Bedford Level wager

  • 108 Replies
  • 18651 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #60 on: June 21, 2009, 11:32:43 AM »
Quote
It's not about the way facts are presented, but what she states Carpenter actually observed.

Please read the actual book. Garwood interjects her opinions as fact all throughout her work.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41968
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #61 on: June 21, 2009, 11:52:31 AM »
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.

The word I've bolded and underlined is key here. Only he can know what he saw. And frankly, you can suppose whatever you like. The fact remains that I have done nothing of the sort.
[/quote]

Any chance that we can get you to watch those quote tags?  It makes it harder to keep track of who really said what when you delete too many open quote tags.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #62 on: June 21, 2009, 02:22:40 PM »
Quote
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.

The word I've bolded and underlined is key here. Only he can know what he saw. And frankly, you can suppose whatever you like. The fact remains that I have done nothing of the sort.

Any chance that we can get you to watch those quote tags?  It makes it harder to keep track of who really said what when you delete too many open quote tags.

For you, anything.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41968
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #63 on: June 21, 2009, 06:32:57 PM »
Quote
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.

The word I've bolded and underlined is key here. Only he can know what he saw. And frankly, you can suppose whatever you like. The fact remains that I have done nothing of the sort.

Any chance that we can get you to watch those quote tags?  It makes it harder to keep track of who really said what when you delete too many open quote tags.

For you, anything.

Thanks buddy.  :-*
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #64 on: June 21, 2009, 07:12:21 PM »
Quote
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.

The word I've bolded and underlined is key here. Only he can know what he saw. And frankly, you can suppose whatever you like. The fact remains that I have done nothing of the sort.
All you pointed out is the account of his observations didn't quantify how much the height of the markers appeared to decrease. However, it is very clear the markers did appear to decrease in height, which is what I was asking you to comment on.

Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #65 on: June 21, 2009, 07:16:24 PM »
Quote
It's not about the way facts are presented, but what she states Carpenter actually observed.

Please read the actual book. Garwood interjects her opinions as fact all throughout her work.
I read the chapter relevant to this thread. Are you actually suggesting that what she claims Carpenter observed was according to her opinion? How much of the chapter do you think is fictitious, and why did you reference it? If the book is full of lies, why should I read it?
« Last Edit: June 21, 2009, 07:17:58 PM by cdenley »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #66 on: June 21, 2009, 07:19:30 PM »
I read the chapter relevant to this thread. Are you actually suggesting that what she claims Carpenter observed was according to her opinion?

Obviously, since he looked into the telescope and instantly saw that he had won. He even wrote a book about the experiment:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Water-not-Convex-Demonstrated-experiments/dp/B000WSMZQW

Quote
How much of the chapter do you think is fictitious, and why did you reference it? If the book is full of lies, why should I read it?

The book isn't full of lies. It's just intermixed with opinion. Garwood constantly interjects her opinion on what FE'ers "really" saw. Or what FE'ers "really" did. Or what their "real" motives were. But the bare facts are there.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2009, 07:32:33 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #67 on: June 21, 2009, 07:33:02 PM »
I read the chapter relevant to this thread. Are you actually suggesting that what she claims Carpenter observed was according to her opinion?

Obviously, since he looked into the telescope and instantly saw that he had won. He even wrote a book about the experiment:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Water-not-Convex-Demonstrated-experiments/dp/B000WSMZQW
He claimed he won because the markers appeared to decreased in height, which he claimed to indicated a straight line angled downward, which is why he claimed to have won. This is clearly explained in the book you referenced which I quoted in this thread. However, since the markers and telescope were at the same height, the top of the markers should overlap on a flat earth. Carpenter's observation indicated the earth is round. Would you agree?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41968
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #68 on: June 21, 2009, 07:39:46 PM »
Obviously, since he looked into the telescope and instantly saw that he had won. He even wrote a book about the experiment:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Water-not-Convex-Demonstrated-experiments/dp/B000WSMZQW

Quote from: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Water-not-Convex-Demonstrated-experiments/dp/B000WSMZQW
Currently unavailable.
We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock.

Also, no comments or reviews listed.  Unable to determine if Amazon has ever sold or plans on ever selling a copy.  I'm not saying that there is anything sinister afoot.  It just seems that this source is conveniently unavailable.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #69 on: June 22, 2009, 02:16:29 AM »
I read the chapter relevant to this thread. Are you actually suggesting that what she claims Carpenter observed was according to her opinion?

Obviously, since he looked into the telescope and instantly saw that he had won. He even wrote a book about the experiment:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Water-not-Convex-Demonstrated-experiments/dp/B000WSMZQW
He claimed he won because the markers appeared to decreased in height, which he claimed to indicated a straight line angled downward, which is why he claimed to have won. This is clearly explained in the book you referenced which I quoted in this thread. However, since the markers and telescope were at the same height, the top of the markers should overlap on a flat earth. Carpenter's observation indicated the earth is round. Would you agree?

"Light bends upwards" ...

"It's all a conspiracy" ...

"When I look out of my window I can see The Earth is flat" ...

Blah, blah, blah ...

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit ...
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #70 on: June 22, 2009, 04:53:04 AM »
I read the chapter relevant to this thread. Are you actually suggesting that what she claims Carpenter observed was according to her opinion? How much of the chapter do you think is fictitious, and why did you reference it? If the book is full of lies, why should I read it?

It isn't full of lies, but if you read it closely, you will see that she does put a certain 'spin' on things. The facts are never tampered with, and for this reason it is an excellent resource for anyone interestd in the history of FET, but you need to be aware that her opinion does occasionally colour her description.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #71 on: June 22, 2009, 05:57:02 AM »
Please read the actual book. Garwood interjects her opinions as fact all throughout her work.
The book isn't full of lies. It's just intermixed with opinion. Garwood constantly interjects her opinion on what FE'ers "really" saw. Or what FE'ers "really" did. Or what their "real" motives were. But the bare facts are there.
Stating something as a fact which is not a fact is a lie. If she says Carpenter saw markers which appeared to decrease in height, then either she found a reliable account which indicated that, or she is full of shit. Which is it? Can the book be trusted or not?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #72 on: June 23, 2009, 04:00:25 AM »
It isn't full of lies, but if you read it closely, you will see that she does put a certain 'spin' on things. The facts are never tampered with, and for this reason it is an excellent resource for anyone interestd in the history of FET, but you need to be aware that her opinion does occasionally colour her description.

Uh huh. OK so is it fact that the court case was brought by Wallace against Hampden because Hampden started printing and distributing libelous leaflets about Wallace, and that Hapden was duely arrested and eventually ordered to pay damages which he managed to avoid paying by transfering his property to his son and declaring himself backrupt?

Or is it Christine Garwoods opinion?

Uh, is it a fact that this has nothing to do with what we're talking about? What is a fact is that you really need to visit this lin I keep giving you:

www.rif.org


www.hop.com is also good. Seriously, what I said is perfectly clear, so either take the time to read my posts or simply shut up.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #73 on: June 23, 2009, 11:02:17 AM »
No comment on the stated fact of what Carpenter observed?
Quote
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
Is this untrue? If so, then it is a lie, and the book is not a reliable source of information. If not, then how do you explain the markers appearing lower? Before you avoid answering the question yet again:
  • The above quoted sentence is stated as a fact, regardless of "spin".
  • His reaction to or interpretation of his observation is irrelevant.
  • It is irrelevant how much lower the markers appeared below the cross-hair or each other, as any apparent height decrease from the first to second markers contradict a flat earth.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #74 on: June 23, 2009, 12:26:48 PM »
Quote
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.

The word I've bolded and underlined is key here. Only he can know what he saw. And frankly, you can suppose whatever you like. The fact remains that I have done nothing of the sort.

I have read the book myself, Garwood actually included the drawings of Carpenters observation.  You can see for yourself what is meant by "somewhat".

Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #75 on: June 24, 2009, 06:29:34 AM »
Quote
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
This is written as a fact. If you don't trust her stated facts, then stop using her book as a reference. I suppose you simply pick and choose the facts which seem to support your theory, and ignore the rest.

The word I've bolded and underlined is key here. Only he can know what he saw. And frankly, you can suppose whatever you like. The fact remains that I have done nothing of the sort.

I have read the book myself, Garwood actually included the drawings of Carpenters observation.  You can see for yourself what is meant by "somewhat".
As I already said, how much the the markers appear below the cross-hair or each other is irrelevant. They're trying to avoid addressing the actual observation by arguing an irrelevant point.

Also, contrary to what NEEMAN says, they are disregarding this specific stated fact from Garwood's book because it contradicts their theory. However, the book is one of their most common resources, so I think it is safe to assume they treat stated facts which support their theory with much less skepticism. In other words, they "pick and choose the facts which seem to support [their] theory", as I said before.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #76 on: June 24, 2009, 07:17:16 AM »
I know,  my comment was separate from your argument.  I was addressing Neeman and Tom's point about not knowing what Carpenter saw through the telescope.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #77 on: June 24, 2009, 07:17:41 AM »
cdenley, you asked a question at the beginning of this article claiming what Tom Bishop argued was untrue and contradicted by your source. You asked for another source, and we satisfied you on that point. We're not picking or choosing facts. You asked:

In an unrelated thread, Tom Bishop claims that neither party had agreed on the outcome of the experiment, and the wager wasn't paid. Are there any reliable sources which contradict the article I linked to above?

And we have shown that this is exactly what happened. Now you're asking us a very different and very vague question:

Now that I have read such a detailed account of the wager, I would be interested in how FE'ers would interpret the result of the experiment. If you're not familiar with the result, you can read about it in the preview provided above.

My answer is that it was a long time ago, and to be honest, I'm not sure the experiment could prove anything either way. All current FE theories would predict the same results.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #78 on: June 24, 2009, 07:20:46 AM »
What result would you expect to see if the earth was round?

Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #79 on: June 24, 2009, 07:26:53 AM »
cdenley, you asked a question at the beginning of this article claiming what Tom Bishop argued was untrue and contradicted by your source. You asked for another source, and we satisfied you on that point. We're not picking or choosing facts. You asked:

In an unrelated thread, Tom Bishop claims that neither party had agreed on the outcome of the experiment, and the wager wasn't paid. Are there any reliable sources which contradict the article I linked to above?

And we have shown that this is exactly what happened. Now you're asking us a very different and very vague question:

Now that I have read such a detailed account of the wager, I would be interested in how FE'ers would interpret the result of the experiment. If you're not familiar with the result, you can read about it in the preview provided above.

My answer is that it was a long time ago, and to be honest, I'm not sure the experiment could prove anything either way. All current FE theories would predict the same results.

Yes, the point addressed in my original post was addressed. By the way, the contradiction was more than a claim, as I provided the article which you could have read for yourself. As I had indicated, once I read the reference you had given, I became curious about how a FE'er would explain the results. Do you insist that I start a new thread? It didn't seem too off-topic.

Since Rowbotham's Bedform Level experiment is often cited as evidence the earth is flat by FE'ers, then how could all FE theories predict these results? You don't all seem to believe in "bendy light", and that is the only explanation I have read so far. Also, last I checked, the official FET no longer accepted "bendy light".

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #80 on: June 24, 2009, 09:04:52 AM »
My answer is that it was a long time ago, and to be honest, I'm not sure the experiment could prove anything either way. All current FE theories would predict the same results.

What does it matter how long ago it was?  Current FE theory predicts that the far marker would appear below the closer one?  Doesn't that contradict Rowbatham?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #81 on: June 24, 2009, 09:36:06 AM »
What does it matter how long ago it was?  Current FE theory predicts that the far marker would appear below the closer one? Doesn't that contradict Rowbatham?

I'm not as big a fan of Rowbotham as some people are. I think he was a decent man who made a decent effort to prove that the Earth is flat, but I think he was off the mark on a number of things.

You don't all seem to believe in "bendy light", and that is the only explanation I have read so far. Also, last I checked, the official FET no longer accepted "bendy light".

I believe in the EA.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2009, 09:52:38 AM by NEEMAN »
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #82 on: June 24, 2009, 09:42:37 AM »
Fair enough, now that I know where you stand on that.  

I have never seen any experimental data on EA that was independent of the earth being flat.  From what do you base your belief of EA?

EDIT:  I realize this could get very off topic, if you prefer I can post this in a new thread, as long as you are willing to respond.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #83 on: June 24, 2009, 09:51:22 AM »
Quote
Since Rowbotham's Bedform Level experiment is often cited as evidence the earth is flat by FE'ers, then how could all FE theories predict these results?

FET predicts the results just fine.

A woman named Lady Bount was among the first to peer review Rowbotham's work:

    "The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

Mrs. Peach recently found a reference of photographic evidence from The English Mechanic, a scientific journal:

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.
"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.
The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".


How does your globe earth model explain those trials?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #84 on: June 24, 2009, 09:54:15 AM »
Fair enough, now that I know where you stand on that.  

I have never seen any experimental data on EA that was independent of the earth being flat.  From what do you base your belief of EA?

EDIT:  I realize this could get very off topic, if you prefer I can post this in a new thread, as long as you are willing to respond.

To be perfectly honest, I'm simply not cut out to argue about the EA, so if you don't mind, I'd prefer not to- there are other people who are far more capable of doing so than I am. I'd probably mess it up.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #85 on: June 24, 2009, 09:58:00 AM »
Except that other experiment either contradicts the stated fact from your resource (Garwood's book), or Lady Bound had a superior mirage photographed. I've read about that photograph, but never actually seen it. Do you have a link handy?
Quote
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
Is this a lie or not? If not, how do you explain the results?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #86 on: June 24, 2009, 10:00:53 AM »
Quote
He observed that the centre marker was somewhat below the cross-hair on the telescope, and the far marker on Old Bedford Bridge the same distance again below that.
Is this a lie or not? If not, how do you explain the results?

Ok, seriously, that's either a very stupid or very philosophical question, and its not one I'm getting into here.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #87 on: June 24, 2009, 10:15:07 AM »
I never attacked EA, and I won't ask you to argue it.  I just wanted to know what you base your belief off of.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #88 on: June 24, 2009, 10:25:38 AM »
I never attacked EA, and I won't ask you to argue it.  I just wanted to know what you base your belief off of.

It just seems like a very reasonable explanation.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Bedford Level wager
« Reply #89 on: June 24, 2009, 10:42:05 AM »
Ok, seriously, that's either a very stupid or very philosophical question, and its not one I'm getting into here.
You already gave me your explanation for the observed results (bendy light). Thanks by the way. That question was directed at Tom, since I don't believe he subscribes to the bendy light theory. Sorry if the post was confusing. He avoided answering the question by claiming that it was the opinion of Garwood. However, the sentence describing the observations was clearly stated as a fact. I'm trying to establish whether Tom accepts the stated fact from his book, or whether he thinks that Garwood's summary of Carpenter's observation was untrue. We need to establish this point before we can discuss the thread's topic further (Tom and I).