Bedford Level wager

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





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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2009, 07:46:18 AM

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.

Quote from: cdenley on June 18, 2009, 12:03:08 PM

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?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2009, 12:23:43 PM

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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2009, 05:22:02 PM

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.

Quote

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