"Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?

  • 79 Replies
  • 12475 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37612
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #30 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Thork

Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #31 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.

Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #32 on: October 19, 2011, 04:38:37 PM »
Aren't there more recent experiments (a bit more reliable)?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #33 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.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #34 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37612
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #35 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Thork

Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #36 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.

Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #37 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:
  • 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.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #38 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.

Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #39 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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12165
  • google
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #40 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.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #41 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

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.

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
« Last Edit: October 21, 2011, 02:08:47 AM by flat_earth_really? »

?

Thork

Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #42 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/


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.)

Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #43 on: October 21, 2011, 02:52:15 AM »
I missed the part where a post on 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?

?

Thork

Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #44 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.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2011, 03:16:40 AM by Thork »

Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #45 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?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37789
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #46 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.

Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #47 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.
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8443
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #48 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.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #49 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:


If the earth is flat, the third bridge should look about 75 cm lower than the second bridge (units measured at the second bridge)


If the earth is round, the third bridge should look about 270 cm lower than the second bridge (units measured at the second bridge)


Here's whats seen:



Using distance units at the second bridge, the third bridge appears much more than a meter lower. This means RE.

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #50 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.


*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37789
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #51 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.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2011, 11:29:18 PM by jroa »

*

Supertails

  • 4387
  • what do i put here
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #52 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.  :-\
Recently listened to:


Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #53 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?

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #54 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

?

Theodolite

  • 878
  • NASA's Chief Surveyor
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #55 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.
Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12165
  • google
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #56 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.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Theodolite

  • 878
  • NASA's Chief Surveyor
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #57 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.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 07:36:46 AM by Theodolite »
Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12165
  • google
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #58 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.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?
« Reply #59 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.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?