Because ‘seeing’ did mean the same as visibility, and still does, to 99% of the world.
Hold on, are you claiming they DiD mean it that way back then still?
Based on what, exactly?
Look at the evidence, it is very clear to see.
They usually referred to ‘seeing’ as ‘bad or good or near perfect seeing conditions’, which means they mean it as a value of how clear the skies are to ‘see’ things like Saturn, which is exactly how it works with ‘visibily’ as ‘bad or good or excellent visibily conditions’. There is absolutely no difference in what they both mean, they mean the very same thing, since they are synonymous to one another, certainly they are in this case.
So look at their descriptions of ‘seeing’, but look through them a bit better this time, if you want to, because I know what they meant by ‘seeing’, know how they used ‘seeing’ as a level or degree of clarity, or vidibilty, they describe it in this form many times in fact. And they also used visibility instead of ‘seeing’, a few times.
Their own descriptions with the word prove what they meant by it, prove it meant the same as visibility to them, used in place of it a few times, and everything else you claimed and still claim they meant by it, was what YOU made up and lied that THEY meant it that way back then.
I’m sure that you wanted the word to cover for Saturns eternal and constant motion of a rapid rotation, or just any apparent motion it looks like anytime, by claiming ‘seeing’ meant any apparent motion of Saturn was due to an effect of atmosphere, or anything they saw which was ‘impossible to be true’, as if they knew what was possible or not of Saturn back then!
Since you’re going to keep claiming they meant all this by ‘seeing’, even after those recent astronomers only changed the meaning for astronomy 10 years ago or whatever, which further confirms they didn’t mean anything else by it except the same way as visibily, and I’ve shown you exactly how and where and why it was used the same way as visibility….
I think that you’re going to keep claiming what they meant by it, when it’s proven they never did mean such things, after they just changed its meaning recently, so back then THEY COULD NOT HAVE MEANT ANYTHING ELSE BY IT. And there is nothing said in any document before or after they said it, until recently, that it ever meant something or anything else at all.
No bother, you know they never used it any other way, nobody ever mentioned that it meant anything else, know how they did use it to describe the clarity or vidibilty conditions.
And you certainly know that you lied about them meaning something else by it, and lied about how they ‘all understood what it meant’.
Those lies are yours, everyone here can find those lies in this thread, far back.
Another classic narcissist behaviour, when caught in lies, when proof is about to be shown to others of your lies…
Btw, I figured you might try this after i told you I’d show your claims again. That’s not good for you, so rather than actually admit you were lying, which a narcissist would rather kill themselves before admitting to their many lies….
You chose the only other option than the truth, to admit you lied about it all, is never an option for you…
A narcissist will say their claim IS true, not a lie, like a murdered filmed committing a murder will deny he killed anyone to his deathbed, or his execution, in some states and countries.