Further confirmation that it's Mr. G.W.Winckler we should be looking for can be found here
http://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Chapter_04.htmlEver since Rowbotham, the foundation “proof” of flat-earthism has been that the surface of still water is level. Zetetics generally refused to recognize that the word could mean a curved surface of equal gravitational potential, and they insisted that every occurrence of “level” referred to a flat surface. Hampden had recognized that if anyone had practical experience with the earth’s alleged curvature, it would be those who laid out railroads and canals. In the pages of The Earth; Scripturally, Rationally, and Practically Described, he had asked editorially, “Where are the engineers?” In the pages of Earth Review, the zetetic civil engineers responded, rising to reject the curvature of the earth. One G. W. Winckler, Assoc. M.I.C.E., [note 4.13] wrote as follows:
As an engineer of many years experience, I say that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No Engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways, and many more of canals, and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. The allowance for curvature means this—that it is 8 inches for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule, an allowance for curvature of 600 feet! Think of that, and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. I must, however, state that college astronomers have made the student engineer to think that in his method of levelling what is known as the “backsight” cancels any curvature by his “foresight” and so on. It is only a theory … [ref. 4.25]
Winckler’s statement seemed, to the zetetics at least, to confirm a note contributed to the second issue of Earth Review by Isaac Smith:
Standing order 14 House of Commons, denies convexity. There is no allowance to be made for it. None in making the Suez Canal, 80 miles long. None in making the Canal in China, 700 miles long. None in making the Manchester Ship Canal; working from a level datum line no allowance is required at all. [ref. 4.26]
Smith didn’t give a source for this statement, but it was endlessly repeated in zetetic publications to prove that engineering projects funded by the House of Commons were proceeded on zetetic principles.
M.I.C.E is Member of the Institute of Civil Engineers.
According to the Institutes membership lists, A
George Walter Winckler was elected to the Institute on 5th December 1871 Location was the Toronto Post Office. He also appears in other listings as being employed for a time in Bombay.
His quotation was later abbreviated and his initials gotten mangled by A.Hottentot in the Earth not a globe Review in 1893, the mistaken version has been quoted many times since.
Which leaves us to wonder why George Walter Winckler got it wrong, he failed to recognize that taking a backsight and foresight from a mid point, the technique used to survey railway lines and canals is done expressly to cancel out the earth's curvature for the purpose of establishing a level sight line when doing geodetic surveys.
Refer to the backsight method of establishing an elevation from a midpoint, and cancelling the curvature as explained towards the end of this video.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available