« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment

  • 43 Replies
  • 15424 Views
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« on: October 06, 2012, 08:38:48 AM »
Last March there was a “repeat” of the Bedford level experiment conducted on Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela which I witnessed myself. The experiment sought to avoid the flaws of the earlier experiments by using modern technology and measuring at closer lateral increments. Markers were stretched out across 15 km of the lake 2 meters high atop buoys stationed at .5 km intervals on calm water. Theodolites equipped with lasers measured the height of each marker, moving the theodolite from station to station to measure the height of each marker as measured from the previous station by laser. The reason for the .5 km intervals was to minimize the effect of refracted light. Each marker station as well as the theodolite were equipped with accelerometers in order to calibrate for any swelling or compression of the water surface.   

The results were unambiguous: Over the entire 15 km no more than 2 cm of deviation from the flat line of the laser was observed. (The 2 cm is attributed to some light refraction.)  The conclusion is that either the Earth is flat or round yet many times larger than Round Earthers currently believe. (So I suppose the result is ambiguous if you want to believe the circumference of the Earth is at least 20 times greater than is currently believed.)

This direct measurement of the curvature (or lack thereof) of the Earth is more persuasive than any scientific theories which rely on indirect evidence for attempting to establish that the Earth is round (or any other shape).
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 08:42:22 AM by Dino »
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45158
  • +97/-136
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2012, 08:50:08 AM »
Just out of curiosity, were any measurements taken across the full 15 km from the first marker to the last?
Logged
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.
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2012, 08:57:03 AM »
Quote from: markjo on October 06, 2012, 08:50:08 AM
Just out of curiosity, were any measurements taken across the full 15 km from the first marker to the last?

No, at that distance too much light refraction would have rendered the experiment null and void. The purpose of measuring one segment at a time and summing the total was to avoid any dispute about what might be attributed to light refraction. Since the effects of refraction are nonlinear, the summation of each segment will result in significantly less refraction than a single measurement across the entire survey would.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45158
  • +97/-136
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2012, 09:33:16 AM »
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 08:57:03 AM
The purpose of measuring one segment at a time and summing the total was to avoid any dispute about what might be attributed to light refraction.

How would the error due to refraction of a single measurement compare with the cumulative error made during 30 individual measurements?
Logged
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.
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2012, 10:49:15 AM »
Quote from: markjo on October 06, 2012, 09:33:16 AM
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 08:57:03 AM
The purpose of measuring one segment at a time and summing the total was to avoid any dispute about what might be attributed to light refraction.

How would the error due to refraction of a single measurement compare with the cumulative error made during 30 individual measurements?

Significantly. The light bends parabolically so whereas after .5 km it hasn't bent much, after 15 km it would bend on the order of 10 m. The reason one can't normally  see the earth more than a few miles at a time is because the light is bending sharply after a couple of miles.   
Logged
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2012, 10:56:59 AM »
By the way, the experiment was carried out by the government of Venezuela. I happened to be in the area working on an unrelated project and was able to witness it because I knew a few people working on it and got wind of it. I don't know what Venezuela'a motive behind it is, but they don't have a space program to worry about and perhaps are looking to embarrass the USA over the fraud that is NASA.
Logged
?

Lorddave

  • 19874
  • +29/-61
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2012, 11:59:53 AM »
1. Do you have a link to the experiment in a public newspaper or something?  I can't find one.
2. If you measured each marker from the marker before it, and each marker is the same distance apart, isn't it expected for the measurements to be nearly identical regardless of curvature?

ex: If it curves by .01 arc seconds on the first marker then it'll be the same from the first to the second. 

Also, what was the original frame of reference for determining the flat line?  How was that found out?
Logged
Gone.
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2012, 12:26:33 PM »
Quote from: Lorddave on October 06, 2012, 11:59:53 AM
1. Do you have a link to the experiment in a public newspaper or something?  I can't find one.

 As mentioned, the experiment was conducted by the government of Venezuela and as far as I know they haven't made it public.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 06, 2012, 11:59:53 AM
2. If you measured each marker from the marker before it, and each marker is the same distance apart, isn't it expected for the measurements to be nearly identical regardless of curvature?

Yes, that is what one would expect. The question was “how much” curvature and the point of measuring 30 different segments was to “wash out” any noise which may have been caused by any individual errors. In other words, they didn't simply measure one segment and multiply by 30 because that would have multiplied any noise, if any, from the single measurement. Furthermore, it was considered important to measure across the entire 15 km line since the purpose of the experiment was to prove (or disprove) how much curvature over 15 km occurs. A RE model would predict that about 10 m of curvature would be measured in sum over that distance.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 06, 2012, 11:59:53 AM
Also, what was the original frame of reference for determining the flat line?  How was that found out?

A theodolite typically contains a level.
Logged
?

randomism

  • 271
  • +0/-0
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2012, 12:56:43 PM »
An experiment you describe isn't doing anything more than measuring the average curvature over 500m of distance. Measuring curvature over 15km actually requires a single distance between 15km. sin and cos aren't linear functions, 30 times the curvature of 500m segments isn't the same as the curvature of a 15km segment. But it's unclear to me if you're claiming this 2cm was the maximum (or average?) recorded curvature over 500m, or if it's 30 times the average.

RET predicts the curvature (deviation between the arc and the straight line drawn between the two points) @ 500m is approximately (in cm):

(6371 - (sqrt((6371^2) - ((0.5/2)^2)))) = 0.00000490503845738969

Or about 0.5cm. Note that this isn't the same as how much of a drop would be perceived, due to looking over the "hill."
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 12:59:20 PM by randomism »
Logged
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2012, 01:43:56 PM »
That's a good point. Obviously the curvature would be a nonlinear function. So the expected summation should have been 15 cm not 10 m as I suggested.

But you are wrong that it was just an averaging of 500m segments. A summation yields a cumulative difference not an average.

Logged
?

Lorddave

  • 19874
  • +29/-61
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2012, 01:56:49 PM »
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 01:43:56 PM
That's a good point. Obviously the curvature would be a nonlinear function. So the expected summation should have been 15 cm not 10 m as I suggested.

But you are wrong that it was just an averaging of 500m segments. A summation yields a cumulative difference not an average.

What cumulative difference?  They didn't just add the variation of height of all 30 measurements did they?
Logged
Gone.
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2012, 02:08:12 PM »
Quote from: Lorddave on October 06, 2012, 01:56:49 PM
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 01:43:56 PM
That's a good point. Obviously the curvature would be a nonlinear function. So the expected summation should have been 15 cm not 10 m as I suggested.

But you are wrong that it was just an averaging of 500m segments. A summation yields a cumulative difference not an average.

What cumulative difference?  They didn't just add the variation of height of all 30 measurements did they?

2cm was the cumulative difference. We can divide by 30 now if you'd like.
Logged
?

Lorddave

  • 19874
  • +29/-61
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2012, 02:15:47 PM »
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 02:08:12 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on October 06, 2012, 01:56:49 PM
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 01:43:56 PM
That's a good point. Obviously the curvature would be a nonlinear function. So the expected summation should have been 15 cm not 10 m as I suggested.

But you are wrong that it was just an averaging of 500m segments. A summation yields a cumulative difference not an average.

What cumulative difference?  They didn't just add the variation of height of all 30 measurements did they?

2cm was the cumulative difference. We can divide by 30 now if you'd like.
Just making sure that's what they did.

Also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4760982.stm
They do have a space program of sorts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agencia_Bolivariana_para_Actividades_Espaciales


Is there any way we can verify your story?
Logged
Gone.
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2012, 02:28:30 PM »
Quote from: Lorddave on October 06, 2012, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 02:08:12 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on October 06, 2012, 01:56:49 PM
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 01:43:56 PM
That's a good point. Obviously the curvature would be a nonlinear function. So the expected summation should have been 15 cm not 10 m as I suggested.

But you are wrong that it was just an averaging of 500m segments. A summation yields a cumulative difference not an average.
[/
What cumulative difference?  They didn't just add the variation of height of all 30 measurements did they?

2cm was the cumulative difference. We can divide by 30 now if you'd like.
Just making sure that's what they did.

Also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4760982.stm
They do have a space program of sorts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agencia_Bolivariana_para_Actividades_Espaciales


Is there any way we can verify your story?

You can verify my story when Venezuela releases it. All I can do is "leak" it.

Perhaps it's Venezuela's recent efforts at a space agency which has gotten them suddenly interested in testing the shape of the earth.
Logged
?

Lorddave

  • 19874
  • +29/-61
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2012, 02:36:12 PM »
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on October 06, 2012, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 02:08:12 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on October 06, 2012, 01:56:49 PM
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 01:43:56 PM
That's a good point. Obviously the curvature would be a nonlinear function. So the expected summation should have been 15 cm not 10 m as I suggested.

But you are wrong that it was just an averaging of 500m segments. A summation yields a cumulative difference not an average.
What cumulative difference?  They didn't just add the variation of height of all 30 measurements did they?

2cm was the cumulative difference. We can divide by 30 now if you'd like.
Just making sure that's what they did.

Also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4760982.stm
They do have a space program of sorts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agencia_Bolivariana_para_Actividades_Espaciales


Is there any way we can verify your story?
You can verify my story when Venezuela releases it. All I can do is "leak" it.

Perhaps it's Venezuela's recent efforts at a space agency which has gotten them suddenly interested in testing the shape of the earth.
So why wait a full 6 months to leak it?
Logged
Gone.
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2012, 02:49:27 PM »
Quote from: Lorddave on October 06, 2012, 02:36:12 PM
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on October 06, 2012, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 02:08:12 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on October 06, 2012, 01:56:49 PM
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 01:43:56 PM
That's a good point. Obviously the curvature would be a nonlinear function. So the expected summation should have been 15 cm not 10 m as I suggested.

But you are wrong that it was just an averaging of 500m segments. A summation yields a cumulative difference not an average.
What cumulative difference?  They didn't just add the variation of height of all 30 measurements did they?

2cm was the cumulative difference. We can divide by 30 now if you'd like.
Just making sure that's what they did.

Also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4760982.stm
They do have a space program of sorts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agencia_Bolivariana_para_Actividades_Espaciales


Is there any way we can verify your story?
You can verify my story when Venezuela releases it. All I can do is "leak" it.

Perhaps it's Venezuela's recent efforts at a space agency which has gotten them suddenly interested in testing the shape of the earth.
So why wait a full 6 months to leak it?

Because it's been six months and Venezuela hasn't released it like I have hoped.
Logged
*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2012, 04:35:54 PM »
Quote from: Dino on October 06, 2012, 08:57:03 AM
Quote from: markjo on October 06, 2012, 08:50:08 AM
Just out of curiosity, were any measurements taken across the full 15 km from the first marker to the last?

No, at that distance too much light refraction would have rendered the experiment null and void. The purpose of measuring one segment at a time and summing the total was to avoid any dispute about what might be attributed to light refraction. Since the effects of refraction are nonlinear, the summation of each segment will result in significantly less refraction than a single measurement across the entire survey would.
This is a very sneaky claim. You are right when you say the effects of refraction are non-linear. But you forget to say that the non-linearity is not increasingly worse with distance, but the exact opposite. No matter what you do, the maximum temperature differential you might get between any two places in the whole 15 km stretch is less than 5 degrees centigrade, and this is the equivalent of making a prism out of a material with refractive index of 1.00026666 and putting it in air with refractive index of 1.000271373. (you can use the calculator at http://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Wavelength/Ciddor.asp). And this is true no matter what distance you are looking through.

So, even in the perfect situation in which the air suddenly changes 5 degrees Celsius at the perfect height above the lake, producing the maximum refraction possible with such a small change in refractive index, the total refraction would be 0.2 degrees. (this comes from n2/n1*arcsin(Theta)=1). In fact, you would see more a mirage than a subtle refraction. And even if you had a lake of several hundreds of kilometers, you would not be able to get more than 0.2 degrees of refraction.

On the other hand, the size of the curvature that you can measure increases in an approximately exponential scale. While there is nothing measurable in 2 km, you have some 20 meters at 15 km (enough to see a clear appearance of a sinking boat).

In conclusion, the whole argument for the design of this experiment is totally wrong. Measuring stretches of 2 km, no matter how many of them, is totally useless as a method to calculate the circumference of the Earth.
Logged
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2012, 05:27:40 PM »
Quote from: RealScientist on October 08, 2012, 04:35:54 PM
On the other hand, the size of the curvature that you can measure increases in an approximately exponential scale. While there is nothing measurable in 2 km, you have some 20 meters at 15 km (enough to see a clear appearance of a sinking boat).

In conclusion, the whole argument for the design of this experiment is totally wrong. Measuring stretches of 2 km, no matter how many of them, is totally useless as a method to calculate the circumference of the Earth.

On the contrary, something should be measurable on that scale if the Earth is in fact curved. It seems that whenever Round Earthers are confronted with direct evidence of a flat earth they attempt to discredit the evidence. 

Logged
*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2012, 07:40:48 PM »
Quote from: Dino on October 08, 2012, 05:27:40 PM
Quote from: RealScientist on October 08, 2012, 04:35:54 PM
On the other hand, the size of the curvature that you can measure increases in an approximately exponential scale. While there is nothing measurable in 2 km, you have some 20 meters at 15 km (enough to see a clear appearance of a sinking boat).

In conclusion, the whole argument for the design of this experiment is totally wrong. Measuring stretches of 2 km, no matter how many of them, is totally useless as a method to calculate the circumference of the Earth.

On the contrary, something should be measurable on that scale if the Earth is in fact curved. It seems that whenever Round Earthers are confronted with direct evidence of a flat earth they attempt to discredit the evidence.
You are plainly talking out of your posterior hole. You have been shown clearly that the curvature you could measure is in the order of a few centimeters while the sources of error are more than a few centimeters, making your whole experiment void.

If you want to say something "should be measurable" you have to show a valid estimation of the expected experimental errors. Even if you just take into account the 10 cm or so of the waves you are already measuring something much smaller than the size of the waves. And you have not even explained how you are going to level your theodolite to a precision of less than 0.002 degrees. The level it has inside does not even come close.
Logged
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2012, 09:31:03 PM »
Quote from: RealScientist on October 08, 2012, 07:40:48 PM
Quote from: Dino on October 08, 2012, 05:27:40 PM
Quote from: RealScientist on October 08, 2012, 04:35:54 PM
On the other hand, the size of the curvature that you can measure increases in an approximately exponential scale. While there is nothing measurable in 2 km, you have some 20 meters at 15 km (enough to see a clear appearance of a sinking boat).

In conclusion, the whole argument for the design of this experiment is totally wrong. Measuring stretches of 2 km, no matter how many of them, is totally useless as a method to calculate the circumference of the Earth.

On the contrary, something should be measurable on that scale if the Earth is in fact curved. It seems that whenever Round Earthers are confronted with direct evidence of a flat earth they attempt to discredit the evidence.
You are plainly talking out of your posterior hole. You have been shown clearly that the curvature you could measure is in the order of a few centimeters while the sources of error are more than a few centimeters, making your whole experiment void.

If you want to say something "should be measurable" you have to show a valid estimation of the expected experimental errors. Even if you just take into account the 10 cm or so of the waves you are already measuring something much smaller than the size of the waves. And you have not even explained how you are going to level your theodolite to a precision of less than 0.002 degrees. The level it has inside does not even come close.

You're wrong about the waves. The water was a placid as a sheet of glass. Morevoer, accelerometers were employed to calculate any adjustments necessary to calculate the exact elevation of the markers above sea level with an accuracy of less than .05 cm. 
Logged
?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • +0/-0
  • Im Telling On You
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2012, 09:57:12 PM »
smells like bs, i would of been taking pictures of this to prove the claim. it would be wrong for a skeptic or believer alike to just take your word without any proof.
Logged
?

randomism

  • 271
  • +0/-0
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2012, 07:59:13 AM »
Even if such an experiment did happen for whatever reason, and Dino did witness some or all of it, we'd really need to see a report from one of the experimenters who is properly presenting and analyzing the data (and test setup, etc).

It does seem weird that Venezuela would let a foreigner witness a government experiment that is otherwise secret enough to not show up in google (also was anyone else confused by the use of "last March" referring to the one in 2012?)
Logged
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2012, 02:13:57 PM »
Yeah it's really rare for a  proprietary test to take place with observers yet no press release.

Everything in your world has press releases?
Logged
?

randomism

  • 271
  • +0/-0
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #23 on: October 09, 2012, 03:30:06 PM »
Quote from: Dino on October 09, 2012, 02:13:57 PM
Yeah it's really rare for a  proprietary test to take place with observers yet no press release.

Everything in your world has press releases?

You're over-generalizing what I actually said. It's unusual for the government of a country to allow a random foreigner to witness a test whose findings have public significance, yet are for some reason not being disclosed. We're not just talking press releases, we're talking anything.

It strikes me as possible that you did witness some kind of testing done for some kind of internal purposes, where there's nothing interesting to report to the rest of the world.

So let me guess, you didn't take pictures of this..
Logged
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #24 on: October 09, 2012, 03:46:25 PM »
I had no official participation in the project, and no, they wouldn't allow me to take pictures.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45158
  • +97/-136
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #25 on: October 09, 2012, 05:05:57 PM »
If you had no official participation in the project, then what were you doing there?
Logged
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.
?

Lorddave

  • 19874
  • +29/-61
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #26 on: October 09, 2012, 05:21:42 PM »
Quote from: markjo on October 09, 2012, 05:05:57 PM
If you had no official participation in the project, then what were you doing there?
And how did you know all the methods? 
Logged
Gone.
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #27 on: October 09, 2012, 07:10:38 PM »
Quote from: markjo on October 09, 2012, 05:05:57 PM
If you had no official participation in the project, then what were you doing there?

I was a consultant for an unrelated project in the area. Lake Maracaibo is a huge oilfield and the Bedford Level experiment was something some oil workers did on a good weather day at the instruction of one of the captains. Several of the guys working on the project were guys I was working with. They had no problem with my observing, but because it was proprietary I couldn't take pictures. That's typical on Lake Maracaibo jobs whether it has anything to do with the shape of the Earth or not.
Logged
?

Lorddave

  • 19874
  • +29/-61
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #28 on: October 10, 2012, 06:07:56 PM »
Quote from: Dino on October 09, 2012, 07:10:38 PM
Quote from: markjo on October 09, 2012, 05:05:57 PM
If you had no official participation in the project, then what were you doing there?

I was a consultant for an unrelated project in the area. Lake Maracaibo is a huge oilfield and the Bedford Level experiment was something some oil workers did on a good weather day at the instruction of one of the captains. Several of the guys working on the project were guys I was working with. They had no problem with my observing, but because it was proprietary I couldn't take pictures. That's typical on Lake Maracaibo jobs whether it has anything to do with the shape of the Earth or not.

Seems rather odd to me to stop work on pumping oil and do a pointless experiment.  An experiment done by someone other than scientists.
Logged
Gone.
?

Dino

  • 488
  • +0/-0
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Lake Maracaibo repeat of the Bedford Level experiment
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2012, 09:46:04 AM »
Quote from: Lorddave on October 10, 2012, 06:07:56 PM
Quote from: Dino on October 09, 2012, 07:10:38 PM
Quote from: markjo on October 09, 2012, 05:05:57 PM
If you had no official participation in the project, then what were you doing there?

I was a consultant for an unrelated project in the area. Lake Maracaibo is a huge oilfield and the Bedford Level experiment was something some oil workers did on a good weather day at the instruction of one of the captains. Several of the guys working on the project were guys I was working with. They had no problem with my observing, but because it was proprietary I couldn't take pictures. That's typical on Lake Maracaibo jobs whether it has anything to do with the shape of the Earth or not.

Seems rather odd to me to stop work on pumping oil and do a pointless experiment.  An experiment done by someone other than scientists.

When did I say that the experiment was done by someone other than scientists? Do you not consider geologists to be scientists.

Nobody stopped "pumping oil" and if you think that experiment was pointless you are in the wrong place.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »