, given that it was, as far as I know, Hampden who designed the experiment, chose the location and chose the time.

Wallace took up the experiment because he was desperate for the money, and the court mentioned made Wallace give Hampton his money back. We have the proceedings somewhere on the site if you want to see them.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2011, 07:26:12 PM
The wager was nullified, because the arbitrator was no good at arbitrating. Therefore you will understand why we are not interested in that arbitrator's verdict.

Then you agree that Hampden had to weasle out of the wager because he couldn't disprove Wallace's conclusion?   Now we're getting somewher.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Thork on October 20, 2011, 01:33:22 AM
The arbitrator did such a poor job of over seeing the experiment, a court decided that the arbitrator himself was liable for the costs.  It shows how underhand Wallace and Walsh were.

If the court would not take Walsh's word over Hampden's, why would I? Walsh has been proven to be of untrustworthy character. His verdict means diddly squat. There are two other experiments. We can look to those for an answer.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: NTheGreat on October 20, 2011, 05:40:49 AM
Wallace took up the experiment because he was desperate for the money, and the court mentioned made Wallace give Hampton his money back. We have the proceedings somewhere on the site if you want to see them.

Assuming that you are talking about the document linked to previously in this topic, there are two main issues I have with it:
Unless there's another document somewhere which everyone is talking about instead.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Tausami on October 20, 2011, 12:30:49 PM
Wallace took up the experiment because he was desperate for the money, and the court mentioned made Wallace give Hampton his money back. We have the proceedings somewhere on the site if you want to see them.

Assuming that you are talking about the document linked to previously in this topic, there are two main issues I have with it:
  • It's between Hampden and Walsh, not Hampden and Wallace.
  • There's no mention of cheating.
Unless there's another document somewhere which everyone is talking about instead.

I didn't say anything about cheating. Don't shove words down my... keyboard?

Anyway, you're right, he sued Walsh and not Wallace. I was tired when I was writing that. Regardless, a court found that the wager should be nullified and I'm inclined to believe the court.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: kaimason1 on October 20, 2011, 10:47:29 PM
The wager, not the result. Bets can easily be ruled invalid without rendering the basis of the bet null.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 20, 2011, 11:23:28 PM
The wager, not the result. Bets can easily be ruled invalid without rendering the basis of the bet null.
The determinant of the result was ruled invalid. A valid result was never announced, which is why the bet was nullified - because there was no result.
With this in mind, I agree that it's difficult to render the result valid or invalid when there's no result to affect in the first place.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 21, 2011, 02:06:24 AM
Am I missing something here on this article, linked by Thork? 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)

Does it not simply say (in a roundabout way) that there was no legal reason for the money to have been handed over because Hampden complained before the money was paid out?

There is no mention of Walsh's verdict being incorrect or underhanded, simply that because the complaint was made before the money was paid, the wager is basically null and void.

Quote
therefore, plaintiff having, demanded his deposit back before it had been paid over by defendant, the was entitled to judgment.

Quote
But if, before the money was so paid over, the party depositing repudiated the wager and demanded his money back, he was entitled to have it restored to him and could maintain -an action to recover it

The determinant of the result was ruled invalid. A valid result was never announced, which is why the bet was nullified - because there was no result.
With this in mind, I agree that it's difficult to render the result valid or invalid when there's no result to affect in the first place.
Not true - the bet was nullified because Hampden complained before the money was paid out. The official transcript makes no mention of the validity of the result.

The only result mentioned anywhere on anything that has been linked is that Wallace won the bet by showing curvature on the surface of the water. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C00EFDF113EEE34BC4852DFBE66838A669FDE&oref=slogin (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C00EFDF113EEE34BC4852DFBE66838A669FDE&oref=slogin).

By complaining in time, Hampden was able to nullify the wager after losing and get his money back on a technicality. As Markjo said, he weasled out of the wager once he had been shown to be incorrect. He then accused Wallace of cheating resulting in Wallace winning multiple libel suits against Hampden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Other_controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Other_controversies)
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Thork on October 21, 2011, 02:25:25 AM
As you seem to be having trouble figuring our what happened, let me provide you with a summary.

Quote from: http://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/07/28/the-bedford-level-experiment/
(http://www.futilitycloset.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/2009-07-28-the-bedford-level-experiment.jpg)

In 1838, Samuel Rowbotham waded into a drainage canal in Norfolk and sighted along its length with a telescope. Six miles away, an assistant held a flag three feet above the water. If the earth were round, its curvature should hide the flag from him. But he decided he could see it clearly. “It follows,” he wrote, “that the surface of standing water is not convex, and therefore that the Earth IS NOT A GLOBE!”

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.)
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 21, 2011, 02:52:15 AM
I missed the part where a post on http://www.futilitycloset.com/about/ (http://www.futilitycloset.com/about/), described as "a collection of entertaining curiosities" is an explanation or refutation of what I posted about the official transcript that you linked earlier. Go again, perhaps?
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Thork on October 21, 2011, 03:02:48 AM
It seems you missed my post where I explained that this experiment has been performed three times. Twice where the result confirmed a flat earth and once where the result was annulled due to arbitration irregularities. So blinkered are the RErs here, that rather than examine the two confirmed results, they instead prefer to pick and play with the prospect that convicted swindlers Wallace and Walsh may have been correct.

Boot on the other foot, you would say we were grasping at straws.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 21, 2011, 03:38:43 AM
It seems you missed my post where I explained that this experiment has been performed three times. Twice where the result confirmed a flat earth and once where the result was annulled due to arbitration irregularities.
To put it another way, you could say it was performed twice by people who used it to show the earth was flat and once to prove that the earth is not flat. The fact that the same experiment can be used to show such obviously conflicting results would call into question whether the Bedford Level Experiment is valid at all.

...rather than examine the two confirmed results...
The third one was confirmed by arbitrators according to the original agreement.

they instead prefer to pick and play with the prospect that convicted swindlers Wallace and Walsh may have been correct.
There is no suggestion anywhere in what you linked that W&W were swindlers. In fact, Hampden was convicted of libel for making accusations of cheating.

Boot on the other foot, you would say we were grasping at straws.
Boot on the other foot, you would point out that you have still ignored my analysis of the document you linked, where no reference is made to cheating or swindling by the parties involved. You are attempting to use the fact that the wager was nullified on a technicality to nullify the result of the experiment. How am I the one grasping at straws?
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 21, 2011, 04:35:07 AM
I sure wish people would stop using SBRs stupid experiment in the water as proof.  6 miles is not far enough to see much curve.  At that close of a distance, the Earth would have not dropped very much; and definitely not enough to see at 18 inches above the water, with the naked eye, unless some rare conditions exist.  This does not prove the Earth is flat.  I just means that you have to be much farther than 6 miles to see much of  the curves affect.

Plus, the water was moving, so it was obviously slanted, not straight.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Sentient Pizza on October 21, 2011, 08:20:18 AM
I sure wish people would stop using SBRs stupid experiment in the water as proof.  6 miles is not far enough to see much curve.  At that close of a distance, the Earth would have not dropped very much; and definitely not enough to see at 18 inches above the water, with the naked eye, unless some rare conditions exist.  This does not prove the Earth is flat.  I just means that you have to be much farther than 6 miles to see much of  the curves affect.

Plus, the water was moving, so it was obviously slanted, not straight.

Agreed. I can't figure out why people cling to the BLE and SBR so much. These issues only make FE Proponentls look more like trolls. We have 173 years of scientific expansion since the BLE. People need to ditch SBR and the BLE if they have any chance of moving forward with their ideas. If in fact the earth is flat and all the nonsensical pseudoscience spewed on the FES is true, there must be better modern evidence of it somewhere. SBR only serves to hurt the FE case.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Ski on October 22, 2011, 03:05:19 PM
It seems you missed my post where I explained that this experiment has been performed three times.

To the point, the experiment was performed dozens of times by Dr. Rowbotham over the course of many years for groups of globularists and planists alike. The only questionable result recorded is the case of Wallace's attempt to defraud Hampden.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: momentia on October 22, 2011, 03:46:44 PM
Here's a Bedford level experiment.
https://picasaweb.google.com/110581442329294829593/BedfordLevel?authkey=Gv1sRgCJTS75Ckwdv9MA&feat=directlink#

There are 3 bridges on the Bedford level:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-IDKOLdoLe8w/TdqNJpbcQKI/AAAAAAAAALk/5uZF96tkxg8/s800/canal_measure.jpg)

If the earth is flat, the third bridge should look about 75 cm lower than the second bridge (units measured at the second bridge)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-HJTbt2qe5zg/Tdp6knjVjII/AAAAAAAAAHw/qXShvzMI5mc/s800/bridges_flat.jpg)

If the earth is round, the third bridge should look about 270 cm lower than the second bridge (units measured at the second bridge)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-4ZEsW4YJ3kY/Tdp6lecx7WI/AAAAAAAAAH0/PBTSXlaSS8E/s800/bridges_curved.jpg)

Here's whats seen:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-CNyTQjQV1Gs/TdqMnnvfYAI/AAAAAAAAALc/VYLpy3VB37Q/s800/welches%252520from%252520welney%252520best.jpg)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-B4kaKCVfWYs/TdqMbm9gOEI/AAAAAAAAALY/6L5vhJQScYY/s800/lorrie%252520on%252520bridge.jpg)

Using distance units at the second bridge, the third bridge appears much more than a meter lower. This means RE.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Zogg on October 22, 2011, 03:56:19 PM
Hey, I know these pictures! My desk at the top-secret NASA photoshop office is right next to the desk of the guy who photoshopped these images!  :D




Just kidding.

Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 22, 2011, 11:16:53 PM
Please, momentia.  You are talking about centimeters over a 6 mile stretch of water.  Your diagram of a round Earth is grossly exaggerated.  And neither of the photos you presented show what could even remotely be construed as a completely straight 6 mile path of water.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Supertails on October 23, 2011, 11:58:00 PM
Please, momentia.  You are talking about centimeters over a 6 mile stretch of water.  Your diagram of a round Earth is grossly exaggerated.  And neither of the photos you presented show what could even remotely be construed as a completely straight 6 mile path of water.
He said it shows a round earth. You should read harder.  :-\
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 24, 2011, 05:46:52 AM
It seems you missed my post where I explained that this experiment has been performed three times.

To the point, the experiment was performed dozens of times by Dr. Rowbotham over the course of many years for groups of globularists and planists alike. The only questionable result recorded is the case of Wallace's attempt to defraud Hampden.
Words like defraud, cheat and swindle are being used in this thread very freely without any evidence.
Also, where is there a mention of a questionable result to the experiment?
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: squevil on October 25, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
like ive posted before, we should do this again as part of the FES. get FET and RET together and they can both take part. may even end in a legal battle :D but seriously, why not, many live in the uk and i should be able to ride there next summer. i said before we can even aproach a school science class and blag them to even provide equipment. now thats 1st hand evidence and not just taking someones word for it
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Theodolite on October 26, 2011, 06:27:25 AM
100% of professional surveyors on this forum agree that this experiment is not the best way to determine the shape of the earth.  There are threads using mulptiple setup points, with crosschecking, and reverse measuring, that is a critical component of calling something a survey rather than sightseeing.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 26, 2011, 07:12:59 AM
Self-proclaimed professional surveyors, that is. What you claim your profession to be has no affect on the validity of your claims.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Theodolite on October 26, 2011, 07:34:11 AM
Self-proclaimed professional surveyors, that is. What you claim your profession to be has no affect on the validity of your claims.

My claim to be a surveyor is more valid than old sammy's.  He openly utilizes non professional procedures which have been demonstrated to be inconclusive.  If you have done any research on the topic you would know that single point observations with no checks, rechecks, cross ties, or backsights are not surveys, but are more akin to sightseeing.

I will admit that his work around the canal is more conclusive than the rest of his book, which involves discussion of places he has never been to.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 26, 2011, 07:36:43 AM
My claim to be a surveyor is more valid than old sammy's.
Not at all. It's a wild claim that you've been throwing around to validate your (possibly Wikipedia-based) knowledge.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 26, 2011, 07:37:44 AM
My claim to be a surveyor is more valid than old sammy's.

Fantastic!  According to most REers though just your word on this is not enough.  I'm sure you'll be willing to back this claim up by posting your credentials, as has been demanded of us regarding Dr Rowbotham.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Theodolite on October 26, 2011, 07:44:41 AM
My claim to be a surveyor is more valid than old sammy's.
Not at all. It's a wild claim that you've been throwing around to validate your (possibly Wikipedia-based) knowledge.

My statements and claims are long standing on this forum, no one has debated me on the topic, so according to the way this place operates, its considered fact.

If you wish to discuss reasons why I am not a surveyor, please provide links to modern survey procedures and outline errors in my statements.

I have already linked a university's website's article on surveying, it is very precise and correctly identifies modern procedures.

If you missed it, please use the search function, lurk moar, and burn ENaG

My claim to be a surveyor is more valid than old sammy's.

Fantastic!  According to most REers though just your word on this is not enough.  I'm sure you'll be willing to back this claim up by posting your credentials, as has been demanded of us regarding Dr Rowbotham.

Sure, I have just posted a copy of my education, identified my employer, and written down my professional designation in the same thread that the rest of you have posted your personal information. 
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 26, 2011, 07:51:04 AM
Sure, I have just posted a copy of my education, identified my employer, and written down my professional designation in the same thread that the rest of you have posted your personal information.

Which thread is that?  Can I have a link?
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Theodolite on October 26, 2011, 07:55:15 AM
Sure, I have just posted a copy of my education, identified my employer, and written down my professional designation in the same thread that the rest of you have posted your personal information.

Which thread is that?  Can I have a link?

Check your post history, its the one where you provided your personal information
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 26, 2011, 07:56:16 AM
Sure, I have just posted a copy of my education, identified my employer, and written down my professional designation in the same thread that the rest of you have posted your personal information.

Which thread is that?  Can I have a link?

Check your post history, its the one where you provided your personal information

I've never provided any personal information.  Of course, I've never made any claims regarding my education or profession, either.

So, link?
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 26, 2011, 08:29:03 AM
Looks like Theodolite is making shit up.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Thork on October 26, 2011, 08:32:59 AM
He makes tea in a surveyor's office. I'm sure we got to the bottom of this before. He's like an admin clerk or something.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Sentient Pizza on October 26, 2011, 08:48:29 AM
ITT: Momentia does what FE zealos have yet to do. Do an experiment (albiet not perfect) and post the results. Lots of pictures, lots of info.

Then: Pedantic arguing about Theolodites credentials and opinions.

Am I the only one who looked ate Momentias post? do you FE zealots not see how devastating that is to your precious BLE, SBR, and ENAG? Even if his surveying technique was a little flawed you cant argue with the pictures and a laser pointing up over the target bridge.

Momentia..... thanks for doing this stuff. You are my hero.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Thork on October 26, 2011, 09:17:59 AM
I didn't even bother replying to Momentia's pictures because even other RErs could see how flawed that argument was.
Please, momentia.  You are talking about centimeters over a 6 mile stretch of water.  Your diagram of a round Earth is grossly exaggerated.  And neither of the photos you presented show what could even remotely be construed as a completely straight 6 mile path of water.

There is no hard data, measurement, or figures. He finishes with "it appears". Very convincing I'm sure. ::)

Momentia..... thanks for doing this stuff. You are my hero.
Get a room. You are making other people uncomfortable.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 26, 2011, 09:30:43 AM
Momentia's "experiment" (which is entirely unverified and inconclusive) supports EAT, as EAT-FE results would, indeed, be equivalent to RE results.
Of course, it would first have to be actually performed, probably utilising lasers. Posting pictures doesn't help at all.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: momentia on October 26, 2011, 10:53:42 AM
First, this is not my personal experiment, it is some one else's.

Second, I choose the word "appear" too quickly.
Heres a photo that is blurrier, but demonstrates scale better, as it has a boxcar going over the top:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-1aGnD7gBN_Y/TdkUsXGnaBI/AAAAAAAAACE/ZxoFZ1LDjms/s800/Welches%252520and%252520train.jpg)

You can see that the far bridge is at least one boxcar height below the second bridge, (measured at the second bridge.)
Boxcars are always taller than 1 meter, so the third bridge is much lower than predicted for FE. Therefore RE.

Also, Pizza, if "EAT-FE results would, indeed, be equivalent to RE results," what evidence do you have for a flat earth?
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: markjo on October 26, 2011, 04:28:49 PM
Momentia's "experiment" (which is entirely unverified and inconclusive) supports EAT, as EAT-FE results would, indeed, be equivalent to RE results.

Does this mean that you concede that the earth does look round?  I ask because the whole point of the BLE is to prove that the earth doesn't look round. 
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Theodolite on October 26, 2011, 08:49:41 PM
My credentials:

Mr XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, BCLS

Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: trig on October 27, 2011, 04:48:31 AM
Dr Rowbotham was an excellent man who excelled in everything he attempted, including medicine. When he played golf it is recorded that he usually scored at least 4 hole-in-ones per round.

Why should we doubt such a great man?
Why do you even bother trolling the upper fora? Even Tiger Woods is orders of magnitude below the feat that you attribute to non-doctor Rowbotham. One count, done 4 years ago, was of 19 hole in one's, and that is an astounding feat.

You might as well say that Rowbotham ran 100 meters in 8 seconds.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 27, 2011, 04:52:05 AM
But, I thought that Rowbotham could walk on water, heal the crippled, and turn water into wine.  Oh, wait, I am thing about someone else.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Thork on October 27, 2011, 10:19:49 AM
But, I thought that Rowbotham could walk on water, heal the crippled, and turn water into wine.  Oh, wait, I am thing about someone else.
No, that's Rowbotham.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: squevil on October 28, 2011, 06:03:34 PM
But, I thought that Rowbotham could walk on water, heal the crippled, and turn water into wine.  Oh, wait, I am thing about someone else.
No, that's Rowbotham.


hahaha where is the like button
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 28, 2011, 10:32:38 PM
But, I thought that Rowbotham could walk on water, heal the crippled, and turn water into wine.  Oh, wait, I am thing about someone else.
No, that's Rowbotham.


hahaha where is the like button


Next to the dislike button.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: squevil on October 29, 2011, 03:46:13 PM
But, I thought that Rowbotham could walk on water, heal the crippled, and turn water into wine.  Oh, wait, I am thing about someone else.
No, that's Rowbotham.


hahaha where is the like button


Next to the dislike button.

dam you i actually looked
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: Tausami on November 29, 2011, 04:43:32 PM
And we know that there is indeed someone with your alleged name. We want something more... concrete.
Title: Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 05, 2011, 01:47:06 PM
And we know that there is indeed someone with your alleged name. We want something more... concrete.

How about the fact that Rowbotham used non adequate means of surveying as described by his experiment, and therefore produced results that have no bearing on the shape of the earth.  Its obvious as someone who is not a surveyor that observing with the tools available to him at the time that inaccurate results could easily have been produced.

What is really in need of something more a concrete explanation is your reasoning behind excepting the observations of a man who was not a surveyor by today's standards, nor did he have access to the preciseness of today's equipment, yet you still accept based off of experiments that he conducted over a hundred years ago that he is in fact correct and that eistien, perhaps the smartest man ever to have lived, is incorrect about the shape of the earth?

To me it would seem much more zetetic to accept the possibility that there were factors overlooked by Rowbotham than it would be to assume that the earth is flat.  Why jump to such big conclusions?  When I perform an experiment in biology or chemistry, and i get a non standard result, i dont immediately jump to the conclusion that all biologists or chemists before me were wrong, i take a long hard look at my experiment, while noting my results.  Rowbotham should have rendered his own results inconclusive, and assumed that there was something that he missed or some inaccuracy in his method.  He should have recorded his results, and not disregarded them, but they are far from conclusive evidence that the earth is flat.