Re: Project Flat Earth
Ms. Pasikat, kaya ako tinatamad magpost kasi dahil sa katulad mong di marunong umintindi at magbasa, pero para na din sa ikaliligaya mo, pakiclick na lng ang mga links sa ibaba, naipost ko na kasi sa kabilang thread yung 200 Proofs na iyon, FYI. di ko proofs yun, by Eric Dubay nga eh, halatang di ka marunong magbasa talaga.
Yun lang, di ako sure if maiintindihan mo. Gets mo na kung bakit nakakatamad? I guess no. Dahil sa mga katulad mo na di makaintindi.
Yown, lumabas din ang totoo na ikaw ay isang pilosopong tasyo.
Binasa mo ba? Malamang hindi, kasi di ka naman magiging pilosopo kung nagbasa ka, or naintindihan mo. Be open minded, those proofs are reasonable kung maiintindihan mo lang. Ang layunin dito is so the people may know. Not to be convinced, but to be open-minded to possibilities. Nasa sa iyo na lang iyon kung maniniwala ka. Halata nmang nangtotroll ka lng eh. Show me at least 50 to debunk all of the mentioned 200 proofs.
So... pakasuriin lang natin ang isang punto, kung paano ginawang baluktot ang totoo para masabing mga "proofs" ng mundong hitsura'y pritong itlog, at makita na rin
kung sino ang tunay na di-nakakaintindi sa binasa at pikit-matang niyakap na lang ito bilang reasonable, akala seguro'y nakapulot na siya ng dyamante sa buntong-t__ , sa pagdakay matapos kagat-kagatin ay malalamang isa lang pala itong tipak ng puwet-ng-baso.
At, sa klase ng personalidad mo base sa mga post mo segurado akong di mo palilipasin kahit limang minuto at agad kang magrereply sa post kong ito kung naiintidihan mo ang laman nito.
At number 13 in his list of "200 Proofs the Earth is not a Spinning Ball", Dubay says that:
"In a 19th century
French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were
identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!"
As usual, this is a fairly direct quotation from one of the Victorian flat earth texts, this time Samuel Rowbotham's "Earth Not a Globe" (1872):
https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=VeBivA6QSEUC&pg=PT47&lpg=PT47&dq=rowbotham+biot+arago&source=bl&ots=2aR3V-9udm&sig=987ij9hMEVA5TGHe_h8H4U2I85o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis1Z3Z7bnOAhUG2WMKHbVZDjYQ6AEIKzAD#v=snippet&q="In the account of the trigonometrical operations"&f=false
"In the account of the
trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was
nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."
POINT 1: While almost repeated word-for-word, there are a few important changes to note. First of all,
Dubay has chosen to call the "trigonometrical operations" a "French experiment" - probably to make it look like a flat earth test rather than the measuring of the globe that it actually was - and,
rather than Rowbotham's "nearly the same" elevation of the two points, he has claimed they were "identical." This is a pretty amusing assertion, given neither he nor Rowbotham knew where the points actually were.
POINT 2: Another fun one. When reading the text out, he says, "M. M. Biot", as though these were the guy's initials. "MM." actually means "messieurs" - ie, "Misters Biot and Arago." Biot's first name was Jean-Baptiste.
TITBIT 1: Biot and Arago were two French physicists, astronomers, and mathematicians - and certainly not flat earthers - who, in 1806, took on the work of measuring the meridian arc which passes through Paris in order to determine the exact length of a metre. It was a pretty Herculean and adventurous task, taking many years and involved scaling mountains, being arrested as spies, and subsequent escapes from the Spanish authorities. Quite the dedication to science!
POINT 3: The Desierto de las Palmas is a mountain range in the Spanish province of Castellón. The highest peak is called Bartolo, and it is from here that Biot and Arago made their measurements, as recorded on page 20 of "Memorial du Depot General de la Guerre, Volume 7". The elevations given are between 726.36 metres and 728.29 metres (2383 and 2389 feet).
This demonstrates that
Rowbotham clearly had no idea of the elevation of the summit of Desierto de las Palmas, since it would be
impossible for the two points to be "nearly the same" - the highest point on Ibiza is 1558 feet, and this wasn't the point Biot and Arago were using.
TITBIT 2: From "Report of Observations Geodesic, Astronomical, and Physics" by MM. Biot and Arago (1821):
https://books.google.com.mx/books?i...KGMKHRN8BqsQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=observations geodesiques desierto de las palmas&f=false
The Desierto de Las Palmas is a mountain located in the Kingdom of Valencia, on the edge of the sea, between Oropesa and Castellon de la Plana, above the village of Bennicassim. At its highest peak is a small hermitage that can be seen from afar. M. Mechain had chosen this point for one of the peaks of the large triangle which was to end on Yvice (Ibiza) across the sea; accordingly we established our station near the hermitage. Thus, with greater ease in operating, we got the advantage of extending the arc of the meridian to the small island of Formentera, about twenty-five minutes further south than we could have done following the first combinations.
POINT 4: While Biot and Arago called the point on Iviza (Ibiza) "Campvey", Dubay copies Rowbotham in calling it "Camprey": presumably because the original publication's "v" looks a little like an "r". Either way, I wasn't able to locate anywhere called Camprey or Campvey on Ibiza now - though, oddly, it shows up on some German sites as an Ibizan peak with an elevation of 396 metres. Handily, this matches the elevation reported by Biot and Arago, on page 9 of the aforementioned "Memorial du Depot" (and elsewhere), making it a good 1090 feet below the summit of Bartolo - ie, not exactly "identical."
Using the metabunk curve calculator, and a distance of 100 miles (Rowbotham got that much right) this shows us that at least 224 feet of Campvey should have been visible from Bartolo.
Claim #13, therefore, is debunked.
FURTHER QUESTIONS
1. Where is Campvey exactly? A topo map of Ibiza locating a peak of 396 metres/1299 feet about 100 miles from Bartolo should do it.
Or, in the aforementioned primary sources, latitude and longitude are given for Bartolo as 44.54/+2.56 and Campvey as 43.4/+1.09, but I can't work out what these refer to. Did they have a different system back then? After all, these measurements were taken a good 70 years before the prime meridian was established
2. In the 1870 edition (Volume 7, 4th Series) of "Chambers's Journal of Popular Literature, Science and Arts" the story of Biot and Arago is told, and it's possible this is where Rowbotham took his information, given that he uses the journal in some of his other 'proofs'. The Chambers account seems fairly scientific and straightforward, though, but I can't read all of it, as the digitised google books version isn't available in full-view.
3.
Will I do research like this on any more of Dubay's 'proofs'? Hell no! Thorough investigation of this and "#4: Rivers Flow Uphill" - plus glances at some of the others - has told me pretty much everything I need to know. Hopefully the same can be said for any other sane-thinking person too.
Sorry for the tedium!
...
parang relihiyon lang? 
kung pursigidong kang ilako ang paniniwala mo dapat mo unang kumbinsihin ang sarili mo na alisin ang katamaran para masigla kang ipost ang sinasabi mo, hindi ako magtatakang ang tingin mo sa mundo ay parang isang itlog na prito 
