You can review our library to find literally thousands of experiments which show the earth is not a globe.
Found in one place only, nonreproduceable or substantiated by anyone or any other 3rd party.
Within our library are reproductions and scans of works that are available at your local library through interlibrary loan. Many of the works contained are peer reviewed journals, and all of them have been peer reviewed in some form.
Those results that meet the metle of peer review have been verified by both third parties and for reproducibility.
You can surely find more of our peer reviewed journals with minimal effort.
If you do have any "peer-reviewed journals" why are you so reluctant to reveal them.
I'm not. There have been plenty over the years. Like I said, visit your local library or our library.
The Earth Not a Globe Review comes to mind as an early example.
The Earth Not a Globe Review contains a "Correspondence" section in each issue. I wouldn't consider a 'Letter to the Editors' section such that this is as
peer review. Maybe your definition of peer review is different than mine. Mine is more like an objective thorough evaluation of a published work that is separate and distinct. Not the sort of fan letters found within the the ENAG Review itself.
Is there anything else you would consider 'peer reviewed' under its more modern definition?
Edit: As an aside I found this interesting. In Issue No.3 (1893), Rowbotham is referred to as Dr. Birley)
"We cannot repeat the evidence here; but those who want it may find the evidence given in an excellent book by Parallax (
Dr, Birley) which has never yet been answered."
I assume because at that time he was more famous as the extended life Elixir purveyor than Flat Earth lecturer?