My problem is, maybe Earth: Not a Globe isn't the best representative of zetetic science. It may very well be true that the initial experiments conducted were done without bias and without an end conclusion in mind.
Although I have to say, when a belief is so widely accepted to be fact (the earth is round), conducting experiments to find out the shape of the earth can only be done with one goal in mind. I still believe that Rowbotham conducted even the initial experiments with the intention of proving the earth flat.
Even assuming the experiments are real, not having ever been verified by a trusted source (which unfortunately doesn't exist in your FE world, as anybody suggested to have any authority on the matter is in on the Conspiracy) it's tough to judge the veracity of his claims. One of the beautiful things about science is that a theory is not accepted until it's gone through rigorous testing by several sources. Newton merely discovered gravity; it wasn't accepted until it was verified by other sources.
But at any rate, it is still clear to me that the bulk of the book is dedicated entirely to backing up the claim that the earth is flat. Every experiment and hypothesis after the beginning is there for the explicit purpose of proving the earth flat. The bias is clear: for example, instead of using real experimentation and observation to find out what causes a lunar eclipse, he appeals to folklore and supposition.
Just because he could predict with accuracy when a lunar eclipse would occur doesn't give his claim of a shadow object any credence. An invisible moon, that even to this day and age we still have never seen or detected, just a shadow occasionally when there is an eclipse?
Please. That's not science. It is science-fiction at its most obvious.
It's easy to say "Look at the book. Look at the FAQs." But you are a fringe group that nobody, and I mean nobody, takes seriously. If there was any reason to believe that Earth: Not a Globe is accurate, or even worth taking a second look at, it would have caught the attention of the mainstream scientific community by now.
Unless the entire mainstream scientific community is part of the Conspiracy. And just the fact that you would need to make that claim is enough reason for any intelligent, rational person to reject the theory out of hand.
Be honest, Dogplatter. You know there's no real reason to believe in this Conspiracy, other than that you "know" the earth is flat. It's just a scapegoat, a convenient way to explain how even though we have all of this evidence, coming from all these disparate, unconnected sources, of the roundness of the earth, the earth can still be flat.
"Anybody who's proven it wrong is part of the Conspiracy." It's just too convenient, and you can cite weak circumstantial evidence all you want (I did a search for "Scott" and "Antarctic" and didn't get anything, by the way, so maybe you can post a link to the thread you mentioned in my thread), but it doesn't make it true, anymore than simply having means and motive makes something true.
If means and motive = proof, then every woman in history who had a rich husband die is guilty of murder, QED. Just the fact that your group tries to use this (means and motive) as evidence of a Conspiracy shows how weak your case really is.