The Bedford Level Experiment

Just researched it.  Another man named  H Youle Oldham conducted the experiment with poles laid along the canal.  The middle poles were higher than the ones at either end.

At the point chosen for all the experiments the river was a slow-flowing drainage canal running in uninterrupted straight line for a six-mile stretch to the north-east of the village of Welney. The most famous of the observations, and the one that was taught in schools until photographs of the Earth from space became available, involved a set of three poles fixed at equal height above water level along this length. As the surface of the water was assumed to be level, the discovery that the middle pole, when viewed carefully through a theodolite, was almost three feet higher than the poles at each end was finally accepted as a new proof that the surface of the earth was indeed curved.

Magnificent finding.

Lady Anne Blount conclusively disproved that this in fact happened.

How handy.

Lady Anne Blount conclusively disproved that this in fact happened.

Provide a source for your claims.

Lady Anne Blount conclusively disproved that this in fact happened.

You have also said that lunar eclipses were viewed in broad daylight without giving me a source, despite me asking for one multiple times.

Quote from: Username on December 03, 2007, 11:24:37 AM

Lady Anne Blount conclusively disproved that this in fact happened.

Provide a source for your claims.

If you look into the literature you will find that Lady Bount has provided photographic evidence of a Flat Earth:

"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."

Just researched it.  Another man named  H Youle Oldham conducted the experiment with poles laid along the canal.  The middle poles were higher than the ones at either end.

If the earth were a globe, three level poles of equal hight should appear to continually drop downwards behind the convexity of the earth. That H Youle Oldham saw the middle pole higher than the rest simply demonstrates that experimental error occurred.

Your link doesn't provide the direct page with photographic evidence. If you can find it so easily, post it.
PS. I Googled your quote to no get no matches.

Quote

Just researched it.  Another man named  H Youle Oldham conducted the experiment with poles laid along the canal.  The middle poles were higher than the ones at either end.

If the earth were a globe, three level poles of equal hight should appear to continually drop downwards behind the convexity of the earth. That H Youle Oldham saw the middle pole higher than the rest simply demonstrates that experimental error occurred.

Unless the line of sight was measure from the first to last flag's top. Getting the line of sight perfect is hard but looking from flag 1 to 3 would show the curvature affecting 2. 

Unless the line of sight was measure from the first to last flag's top. Getting the line of sight perfect is hard but looking from flag 1 to 3 would show the curvature affecting 2. 

So you're maintaining that if we look straight ahead as in the diagram the flags will appear to continually drop one after another, but if we shift our gaze just a few degrees downwards we will see the middle flag rise up out of the earth and appear higher than the first and last flag?

Quote

Unless the line of sight was measure from the first to last flag's top. Getting the line of sight perfect is hard but looking from flag 1 to 3 would show the curvature affecting 2. 

So you're maintaining that if we look straight ahead as in the diagram the flags will appear to continually drop one after another, but if we shift our gaze just a few degrees downwards we will see the middle flag rise up out of the earth and appear higher than the first and last flag?

Rise out of the Earth? It isn't moving. Draw the line on the diagram if you need to. It works.
See the other thread for Rowbotham's shortcomings.

If you look into the literature you will find that Lady Bount has provided photographic evidence of a Flat Earth:

Wow, heres something new. I thought all photographic evidence was void as it was just part of the consiracy??? And yet here we go, some photos to prove what the FE's belive??? lol Double standards.

(unless rays of light will travel in a curved path)

I cant believe your just giving evidence away that shits on the FE theory. Rays of light ** looks over shoulder just incase ** dont travel in perfectally straight lines. Infact, they are quite curved.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2007, 01:21:59 PM

Quote

Unless the line of sight was measure from the first to last flag's top. Getting the line of sight perfect is hard but looking from flag 1 to 3 would show the curvature affecting 2. 

So you're maintaining that if we look straight ahead as in the diagram the flags will appear to continually drop one after another, but if we shift our gaze just a few degrees downwards we will see the middle flag rise up out of the earth and appear higher than the first and last flag?

Rise out of the Earth? It isn't moving. Draw the line on the diagram if you need to. It works.
See the other thread for Rowbotham's shortcomings.

That's right, Bishop.  It does work.



Now move on to the next topic

Someone needs to do this again.  NOT ON THE CANAL.  Canals are artificial.  Do it on the ocean.  With rowboats.

Quote

Unless the line of sight was measure from the first to last flag's top. Getting the line of sight perfect is hard but looking from flag 1 to 3 would show the curvature affecting 2. 

So you're maintaining that if we look straight ahead as in the diagram the flags will appear to continually drop one after another, but if we shift our gaze just a few degrees downwards we will see the middle flag rise up out of the earth and appear higher than the first and last flag?

Erm, yeah Tom.  That's common sense.







Good job, Tom.  You made yourself look like an idiot agian.

Erm, yeah Tom.  That's common sense.

Well if you're postulating that's what Oldham did, then lets see the paper where he describes his methods. If Oldham really did disprove Flat Earth Theory, we'll need to see the work before we can consider it.

As it is now you've just given us a random blurb with very little info from Wikipedia which anyone with access to the internet could have written. We've given you the original source material for our experiments. So lets see the source material for yours. A blurb from a Wikipedia article is not evidence. If there really are papers which prove that the earth is convex, lets see them.

If I write on Wikipedia that Joe Scientist performed a series of tests which proves that the earth is inside-out, does that prove that the earth is inside-out? No. It is necessary to see the original documentation before we can come to a conclusion.

LOL

Look at Trekky get his moneys worth at the end "Good job, Tom.  You made yourself look like an idiot agian."

Not only have both people before (ﮎingulaЯiτy + Moon squirter)  pointed out tom was wrong but one of them also makes a diagram, but thats not good enough for Trekky. He makes his own.

Tom it must be horrible when people are just climbing over each other to shoot you down.

Quote

Erm, yeah Tom.  That's common sense.

Well if you're postulating that's what Oldham did, then lets see the paper where he describes his methods. If Oldham really did disprove Flat Earth Theory, we'll need to see the work before we can consider it.

As it is now you've just given us a random blurb with very little info from Wikipedia which anyone with access to the internet could have written. We've given you the original source material for our experiments. So lets see the source material for yours. A blurb from a Wikipedia article is not evidence. If there really are papers which prove that the earth is convex, lets see them.

If I write on Wikipedia that Joe Scientist performed a series of tests which proves that the earth is inside-out, does that prove that the earth is inside-out? No. It is necessary to see the original documentation before we can come to a conclusion.

Isn't that exactly what ENaG is?

Guess what, you still haven't validated the claims.  Please validate your claims.  Words alone, as you said, mean nothing.  Heck, original documentation doesn't mean anymore than a copy of that documentation.  You say there are photos? Show the freaking photos.  Stop leading everyone on a wild goose chase.

Rowbotham said he did that stuff, with no proof.

You say YOU'VE done it, with no proof.

Wikipedia says THAT GUY'S done it, with no proof.

We're all on a level playing field.

Quote from: Username on December 03, 2007, 11:24:37 AM

Lady Anne Blount conclusively disproved that this in fact happened.

You have also said that lunar eclipses were viewed in broad daylight without giving me a source, despite me asking for one multiple times.

No, actually that wasn't me.  And I believe the person you did ask gave you sources that you just didn't look up.

However, here you go:

http://books.google.com/books?id=b4cEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=%22june+16+1666%22+eclipse&source=web&ots=3VMN-kki76&sig=9THFpIkYeowFu2ZZQA1HGaQUl50

Of course, perhaps you doubt Tycho Brahe saw this, despite him being renowned for his accuracy in his observations.

Rowbotham said he did that stuff, with no proof.

You say YOU'VE done it, with no proof.

Wikipedia says THAT GUY'S done it, with no proof.

We're all on a level playing field.

If you truly require solid evidence and are interested in the subject why don't YOU find a body of water and do the experiment for your own self? That way you can call your own self a liar when the the results demonstrate a Flat Earth.

Don't ask me to go out and photograph something for you when you can very easily find a lake, ocean, or canal to look across.

Guess what, you still haven't validated the claims.  Please validate your claims.  Words alone, as you said, mean nothing.  Heck, original documentation doesn't mean anymore than a copy of that documentation.  You say there are photos? Show the freaking photos.  Stop leading everyone on a wild goose chase.

Since you are automatically disbelieving all experiments, accounts, and literature we provide; why don't you go so the experiment for your own self?

My region is mountainy.  I'll find something though...

Did Oldham conduct his experiment with a telescope? If he didn't it just proves that he was witnessing the sinking ship effect which occurs when the naked eye views distant bodies near the vanishing point.

Read our thread on the Sinking Effect to discuss that.

Quote

Guess what, you still haven't validated the claims.  Please validate your claims.  Words alone, as you said, mean nothing.  Heck, original documentation doesn't mean anymore than a copy of that documentation.  You say there are photos? Show the freaking photos.  Stop leading everyone on a wild goose chase.

Since you are automatically disbelieving all experiments, accounts, and literature we provide; why don't you go so the experiment for your own self?

Er, no.  Every single thing you have sent me so far was an account of something, nothing more.  You said there were pictures.  You didn't send me pictures.  So, what am I to believe?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 03, 2007, 12:04:27 PM

Quote from: Username on December 03, 2007, 11:24:37 AM

Lady Anne Blount conclusively disproved that this in fact happened.

Provide a source for your claims.

If you look into the literature you will find that Lady Bount has provided photographic evidence of a Flat Earth:

"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."

Well if you're postulating that's what Blount did, then lets see the paper where she describes her methods. If Blount really did disprove Round Earth Theory, we'll need to see the work before we can consider it.

As it is now you've just given us a random blurb with very little info from zetetic.co.uk. If there really are papers which prove that the earth is flat, lets see them.

If I write on Wikipedia that Joe Scientist performed a series of tests which proves that the earth is inside-out, does that prove that the earth is inside-out? No. It is necessary to see the original documentation before we can come to a conclusion.

Once more, your own strategies (or lack thereof ) come back to bite you.

"The phenomenon of the superior image mirage can produce results similar to those noted by Rowbotham and Blount. This would have required, on each occasion, temperature inversions in the atmosphere with an increase of eleven degrees Celsius per hundred metres of altitude. If the temperature range were less than this, the light would have been scattered skywards; if greater, the horizon itself would have appeared curved. Repetition of the exact atmospheric condition required for each of the many observations is unlikely." 

"A superior mirage occurs when the air below the line of sight is colder than that above. This is called a temperature inversion, since it does not represent the normal equilibrium temperature gradient of the atmosphere. Since in this case the light rays are bent down, the image appears above the true object, hence the name superior."
Got that off some reference website. Thought I'd throw it into the mix

Did Oldham conduct his experiment with a telescope? If he didn't it just proves that he was witnessing the sinking ship effect which occurs when the naked eye views distant bodies near the vanishing point.

Why should it matter whether or not a telescope was involved? The "sinking ship effect" occurs when telescopes are involved, too. You've even acknowledged it yourself when trying to fumble your way through an explanation. Try to get it together, Tom. You're not even putting any effort into this anymore.

Read our thread on the Sinking Effect to discuss that.

It's like Bishop pesticide. Simply mention a thread Tom ran away from and he runs away from this one too. 

I patent it.

Why should it matter whether or not a telescope was involved? The "sinking ship effect" occurs when telescopes are involved, too. You've even acknowledged it yourself when trying to fumble your way through an explanation. Try to get it together, Tom. You're not even putting any effort into this anymore.

It matters because perhaps the most visually stunning fact which proves the earth as a plane is the sinking ship effect. As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to sink from the bottom up into the sea after it touches the horizon line. It has been found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. While the exact mechanics of the effect may still be under debate, the fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship:











How does your model of the earth explain these explicitly detailed accounts?