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.