RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.

Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology? Which part exactly are you contesting?


I find your refraction argument as compelling as you would find my arguing for sunken ships by refraction, I'd wager.

Quote from: Sentient Pizza on October 05, 2011, 05:00:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop

The ocean is never calm.

Please provide evidense for this claim

Please visit an ocean.

Lucky for me and the rest of the world living in the modern age Lots of people do this all the time, and then they return with evidence.  Please Learn to google.

Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology?

What evidence to you have to support these allegations?

I find your refraction argument as compelling as you would find my arguing for sunken ships by refraction, I'd wager.

That depends on the evidence you have to support your version of refraction.

Why are you more willing to trust my pictures than my words? What next? Do I need to make sure a physics teacher from a local Monetey community college is there to sign off on the results?

.

No but the results should be notarized.

Quote from: Ski on October 07, 2011, 08:46:31 AM

Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology?

What evidence to you have to support these allegations?

I refuse to believe that in your many years on the forum you have conveniently not read any of this.

Quote from: markjo on October 07, 2011, 11:47:32 AM

Quote from: Ski on October 07, 2011, 08:46:31 AM

Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology?

What evidence to you have to support these allegations?

I refuse to believe that in your many years on the forum you have conveniently not read any of this.

I've heard allegations.  I'm asking for evidence.  There is a difference.

Which issue is in serious dispute?

Which issue is in serious dispute?

Whether or not Wallace fairly won the bet.

Well, I'd say the judge's decision to return the money to Hampden suggests that he did not.

Quote from: Ski on October 07, 2011, 08:46:31 AM

Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology?

What evidence to you have to support these allegations?

Read "Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea" by historian Christine Garwood