The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.

  • 181 Replies
  • 13347 Views
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #120 on: February 19, 2020, 11:22:03 PM »
You can start with Earth: Not A Globe.
Why?
It presents no evidence that Earth is flat.
It blatantly misrepresents physics, appeals to wilful ignorance and uses quite dishonest wording to pretend there is a problem where there is none.

*

rabinoz

  • 26280
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #121 on: February 20, 2020, 04:57:20 AM »
You can start with Earth: Not A Globe. It presents plenty of evidence that earth is not a globe; have you read it, given how long you've been here? The Zeteticist is another great source.
Really? Have you read his "so-called" proofs that prove nothing?

For example, consider his Biot and Arago observation in
Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax', [1881]
EXPERIMENT 14
In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.

Apart from other little things, he states "The elevation of the two points was nearly the same". But if you read the real account of Biot and Arago work you will find that:
    "Camprey" is really "Campvey",
    "a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas" refers to Mt Bartolo with height 729 meters, or 2390 feet and
    research shows that "Camprey" (really "Campvey") is now "Camp Vell" on the NW corner of Ibiza at an altitude of about 1266 feet (about 386 metres).
The only place that could fit the Camp Vell is Camp Vell Mountain, 386 m at 39° 3'27.51"N, 1°21'14.26"E (Google Earth). Shown here on a segment of an Ibiza map:

So Rowbotham's "The elevation of the two points was nearly the same" is totally fabricated, though the distance of "nearly 100 miles" is correct.

So rather than "the light on the rock in Spain" being "more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight" that light was not hidden by the curve at all.
From Camp Vell at an altitude of 1266 feet, even with no refraction at all, 2123 feet of Mt Bartolo's 2390 feet would be hidden - no problem seeing that light for that reason.

With typical refraction, only 1602 feet would be hidden.

So, not only did Rowbotham make numerical errors in his description but with the correct heights, he simply has no case!

But this is just one example of a number of quite unforgivable bungles he made.

I readily admit that I had not studied all of Zetetic Astronomy in detail but I've read enough to know that one could not abse ones "Worldview" of a book so riddled with factual errors!


*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #122 on: February 21, 2020, 09:23:02 AM »
You are incorrect both in your numbers and in your treatment of them.

Looking at the original source after spending a few minutes translating it from french, we see absolute heights of 1312.34 feet and 2378 feet, or in the original 400 m and 725 m. The expected drop over 100 miles is 6668.41 feet. Clearly, you could not see this light if the earth was a globe. Even using your inaccurately reported numbers taken from a debunking site that isn't do its job.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 09:25:43 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #123 on: February 21, 2020, 01:37:51 PM »
You are incorrect both in your numbers and in your treatment of them.

Looking at the original source after spending a few minutes translating it from french, we see absolute heights of 1312.34 feet and 2378 feet, or in the original 400 m and 725 m. The expected drop over 100 miles is 6668.41 feet. Clearly, you could not see this light if the earth was a globe. Even using your inaccurately reported numbers taken from a debunking site that isn't do its job.

The numbers are fairly close. 400 vs 386 and 725 vs 729.
But it is definitely your treatment that is wrong.
You are pulling the same dishonest BS that the high prophet of FE Row Boat did.

Who cares what the drop is. That doesn't determine what you can or cannot see.
What you need to consider is how far away is the horizon and then what is the drop BEYOND the horizon, as the horizon is what is obstructing your view.
If you completely ignore refraction, and use the simple 8 inches per mile squared, starting at an altitude of 1312.34 feet, you have the horizon at 44.37 miles away. That means the drop you should actually care about is for 55.6 miles.
That drop is 2063 feet. Now, I might not be a math genius, but last time I checked 2378 is bigger than 2063. In fact it is bigger by roughly 315 feet.
That would mean that there is no problem seeing the light.

So this observation is not a problem for the RE. It in no way demonstrates that Earth is not a globe.
Pretending it does is extreme dishonesty, a blatant misrepresentation of what obscures what on the globe.
It completely ignores the height of the observer, pretending that instead of being at 400 m high, that they are at sea level.

Here is a simple diagram to show that.
It uses 2 scales, one for x and one for y.
To make it use a single scale, squish the y axis, it wont change anything that actually matters. The line of sight to the top will still go above the horizon.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #124 on: February 21, 2020, 01:48:11 PM »
If I get some time later I'll plug it all into matlab. I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong on this point. Of course, this says nothing to any other legitimate evidence in EnaG.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #125 on: February 21, 2020, 02:07:33 PM »
Where does it say in the quote that it was the peak of Camp Vey? Stop lying. This was pointed out to you before. Not everyone who says that they are on Mt. Everest are on its peak.

Nor does it say that the other location that the light was on was El Bartolo. It just says that it was a "rocky summit" in a mountain range. It's also referred to as "the rock" in the quote and not a mountain.

We see intentional effort to lie to us. We've had this conversation before. Everyone can see that those things are not said in the quote, and you repeat those lies to us.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 05:48:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

rabinoz

  • 26280
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #126 on: February 21, 2020, 02:15:05 PM »
You are incorrect both in your numbers and in your treatment of them.

Looking at the original source after spending a few minutes translating it from french, we see absolute heights of 1312.34 feet and 2378 feet, or in the original 400 m and 725 m. The expected drop over 100 miles is 6668.41 feet. Clearly, you could not see this light if the earth was a globe. Even using your inaccurately reported numbers taken from a debunking site that isn't do its job.
I suggest that you think again and if you can find errors in the "debunking site" (other than a few irrelevant feet) please point them out.

  • Look at Rowbotham's "quote" again, thank you.
    Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
    Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax', [1881]
    EXPERIMENT 14
    In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.
    He writes "The elevation of the two points was nearly the same" and your 400 m and 725 m (or my 386 m and 729 m) are far from being "nearly the same".
    So Rowbotham is wrong on this very critical factual matter!

    He (and so many other flat Earthers like you) still seem to make the same grievous error in their so-called "proofs".

  • Then you claim that "The expected drop over 100 miles is 6668.41 feet." But that is simply the geometric drop of the Earth's surface below the local horizontal.
    It bears little relation to the height hidden by the curve of the sea from a raised observation point nor does it allow for any atmospheric refraction which is almost always present - and can lead to more but almost always to less hidden.

    So from the viewing point, the hill near Camp Vell on Ibiza (modern names), at 400 m or 1312 feet above sea-level the geometric hidden distance is 2064 feet (629 m) and fire on Bartolo was at an elevation 2378 feet.

    Hence the fire on Bartolo was 314 feet above the curve even with no allowance for atmospheric refraction.
    So there was no problem for Jean-Baptiste Biot and François Arago. The sites were carefully chosen allowing from the known curvature of the Earth.

    So your statement "Clearly, you could not see this light if the earth was a globe." is clearly incorrect and reflects Rowbotham's own neglect of the effect of the viewer height on the distance to the horizon.

This might be worth reading:
Quote from: Mick West
Earth's Curve Calculator

To use the Metabunk curve calculator you just put in the distance to the object in miles and your height above the surface in feet.

The Metabunk curve calculator was written to provide a simple answer to the question: "how much of a distant object is hidden by the curve of the earth from a certain distance and view position". The following diagram is an exaggerated look at the numbers involved.

There's a version of this diagram on the calculator page that you can move around.

Notice there are two sets of results given, "Results ignoring refraction" and "With Standard Refraction".

The results ignoring refraction are the results if we ignore the effects of the air (the atmosphere) between the viewer (the eye position) and the target object.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #127 on: February 21, 2020, 02:16:48 PM »
Where does it say in the quote that the observation point was the peak of Camp Vey?

Where in the quote does it say that the light was was on the top of El Bartolo? It's referred to as a rocky summit and "the rock", not a mountain.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 02:23:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #128 on: February 21, 2020, 02:23:16 PM »
If I get some time later I'll plug it all into matlab. I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong on this point. Of course, this says nothing to any other legitimate evidence in EnaG.
It is an example of how EnaG using extremely dishonest claims (or just outright lies) to pretend there is a problem for the RE.
Yes, it isn't conclusive, but to go through them all just turns it into gish-gallop, where it is just a collection of nonsense which takes far more time to go through and refute piece by piece.

But based upon that, and other similar issues, EnaG is not a book any well informed, sane person would use as evidence against a RE.

Where does it say in the quote that it was the peak of Camp Vey? Stop lying. This was pointed out to you before.
We have been over this before, IT DOESN'T! It does not provide enough details to critically examine the claim.
Row Boat is intentionally vague to pretend there is a problem when there is none.

We see intentional effort to lie to us. We've had this conversation before. Everyone can see that those things are not said in the quote, and you repeat those lies to us.
Yes, we see an intentional effort by Row Boat to lie to us, to pretend there is a problem with the RE when there is none.
What is quite clear is that the number he provided makes no sense at all, unless both the light and observer were at sea level.
It is nothing more than dishonest garbage.

What source did Row Boat use for this dishonest garbage?
What was the actual height of these 2 locations?
Do you have any hard numbers at all, or just vague nonsense to pretend there is a problem when there is none?

If you would like more examples of such dishonesty/outright lies/pure nonsense in the book, there are plenty there.
For example:
In Experiment 11 he admits that a theodolite shows that the horizon is below eye level, and that only by removing the magnification can you get it to appear at (or "close to") eye level.

In chapter 3 he describes how an object should allegedly move when thrown upwards from a moving object.
He claims it should follow a diagonal path up to the peak, and then drop directly down. Something never observed by anyone and repeatedly shown to be wrong by so many observations it isn't funny.

In Chapter 9, for the "cause" of sunrise and sunset, he appeals to perspective, and then completely ignores just how far away the sun would need to be to get it close to the horizon.

In Chapter 14 he tries to use limits of angular resolution to explain why objects disappear, clearly starting out with small objects disappearing before larger objects, and then just jumps to pretending that means lower down objects disappear before higher objects, ignoring the fact that quite often, the higher objects are smaller and harder to resolve than the sections of boat which are missing.
He then tries to back this up with circular reasoning, where he assumes Earth is flat to try and show that perspective magically hides the bottom of distant objects as is observed on the round Earth.

He also dismisses arguments against Earth being flat and for showing Earth is round as "premature and illogical", even though he has no actual refutation and again appeals to circular reasoning where he assumes Earth is flat to argue that the evidence/argument which shows Earth isn't flat isn't actually a problem for a FE.

Any "legitimate evidence" in EnaG is spoilt by the extreme dishonesty displayed elsewhere in it.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 02:26:03 PM by JackBlack »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #129 on: February 21, 2020, 02:25:03 PM »
Quote
Quote
Where does it say in the quote that it was the peak of Camp Vey? Stop lying. This was pointed out to you before.

 IT DOESN'T!

It doesn't say that. That's right. So we see that you admit that you chose to lie to us about the location, instead. Such dishonesty.

Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #130 on: February 21, 2020, 02:27:57 PM »
It doesn't say that. That's right. So we see that you admit that you chose to lie to us about the location, instead. Such dishonesty.
No, we see Row Boat chooses to lie and pretend there is a problem when there is none.
Such dishonesty from FEers is typical.

Instead of lying to you, I demonstrated how this observation can be entirely consistent with a RE.

If you would like to provide a better source, which clearly shows the height of the observer and the lamp, to try and demonstrate there is a problem for the RE, feel free to do so.

Until then, this quote from your dishonest high prophet Row Boat in no way shows a problem for the RE.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #131 on: February 21, 2020, 02:43:56 PM »
The section is about Experiment 14 and the account by those two men are mentioned later in passing, with information on where Rowbotham got that from if we are interested in learning more. The section is about Experiment 14, and not that. If you are interested in learning more, and want exact elevations, do your research. If the material is no longer available, that's sad for you.

There is nothing wrong with that section at all. Rowbotham gives us a lead on where to find more observations like the observations he saw, and naturally not a full rundown account, as the section is not dedicated to that. Once again, the section is about Experiment 14.

There is nothing wrong with Rowbotham. What is wrong here is your blatant and admitted lies in your effort of dishonest portrayal.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 04:48:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

rabinoz

  • 26280
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #132 on: February 21, 2020, 02:58:47 PM »
Where does it say in the quote that it was the peak of Camp Vey? Stop lying. This was pointed out to you before. Not everyone who says that they are on Mt. Everest are on its peak.

Nor does it say that the other location was El Bartolo. It just says that it was a "rocky summet" in a mountain range. It's also referred to as "a rock".

We see intentional effort to lie to us. We've had this conversation before. Everyone can see that those things are not said in the quote, and you repeat your lies to us.
I could not care less what you claim! But anyone who has to accuse their opponent of lying has lost the argument! Bye Tom!

I am pointing out that Rowbotham was obviously wrong in his reporting of Biot and Arago's survey.

One point that you cannot deny is that Rowbotham erred greatly in claiming that "The elevation of the two points was nearly the same" - that is quite impossible!

Look at Rowbotham's "quote" again, thank you.
Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax', [1881]
EXPERIMENT 14
In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.

The highest point on Ibiza is Sa Talaiassa at 475 m (1312 feet) and
  • Sa Talaiassa is not in sight of any "rocky summit in Desierto las Palmas".
    But even Rowbotham identifies the place as "Camprey, on the Island of Iviza" and there is no doubt that that the point referred to is Camp Vell shown on this segment of an Ibiza map:

    The stated height is 400 m.

  • The elavation of "Desierto las Palmas" is the important point.
    I suggest that you search for simply "Elevation of Desierto las Palmas" and the result is 729 m.
    But, if you disagree, please identify another "rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas" that is almost exactly 100 miles from the Camp Vell (Rowbotham's "Camprey").
    Here are some summits in  to assist your search:
    Quote

    Serra d’En Galceran – 1078 metres in height
    Montegordo 837 metres in height
    Serra d’Esparreguera 1087 metres in height
    Serra d’En Celler 1147 metres in height
    Serra d’Espadà 1106 metres in height
    Tossal d’Orenga 1144 metres in height
    None are less than TWICE the height of Camp Vell on Ibiza so Rowbotham was provably incorrect with his claim that:
    The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles
But from an elevation of 400 m (1312 feet) the amount could not possibly be 6600 feet as Rowbotham claims.
That 6600 feet is only for an observer right on sea-level - quite impossible.
From a viewing height of 1312 feet the hidden height is no more than 2064.5 feet or 629 m and that is lower than any of the summits in the region of Desierto las Palmas, let alone on almost exactly 100 miles (about 160 km) from Camp Vell.

So Rowbotham is grossly wrong on quite a number of points - your idol has feet of clay!

*

rabinoz

  • 26280
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #133 on: February 21, 2020, 03:03:32 PM »
The section is about Experiment 14 and the account by those two men are mentioned later in passing, with information on where Rowbotham got that from if we are interested in learning more. The section is about Chapter 14, and not that. If you are interested in learning more, and want exact elevations, do your research. If the material is no longer available, that's sad for you.

There is nothing wrong with that section at all. Rowbotham gives us a lead on where to find more observations like the observations he saw, and naturally not a full rundown account, as the section is not dedicated to that. Once again, the section is about Experiment 14.

There is nothing wrong with Rowbotham. What is wrong here is your blatant and admitted lies in your effort of dishonest portrayal.
Rubbish! Rowbotham refers explicitly to Biot and Arago, the two relevant points and the distance!
What other survey could he be referring to?

But, in any case, the hidden amount could not possibly be 6660 feet! You struggle valiantly to support your idol but he is simply wrong there and in other places that I could list!

Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #134 on: February 21, 2020, 03:05:57 PM »
The section is about Experiment 14 and the account by those two men are mentioned later in passing, with information on where Rowbotham got that from if we are interested in learning more. The section is about Chapter 14, and not that. If you are interested in learning more, and want exact elevations, do your research. If the material is no longer available, that's sad for you.
So what you are saying is you cannot defend his blatant dishonesty so you will now try and flee from it.

It seems when people do research to show there is no problem, you just accuse them of lying, because your high prophet left out the details which shows his claims to be garbage.

*

Stash

  • 4803
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #135 on: February 21, 2020, 03:17:43 PM »
Where does it say in the quote that the observation point was the peak of Camp Vey?

One can only assume right here, "...and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza."

This from the actual original account Rowbotham cites:
"6. At Campvey, the horizon of the sea was also observed on April 14, 1807, and we had ten repetitions 3 = 100 °, 6609.62; which gives the coefficient n = 0.08, the absolute height of the center of the instrument or lamps, of 400 "2, which is only 2", 5 of more than reciprocal zenith distances; but will with the result that the value of n is a bit low."

Where in the quote does it say that the light was was on the top of El Bartolo? It's referred to as a rocky summit and "the rock", not a mountain.

One can only assume right here, "...with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas..." El Bartolo is the peak, or summit, of the range.

All that being said, this part of ENAG Experiment 14 should be completely disregarded as it it useless. If the vagaries of where the observer and the target was are as ambiguous as you claim, then there is nothing to examine and the whole section and its claims are moot.

No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #136 on: February 21, 2020, 03:37:20 PM »
I'm late to this thread. Just to address the thread title:

Why would anyone base their belief about the shape of the Earth on an inconsistent collection of writings by Bronze-Age people who didn't know anything about physics and didn't even know what was beyond their own small chunk of the world? Not only that, but nothing remains of these books in their original form. They were copied, and copies were made from the copies, and so on for a thousand years, and then translated, and the translations were copied, and copies made of those, and that's what we have today. And we read those copies of copies of translations of copies of copies in translation.

The Bible doesn't prove anything except that the last copyist of the last translation believed in a God.

By the time of the New Testament, every educated person knew the Earth is round and knew approximately how big it is, thanks to the Greeks, who figured it all out a couple of hundred years before Jesus.

What's there to argue about? The Bible doesn't prove anything. It's not even evidence of anything except that people believed in God a long time ago.

Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #137 on: February 21, 2020, 03:46:57 PM »
It doesnt prove.
But hints can be taken either figuratively or literally.

Heres the nephillm!
https://www.heritagedaily.com/2020/02/earliest-interbreeding-event-between-ancient-human-populations-discovered/125816


*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #138 on: February 21, 2020, 03:57:49 PM »
Wrong. It does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that. It says in the quote that the two locations were about the same elevations. The top of El Bartolo is not at the same altitude with any point on Camp Vell.

The drop over 100 miles mentioned is possible. And the assumptions for the locations and elevations made in this thread and elsewhere are false and not stated anywhere in the quote. A total lie for deceitful purposes, by deceitful people, willing to say anything and even totally lie outright, to feign an argument.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 04:05:11 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Stash

  • 4803
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #139 on: February 21, 2020, 04:05:44 PM »
No, it does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that. It says in the quote that the two locations were about the same elevations. The top of El Bartolo is not at the same altitude with any point on Camp Vell.

The drop over 100 miles mentioned is possible. And the assumptions for the locations and elevations made in this thread and elsewhere are false and not stated anywhere in the quote. A total lie for deceitful purposes, by deceitful people, willing to say anything and even totally lie outright, to feign an argument.

Like I said, if you think the assumptions made about the location of the observer and target are false, then we have no idea what the location of the observer and target were. Therefore, that section of ENAG is moot. It's just some unfounded anecdote Rowbotham made up. Meaning zero science.

Experiment 14 = Toast.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #140 on: February 21, 2020, 04:10:38 PM »
Wrong. It does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that.
Again, it says basically nothing.
There is not information there to show that there is any problem at all for a RE.
The drop stated and the way it is stated only works if the observer was at sea level.
A total lie for deceitful purposes.

It is your high prophet trying to pretend there is a problem for the RE when none exists.


If you wish to claim it isn't blatant dishonesty on the part of Row Boat, then tell us what the elevations where. Stop just appealing to his dishonest statement and provide the original source.

John provided a potential original source, which shows no problem for the RE.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #141 on: February 21, 2020, 04:11:04 PM »
No, it does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that. It says in the quote that the two locations were about the same elevations. The top of El Bartolo is not at the same altitude with any point on Camp Vell.

The drop over 100 miles mentioned is possible. And the assumptions for the locations and elevations made in this thread and elsewhere are false and not stated anywhere in the quote. A total lie for deceitful purposes, by deceitful people, willing to say anything and even totally lie outright, to feign an argument.

Like I said, if you think the assumptions made about the location of the observer and target are false, then we have no idea what the location of the observer and target were. Therefore, that section of ENAG is moot. It's just some unfounded anecdote Rowbotham made up. Meaning zero science.

Experiment 14 = Toast.

Experiment 14 is a totally different experiment. The quote you are talking about is an unrelated aside that Rowbotham mentions, that we should look into if we want to read about other similar observations. It is not about Experiment 14 at all. A full rundown is not given on that little mention, which is inserted along with other mentions, because the section is not about that. The section is primarily about Experiment 14, which is a different experiment. How can Experiment 14 be toast?

You either have poor reading comprehension or are unable express yourself honestly. We must discard whatever it is you have to contribute.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 04:51:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #142 on: February 21, 2020, 04:12:52 PM »
Experiment 14 is a totally different experiment.
Which other than the unsubstantiated claim regarding a hypothetical theodolite, it appears to just use the elevation of the objects and pretend that means they are on a straight line.

So quite useless to show Earth is not a globe.

*

Stash

  • 4803
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #143 on: February 21, 2020, 04:24:26 PM »
No, it does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that. It says in the quote that the two locations were about the same elevations. The top of El Bartolo is not at the same altitude with any point on Camp Vell.

The drop over 100 miles mentioned is possible. And the assumptions for the locations and elevations made in this thread and elsewhere are false and not stated anywhere in the quote. A total lie for deceitful purposes, by deceitful people, willing to say anything and even totally lie outright, to feign an argument.

Like I said, if you think the assumptions made about the location of the observer and target are false, then we have no idea what the location of the observer and target were. Therefore, that section of ENAG is moot. It's just some unfounded anecdote Rowbotham made up. Meaning zero science.

Experiment 14 = Toast.

Experiment 14 is a totally different experiment. The quote you are talking about is an unrelated aside that Rowbotham mentions, that we should look into if we want to read about other similar observations. It is not about Experiment 14 at all. A full rundown is not given on that little mention, which is inserted between other mentions, because the section is not about that. The section is primarily about Experiment 14, which is a different experiment. How can Experiment 14 be toast?

You either have poor reading comprehension or are unable express yourself honestly. We must discard whatever it is you have to contribute.

I'm not sure where or by what means you determined that Rowbotham's mention of a sighting that was done was merely an aside. If merely an aside, why mention it? Rowbotham is pretty clear in his assessment of what you consider and 'aside':

"If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

Yet, according to you, we have no idea where the observer was, nor where the target was. If we don't know that, then what's this claimed business about 6600'? You're trying to have it both ways. You can't.

Sorry, Experiment 14, null and void.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #144 on: February 21, 2020, 04:38:15 PM »
Once again, Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain. It is a different experiment.

Quite deceitful to announce that Experiment 14, an unrelated experiment, is "null and void" once you are unable to defend your lies and attempts at deception. But that is to be expected of your posting history.

You must surely have clicked on the link to see that Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain, and that the observation in Spain is an aside branched in with other asides, and not the main subject of the section.

This double down on "Experiment 14 is toast" shows its writer to be nothing other than a deceitful person who is willing to say anything to support his "arguments."

*

Stash

  • 4803
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #145 on: February 21, 2020, 04:53:18 PM »
Once again, Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain. It is a different experiment.

Quite deceitful to announce that Experiment 14, an unrelated experiment, is "null and void" once you are unable to defend your lies and attempts at deception. But that is to be expected of your posting history.

You must surely have clicked on the link to see that Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain, and that the observation in Spain is an aside branched in with other asides, and not the main subject of the section.

This double down on "Experiment 14 is toast" shows its writer to be nothing other than a deceitful person who is willing to say anything to support his "arguments."

Now you've resorted to insults, a sure sign you can't defend your position.

How is it unrelated when it's included in the Experiment 14 chapter which consists of the Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill mention? It and of itself, dubious at best.

You've deemed the mention of the Spain observations as an 'aside' and admit your claim that it doesn't convey where the observer or target was, yet Rowbotham emphatically states:
"If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

Odd, so succinct a conclusion, yet you claim we have no idea where the survey was taken. That unto itself casts a pale light on Rowbotham's other assertions through vagary.

As well, at the top of Experiment 14 he mentions Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill, he states, "The highest point of Hampstead Hill is 430 feet, which we find, on making the proper calculation, would be 78 feet below the summit of Shooter's Hill."

If you look up Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill elevations, you get 449' & 433' respectively. How 16' turned into 78', I don't know. But considering the vagary around the Spain observations one can only assume it's just as imprecise here.

So yeah, Experiment 14 = Null and Void
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 26280
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #146 on: February 21, 2020, 04:58:27 PM »
Wrong. It does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that. It says in the quote that the two locations were about the same elevations. The top of El Bartolo is not at the same altitude with any point on Camp Vell.
True "It does not say El Bartolo" but Rowbotham does say "the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza".
  • There seems no doubt that his "Camprey, on the Island of Iviza" refers to Camp Vell on the island of Ibiza.
    The "Iviza/Ibiza" is simply a change of spelling - there are possibly 4 languages involved, Catalan, French, English and possibly Spanish.
    And the "Camprey/Camp Vell" is partly a transcription error but no big deal - the modern "Camp Vell" at 400 m fits perfectly.

  • And Rowbotham's "a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas can hardly be other than el Bartolo..
    But let's suppose it's not, then what "rocky summit, in the Desierto las Palmas Range could it be? I already all the nearby peaks that I could find - these:
    Quote

    Serra d’En Galceran – 1078 metres in height
    Montegordo 837 metres in height
    Serra d’Esparreguera 1087 metres in height
    Serra d’En Celler 1147 metres in height
    Serra d’Espadà 1106 metres in height
    Tossal d’Orenga 1144 metres in height
    None are less than TWICE the height of Camp Vell on Ibiza so Rowbotham was provably incorrect with his claim that: The elevation of the two points was nearly the same

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The drop over 100 miles mentioned is possible. And the assumptions for the locations and elevations made in this thread and elsewhere are false and not stated anywhere in the quote. A total lie for deceitful purposes, by deceitful people, willing to say anything and even totally lie outright, to feign an argument.
I am not lying!
If by drop you mean how much the light was hidden by then the drop over 100 miles mentioned is definitely NOT possible!

Rowbotham's words are "If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

Even if Rowbotham were correct (and he could not have been) and the two heights were the same at 400 m or 1312 feet that could not possibly be true.

Wriggle, squirm all you like Rowbotham was wrong!


*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #147 on: February 21, 2020, 04:59:35 PM »
Once again, Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain. It is a different experiment.

Quite deceitful to announce that Experiment 14, an unrelated experiment, is "null and void" once you are unable to defend your lies and attempts at deception. But that is to be expected of your posting history.

You must surely have clicked on the link to see that Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain, and that the observation in Spain is an aside branched in with other asides, and not the main subject of the section.

This double down on "Experiment 14 is toast" shows its writer to be nothing other than a deceitful person who is willing to say anything to support his "arguments."

Now you've resorted to insults, a sure sign you can't defend your position.

How is it unrelated when it's included in the Experiment 14 chapter which consists of the Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill mention? It and of itself, dubious at best.

You've deemed the mention of the Spain observations as an 'aside' and admit your claim that it doesn't convey where the observer or target was, yet Rowbotham emphatically states:
"If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

Odd, so succinct a conclusion, yet you claim we have no idea where the survey was taken. That unto itself casts a pale light on Rowbotham's other assertions through vagary.

As well, at the top of Experiment 14 he mentions Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill, he states, "The highest point of Hampstead Hill is 430 feet, which we find, on making the proper calculation, would be 78 feet below the summit of Shooter's Hill."

If you look up Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill elevations, you get 449' & 433' respectively. How 16' turned into 78', I don't know. But considering the vagary around the Spain observations one can only assume it's just as imprecise here.

So yeah, Experiment 14 = Null and Void

So, now you do admit that Experiment 14 is a different experiment. Did you stop relying on rabinoz-quotes and just only barely click on the link to find that you are dead wrong, that Experiment 14 is different than what is being discussed?

I have no idea why you post on these forums, when you turn out to be wrong every time.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 05:07:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #148 on: February 21, 2020, 05:06:38 PM »
Wrong. It does not say El Bartolo, and we are not to assume that. It says in the quote that the two locations were about the same elevations. The top of El Bartolo is not at the same altitude with any point on Camp Vell.
True "It does not say El Bartolo" but Rowbotham does say "the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza".
  • There seems no doubt that his "Camprey, on the Island of Iviza" refers to Camp Vell on the island of Ibiza.
    The "Iviza/Ibiza" is simply a change of spelling - there are possibly 4 languages involved, Catalan, French, English and possibly Spanish.
    And the "Camprey/Camp Vell" is partly a transcription error but no big deal - the modern "Camp Vell" at 400 m fits perfectly.

  • And Rowbotham's "a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas can hardly be other than el Bartolo..
    But let's suppose it's not, then what "rocky summit, in the Desierto las Palmas Range could it be? I already all the nearby peaks that I could find - these:
    Quote

    Serra d’En Galceran – 1078 metres in height
    Montegordo 837 metres in height
    Serra d’Esparreguera 1087 metres in height
    Serra d’En Celler 1147 metres in height
    Serra d’Espadà 1106 metres in height
    Tossal d’Orenga 1144 metres in height
    None are less than TWICE the height of Camp Vell on Ibiza so Rowbotham was provably incorrect with his claim that: The elevation of the two points was nearly the same

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The drop over 100 miles mentioned is possible. And the assumptions for the locations and elevations made in this thread and elsewhere are false and not stated anywhere in the quote. A total lie for deceitful purposes, by deceitful people, willing to say anything and even totally lie outright, to feign an argument.
I am not lying!
If by drop you mean how much the light was hidden by then the drop over 100 miles mentioned is definitely NOT possible!

Rowbotham's words are "If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

Even if Rowbotham were correct (and he could not have been) and the two heights were the same at 400 m or 1312 feet that could not possibly be true.

Wriggle, squirm all you like Rowbotham was wrong!

Nope. It does not say that it's a mountain at all. Along with "rocky summit" it is referred as "the rock". It does not say mountain. Ever been to a mountain range? There are lots of rocks and small summits.

Nor does it say that it's the top of Camp Vey for the observing location.

Further assumptions by rabinoz, in the vain effort to make his case.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 05:39:30 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Stash

  • 4803
Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« Reply #149 on: February 21, 2020, 05:08:28 PM »
Once again, Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain. It is a different experiment.

Quite deceitful to announce that Experiment 14, an unrelated experiment, is "null and void" once you are unable to defend your lies and attempts at deception. But that is to be expected of your posting history.

You must surely have clicked on the link to see that Experiment 14 is not the observation in Spain, and that the observation in Spain is an aside branched in with other asides, and not the main subject of the section.

This double down on "Experiment 14 is toast" shows its writer to be nothing other than a deceitful person who is willing to say anything to support his "arguments."

Now you've resorted to insults, a sure sign you can't defend your position.

How is it unrelated when it's included in the Experiment 14 chapter which consists of the Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill mention? It and of itself, dubious at best.

You've deemed the mention of the Spain observations as an 'aside' and admit your claim that it doesn't convey where the observer or target was, yet Rowbotham emphatically states:
"If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

Odd, so succinct a conclusion, yet you claim we have no idea where the survey was taken. That unto itself casts a pale light on Rowbotham's other assertions through vagary.

As well, at the top of Experiment 14 he mentions Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill, he states, "The highest point of Hampstead Hill is 430 feet, which we find, on making the proper calculation, would be 78 feet below the summit of Shooter's Hill."

If you look up Shooter's Hill/Hampstead Hill elevations, you get 449' & 433' respectively. How 16' turned into 78', I don't know. But considering the vagary around the Spain observations one can only assume it's just as imprecise here.

So yeah, Experiment 14 = Null and Void

So, now you do admit that Experiment 14 is a different experiment. Did you stop relying on rabinoz-quotes and just only barely click on the link to find that you are dead wrong, that Experiment 14 is different than what is being discussed?

How so? The only mention of the Spain observation is in Experiment 14:
https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za19.htm
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 05:12:36 PM by Stash »
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.