Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE

  • 76 Replies
  • 7418 Views
*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2013, 12:35:31 AM »
The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.

Incorrect. In the UK all the lighthouses are automated and have been since 1998.

Edit: Didn't notice that Markjo had already made this point. Sorry.

?

Thork

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2013, 04:18:17 AM »
However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.
You think sailors on container ships use lighthouses? They ignore GPS, radar, sonar, depth measuring equipment and instead all line up on the deck looking for lighthouses?
I would think that sailors would want to use all available navigational devices.  Besides, what about boats that don't have GPS, RADAR or depth measuring equipment?
Please provide a citation for a container ship that doesn't have GPS, RADAR or depth measuring equipment.

Quote
The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.
Most modern light houses are automated.
Do they change their own bulbs, paint themselves, repair staircases, wash the windows and provide maintenance to their own working parts? Or is there a human who KEEPS the light house in good order?

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2013, 04:56:15 AM »
Quote
The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.
Most modern light houses are automated.
Do they change their own bulbs, paint themselves, repair staircases, wash the windows and provide maintenance to their own working parts? Or is there a human who KEEPS the light house in good order?

The most important fucntion of a lighthouse is to save lives. A quote from the Trinity House website:

Trinity House lighthouses are world famous. Often sited in spectacular locations, they perform a vital role in the safety of mariners in all weathers.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2013, 05:49:59 AM »
So physically seeing the lighthouse would be impossible, even if you used a telescope. However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.

As illustrated in the following diagram.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/shiptj.jpg/?sa=0

Unfortunately, your image seems to be a bit out of scale.  I have redrawn the situation, to scale, in AutoCAD.  I drew a line from the top of the ship to the top of the lighthouse, and that sight line is 91 feet above the surface of the Earth at its midpoint, so on a calm day it seems quite plausible for a ship to see the lighthouse 27 miles out.  Out of curiosity, I drew a line from halfway up the ship's height to halfway up the lighthouse's height and the sight line was then 15 feet below the surface of the Earth at its midpoint, so the conditions do have to be ideal.  I cannot attach or upload an AutoCAD file here, but I will gladly email it to anyone who wants to check over the numbers.


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39313
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2013, 06:27:44 AM »
However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.
You think sailors on container ships use lighthouses? They ignore GPS, radar, sonar, depth measuring equipment and instead all line up on the deck looking for lighthouses?
I would think that sailors would want to use all available navigational devices.  Besides, what about boats that don't have GPS, RADAR or depth measuring equipment?
Please provide a citation for a container ship that doesn't have GPS, RADAR or depth measuring equipment.
Please provide a citation that lighthouses are intended for the sole use of container ships.

Quote
Quote
The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.
Most modern light houses are automated.
Do they change their own bulbs, paint themselves, repair staircases, wash the windows and provide maintenance to their own working parts? Or is there a human who KEEPS the light house in good order?
Are you suggesting that modern lighthouses need daily maintenance?

Before you cry derailment, I just want to say that my point is that your objection to lighthouses is an irrelevant distraction because, in the example being presented, the lighthouse is nothing more than a highly visible reference point.  Whether or not a container ship needs a lighthouse for safe navigation is completely irrelevant.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 06:36:34 AM by markjo »
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.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2013, 07:25:58 AM »
So physically seeing the lighthouse would be impossible, even if you used a telescope. However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.

As illustrated in the following diagram.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/shiptj.jpg/?sa=0

Unfortunately, your image seems to be a bit out of scale.  I have redrawn the situation, to scale, in AutoCAD.  I drew a line from the top of the ship to the top of the lighthouse, and that sight line is 91 feet above the surface of the Earth at its midpoint, so on a calm day it seems quite plausible for a ship to see the lighthouse 27 miles out.  Out of curiosity, I drew a line from halfway up the ship's height to halfway up the lighthouse's height and the sight line was then 15 feet below the surface of the Earth at its midpoint, so the conditions do have to be ideal.  I cannot attach or upload an AutoCAD file here, but I will gladly email it to anyone who wants to check over the numbers.

A bit? You could say, it is totally out of scale, but the diagram is only to show how light (traveling in a straight line) can still be visible, even though the lighthouse itself cannot be seen. If sailors claim they saw the lighthouse at 27 miles is because they saw the light of the lighthouse. The light is inseparable with the lighthouse. It is also not important for sailors to physically see the lighthouse itself, but the light it is emitting. If you got an accurate model, perhaps you can provide screenshots. For me, I am unable to open autocad files.
Hello!

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2013, 07:31:33 AM »
LOL, Real, & Rama,

Ever notice how the camera never pans to either side?  I am not convinced that is a true depiction of the Earth just because the image shows straight solar panels.

Math works ONLY when all the other factors in the equation are true.  It's not accurate to ASSUME the Earth is circular or spherical.  And the Eratosthenes experiment does not prove the Earth is spherical because of two things:
1) He READ in a book that on June 21st, the sun cast a shadow in Syene at Noon 800km away. He didn't TEST it. He simply observed no shadow at Noon on June 21st where he was in Alexandria.  That is not a proper science experiment.
2) Shadows move.  The distance between cities and movement of the sun MUST be taken into consideration.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2013, 07:43:56 AM »
LOL, Real, & Rama,

Ever notice how the camera never pans to either side?  I am not convinced that is a true depiction of the Earth just because the image shows straight solar panels.

Math works ONLY when all the other factors in the equation are true.  It's not accurate to ASSUME the Earth is circular or spherical.

I am not sure how you get to this conclusion.  We know how the mathematics of spheres work, so you can make hypothetical calculations of how something -should- behave on a sphere.   You are saying that any equation that calculates a hypothetical value is incorrect?  How does the math know it is false?

Quote
  And the Eratosthenes experiment does not prove the Earth is spherical because of two things:
1) He READ in a book that on June 21st, the sun cast a shadow in Syene at Noon 800km away. He didn't TEST it. He simply observed no shadow at Noon on June 21st where he was in Alexandria.  That is not a proper science experiment.


You will notice that I did not say his result was accurate, but that the method is sound.  His result came close, and can be easily reproduced more accurately to give results that agree with modern values.

Quote
2) Shadows move.  The distance between cities and movement of the sun MUST be taken into consideration.

There is no dimension of time involved in the calculation.  How would it be factored in to it?  You can do it over a sufficiently short distance to eliminate relativistic simultaneity issues.  Notice that this very simple and intuitive method gives wildly conflicting results if you assume a flat earth.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 07:46:58 AM by Rama Set »
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2013, 07:47:08 AM »
LOL, Real, & Rama,

Ever notice how the camera never pans to either side?  I am not convinced that is a true depiction of the Earth just because the image shows straight solar panels.

Math works ONLY when all the other factors in the equation are true.  It's not accurate to ASSUME the Earth is circular or spherical.  And the Eratosthenes experiment does not prove the Earth is spherical because of two things:
1) He READ in a book that on June 21st, the sun cast a shadow in Syene at Noon 800km away. He didn't TEST it. He simply observed no shadow at Noon on June 21st where he was in Alexandria.  That is not a proper science experiment.
2) Shadows move.  The distance between cities and movement of the sun MUST be taken into consideration.

Alright, alright...panning video....here.....
For your information...go watch from 0:55 to get directly to the panning.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Window on the World
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 07:53:29 AM by Lolflatdisc »
Hello!

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2013, 07:59:52 AM »
Math works ONLY when all the other factors in the equation are true. 

You're wrong. Math is pretty much the only thing that works entirely by itself. That's why it's so famous, and such a big deal. If you knew some, you'd understand.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2013, 08:13:00 AM »
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #41 on: May 16, 2013, 08:22:59 AM »
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

One makes a mathematical model, and compares it with experimental observation to see if it fits. If there's one particular type of observation that doesn't fit, the model is wrong, no matter how well the others fit.

I've yet to see a FET model that fits more than a couple types of observable evidence.

Meanwhile, the only thing that doesn't fit the real world model is your desire for it to be wrong.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2013, 08:41:01 AM »
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

Have you watched the video yet?
Hello!

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2013, 08:58:54 AM »
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

Then rather than saying

"Math works ONLY when all the other factors in the equation are true."

Try saying

"The answer doesn't represent reality."

Because the answer to the problem (whether the problem represents reality or not) is correct.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 09:00:31 AM by Puttah »
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #44 on: May 16, 2013, 10:13:04 AM »
For me, I am unable to open autocad files.

AutoDesk's DWG TrueView is a free download and will allow you to open AutoCAD files.  There are lots of other free programs that will allow you to open .dwg files, even for Mac OS.  As for screenshots, the problem is that since the drawing is actually to scale, you can't see anything meaningful in any one view.  Relative to the size of the earth, the height of the ship an the lighthouse and their 27 mile separation are so small that when zoomed completely out, all you see is a sphere.  When you zoom in far enough to see any detail, you are essentially just looking at lines.  It can only really be appreciated if you can zoom around within the drawing.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #45 on: May 16, 2013, 11:06:13 AM »
For me, I am unable to open autocad files.

AutoDesk's DWG TrueView is a free download and will allow you to open AutoCAD files.  There are lots of other free programs that will allow you to open .dwg files, even for Mac OS.  As for screenshots, the problem is that since the drawing is actually to scale, you can't see anything meaningful in any one view.  Relative to the size of the earth, the height of the ship an the lighthouse and their 27 mile separation are so small that when zoomed completely out, all you see is a sphere.  When you zoom in far enough to see any detail, you are essentially just looking at lines.  It can only really be appreciated if you can zoom around within the drawing.

Perhaps you can upload the files using one of the many upload possibilites (Mega, Rapidshare, ...). The FE defenders could then see for themselves the thruth.
Hello!

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #46 on: May 16, 2013, 01:07:22 PM »

Many people disagree on the validity of the tests that have been done.  Show me a video from space that shows Earth's shape without using a fish-eye lens.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Planet Earth seen from space (Full HD 1080p) ORIGINAL

If they used a fish-eye lense, the solar panels at 4:28 for example wouldn't show straight as they are.

The picture above is a flat surface with only a circular sun spotlight pattern.  I see no curve at all in the planet's surface.  It would have been more visible if it were not for that bendy light.  I do not blame you all.  I just blame the bending of the light by gravity.  That is why so many errors on viewpoint.  (I speak of the beginning scene picture.)

Geometry, by the way, represents the most biased facsimile in the mathematics department when it comes to RE.  You guys must stop being biased and prejudiced with your negative statements toward flat-earthers.  You need more evidence than just conveniently suspicious equations to validate your stances...
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 01:10:20 PM by Jingle Jangle »

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #47 on: May 16, 2013, 01:09:03 PM »
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

One makes a mathematical model, and compares it with experimental observation to see if it fits. If there's one particular type of observation that doesn't fit, the model is wrong, no matter how well the others fit.

I've yet to see a FET model that fits more than a couple types of observable evidence.

Meanwhile, the only thing that doesn't fit the real world model is your desire for it to be wrong.

We FE'ers have presented plenty of evidence.  Pictures, witnesses, experiments.... Do not call Samuel Birley Rowbotham a troll of any type...

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #48 on: May 16, 2013, 01:18:23 PM »
The island was seen as straight.  And yet the isle of Wight is 22 miles in length total.



It didn't look like this picture below.  If the earth were really curved, you would get this picture.  A big obvious brainer here

« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 01:22:09 PM by Jingle Jangle »

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #49 on: May 16, 2013, 01:26:22 PM »
The island was seen as straight.  And yet the isle of Wight is 22 miles in length total.



It didn't look like this picture below.  If the earth were really curved, you would get this picture.  A big obvious brainer here



Do you have an actual photo or just an artists rendition?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #50 on: May 16, 2013, 01:32:37 PM »
The island was seen as straight.  And yet the isle of Wight is 22 miles in length total.



It didn't look like this picture below.  If the earth were really curved, you would get this picture.  A big obvious brainer here



1. That is not a picture, it's a drawing.

2. The Isle of Wight is 22 miles long. That is 35.2 km.

The curvature of the Earth in 35.2 km is 97m. Simple calculation, Pithagorean theorem: (Ro+h)^2=Ro^2 + L^2 ; where Ro is Earth Radius, L is the length of the island, and h is the height level difference between the two ends of the island. Using Ro=6371 km and L=35.2km, you get h=97m.

This seems significant at first, until you compare L with h.

L/h = 35.2km / 97m = 363.

That means, the length of the island is 363 times greater than the height difference between its ends.

Meaning, even if you took a picture with perfect parallel projection (which isn't possible), the height level difference at the ends of the island would be 1/363 of the length of the island. If the island on the picture would be 363 pixels wide, you'd see a one pixel drop (not on both sides, only on one, or half a pixel of drop on both sides). This isn't something you'd notice with a telescope, you'd think you're seeing a straight line. As far as your eyes can tell, you'd be looking at the first image, on a globe Earth, just the same.

Seriously, you'd only need to think for just a little bit, and you'd realize why seeing curvature on that island is impossible with an optical telescope.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 01:39:34 PM by icanbeanything »

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5129
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #51 on: May 16, 2013, 01:48:39 PM »
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

One makes a mathematical model, and compares it with experimental observation to see if it fits. If there's one particular type of observation that doesn't fit, the model is wrong, no matter how well the others fit.

I've yet to see a FET model that fits more than a couple types of observable evidence.

Meanwhile, the only thing that doesn't fit the real world model is your desire for it to be wrong.

We FE'ers have presented plenty of evidence.  Pictures, witnesses, experiments.... Do not call Samuel Birley Rowbotham a troll of any type...

You have provided virtually no evidence to substantiate most of your claims and you rely upon a book so full of fallacies, misconceptions, and virtually no recorded data written by someone who was too afraid to use his own name when he first published it.  In order for any of your observations to fit your model you invent a new perspective, bendy light, a constantly accelerating Earth, and a global conspiracy which dates back millennia and has never had a single leak.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #52 on: May 16, 2013, 02:16:45 PM »
IcanbeAnything,

So basically you are saying the Earth MUST be round because that's the ONLY model that fits (so far).  I need more than a math equation to prove it to me.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #53 on: May 16, 2013, 02:32:02 PM »
IcanbeAnything,

So basically you are saying the Earth MUST be round because that's the ONLY model that fits (so far).  I need more than a math equation to prove it to me.

Yes, it's the only model that fits every kind observational evidence. FET supporters say that they base their belief on their own observations; well, if all observations put together only fit this model (agreed on the point "SO FAR" - this is constantly evolving), and FET models don't fit it, then why would you give more credit to any FET model over it?

You need more than math to prove it... well, you definitely have it. Like I said, most FET models are supported by some observational evidence, but contradicted by others. However, all observational evidence fits the model in which the earth is round. Is this not proof that this model is superior? Math is the model, observation is the proof.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #54 on: May 16, 2013, 02:48:20 PM »
The island was seen as straight.  And yet the isle of Wight is 22 miles in length total.



It didn't look like this picture below.  If the earth were really curved, you would get this picture.  A big obvious brainer here



1. That is not a picture, it's a drawing.

2. The Isle of Wight is 22 miles long. That is 35.2 km.

The curvature of the Earth in 35.2 km is 97m. Simple calculation, Pithagorean theorem: (Ro+h)^2=Ro^2 + L^2 ; where Ro is Earth Radius, L is the length of the island, and h is the height level difference between the two ends of the island. Using Ro=6371 km and L=35.2km, you get h=97m.

This seems significant at first, until you compare L with h.

L/h = 35.2km / 97m = 363.

That means, the length of the island is 363 times greater than the height difference between its ends.

Meaning, even if you took a picture with perfect parallel projection (which isn't possible), the height level difference at the ends of the island would be 1/363 of the length of the island. If the island on the picture would be 363 pixels wide, you'd see a one pixel drop (not on both sides, only on one, or half a pixel of drop on both sides). This isn't something you'd notice with a telescope, you'd think you're seeing a straight line. As far as your eyes can tell, you'd be looking at the first image, on a globe Earth, just the same.

Seriously, you'd only need to think for just a little bit, and you'd realize why seeing curvature on that island is impossible with an optical telescope.

This...
Hello!

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #55 on: May 16, 2013, 03:32:18 PM »
The island was seen as straight.  And yet the isle of Wight is 22 miles in length total.



It didn't look like this picture below.  If the earth were really curved, you would get this picture.  A big obvious brainer here



1. That is not a picture, it's a drawing.

2. The Isle of Wight is 22 miles long. That is 35.2 km.

The curvature of the Earth in 35.2 km is 97m. Simple calculation, Pithagorean theorem: (Ro+h)^2=Ro^2 + L^2 ; where Ro is Earth Radius, L is the length of the island, and h is the height level difference between the two ends of the island. Using Ro=6371 km and L=35.2km, you get h=97m.

This seems significant at first, until you compare L with h.

L/h = 35.2km / 97m = 363.

That means, the length of the island is 363 times greater than the height difference between its ends.

Meaning, even if you took a picture with perfect parallel projection (which isn't possible), the height level difference at the ends of the island would be 1/363 of the length of the island. If the island on the picture would be 363 pixels wide, you'd see a one pixel drop (not on both sides, only on one, or half a pixel of drop on both sides). This isn't something you'd notice with a telescope, you'd think you're seeing a straight line. As far as your eyes can tell, you'd be looking at the first image, on a globe Earth, just the same.

Seriously, you'd only need to think for just a little bit, and you'd realize why seeing curvature on that island is impossible with an optical telescope.

You would still see it visibly.  Its a obvious visual difference.  It is easy to tell the difference between lengths of string.  This should be the same thing.  To be precise the curve difference from middle to side would be 70 feet.  70 feet is very easy to tell.  Dont use metric equivalents to strengthen your points.  People have a feeling for feet more than metric...

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #56 on: May 16, 2013, 03:36:29 PM »
You guys must stop being biased and prejudiced...

Stop right there. Ever heard the expression "That's the pot calling the kettle black"?
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #57 on: May 16, 2013, 03:38:26 PM »

Many people disagree on the validity of the tests that have been done.  Show me a video from space that shows Earth's shape without using a fish-eye lens.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Planet Earth seen from space (Full HD 1080p) ORIGINAL

If they used a fish-eye lense, the solar panels at 4:28 for example wouldn't show straight as they are.

The picture above is a flat surface with only a circular sun spotlight pattern.  I see no curve at all in the planet's surface.  It would have been more visible if it were not for that bendy light.  I do not blame you all.  I just blame the bending of the light by gravity.  That is why so many errors on viewpoint.  (I speak of the beginning scene picture.)


Explain how the space station does not appear to be bend by "bendy light"? Why only at high altitudes and only the earth. You have the proof right in front of you. You see a curved line, but you disregard it and explain it by "bendy light" which you aren't able to explain at all.
Hello!

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #58 on: May 16, 2013, 03:52:33 PM »
When I look at that video "Planet Earth Seen From Space", I see the clouds move in an odd fashion at the beginning scene.  Almost like it is digitized.  Many scenes could have easily been recorded from a high altitude plane as well.  I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced by videos like this.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #59 on: May 16, 2013, 03:53:43 PM »
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

One makes a mathematical model, and compares it with experimental observation to see if it fits. If there's one particular type of observation that doesn't fit, the model is wrong, no matter how well the others fit.

I've yet to see a FET model that fits more than a couple types of observable evidence.

Meanwhile, the only thing that doesn't fit the real world model is your desire for it to be wrong.

We FE'ers have presented plenty of evidence.  Pictures, witnesses, experiments.... Do not call Samuel Birley Rowbotham a troll of any type...
Troll is probably the wrong description. Snake oil salesman is a lot closer to reality.