Year 1888, that is 7 years after Rowbotham's last edition of his "Earth not a globe"...Quite enough time for covering up operation...But they cannot cover up everything...
Either that, or someone was just wrong. Most likely seems Rowbotham. His track record isn't good, as any reasonably well educated and thinking person reading his works will immediately see.
Do you have access to the 1872 edition to see if the 1400 "Sea Miles" is actually what they said? If it is, do they document what this distance represents? Crying "conspiracy" because it's convenient again?
During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, some days as much as 29 miles. Lieutenant Charles Wilkes commanded a United States Navy exploration expedition to the Antarctic from August 18th, 1838 to June 10th, 1842, almost four years spent “exploring and surveying the Southern ocean.” In his journals Lieutenant Wilkes also mentioned being consistently east of his reckoning, sometimes over 20 miles in less than 18 hours.
Currents in an unexplored or little explored-ocean being different by about one mile per hour than expected is evidence of what, exactly?
“February 11th, 1822, at noon, in latitude 65.53. S. our chronometers gave 44 miles more westing than the log in three days. On 22nd of April (1822), in latitude 54.16. S. our longitude by chronometers was 46.49, and by D.R. (dead reckoning) 47° 11´: On 2nd May (1822), at noon, in latitude 53.46. S., our longitude by chronometers was 59° 27´, and by D.R. 61° 6´. October 14th, in latitude 58.6, longitude by chronometers 62° 46´, by account 65° 24´. In latitude 59.7. S., longitude by chronometers was 63° 28´, by account 66° 42´. In latitude 61.49. S., longitude by chronometers was 61° 53´, by account 66° 38´.” -Captain James Weddell, “Voyages Towards the South Pole”
OK. And?
“In the southern hemisphere, navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when still west, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which, according to their reckoning, lay behind them. This misfortune happened to a fine frigate, the Challenger, in 1845. How came Her Majesty’s Ship ‘Conqueror,’ to be lost? How have so many other noble vessels, perfectly sound, perfectly manned, perfectly navigated, been wrecked in calm weather, not only in dark night, or in a fog, but in broad daylight and sunshine - in the former case upon the coasts, in the latter, upon sunken rocks - from being ‘out of reckoning,’ under circumstances which until now, have baffled every satisfactory explanation.” -Rev. Thomas Milner, “Tour Through Creation”
Would you characterize losing a ship on rocks that were charted as "perfectly navigated"? I have no doubt that they were doing the best they were able using the tools available, but the result suggests the navigation wasn't "perfect". This is like saying "the operation was a success but the patient died."
The equatorial circumference of the supposed ball-Earth is said to be 24,900 statute or 21,600 nautical miles. A nautical mile is the distance, following the supposed curvature of the Earth, from one minute of latitude to the next [Note: 21600 nmi circumference of the equator is exactly one nmi per minute of longitude at the equator; that's the definition I've known. One minute of latitude, at your current latitude, is one "Sea Mile", approximately one nmi, but varies slightly with latitude]. A statue mile is the straight line distance between the two, not taking into account Earth’s alleged curvature.
Citation needed! I have never heard of this definition of the statute mile. One reason for this is
it's wrong. Wherever did you hear this? Did you
ever think to check anything you repeat before simply puking it up here?
This definition of "statute mile" would make the statute mile about 40 microns less than a nautical mile.
From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 9,000 miles.
Citation needed.
Your map shows < 6000 statute miles.
These two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided? The answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8357 miles more than the theory of rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.
Care to divulge where you heard that "9000 nmi?" It's clearly balderdash.
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE ALL THE REASONS TO BELIEVE ROWBOTHAM'S WORDS, NOT THE WORDS OF NASA SHILLS...SO WE CAN REPEAT:
<repeated stuff from earlier post that's still wrong>
Nope. He's either lying, mistaken, or quoting incorrect information. It's as simple as that. Nothing has changed.
Again:
Do not use Rowbotham's Zetetic Astronomy as a reference! It is not reliable.