Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Another careful proof project.
« on: August 11, 2017, 05:47:48 PM »
Following the clear success of the airline route map project - which clearly demonstrates that there can be no possible flat earth map that can explain how long it takes people to fly between cities in commercial airliners - I have another idea for a proof of RET.

Here is a VERY interesting project:

http://confluence.org

The idea is to have people to travel the world and use their GPS units to take them to "confluence points"  (defined as: "locations that are at exact whole-degree latitude/longitude coordinates"...like  13N, 45E...but not 13.234N 44.9876E).

When those people get there, they take photos of the area, a photo of their GPS unit - and they typically write up the story of how they got there - who went with them to verify it, the exact time and date, etc.

Predictably, not many people are interested in travelling to weird places in the middle of the ocean - or into vast areas of Siberia, the Arctic and Antarctic - just to get a photo for this website...but there is amazingly good coverage for most parts of the world.

Even so, there are lots of photos of from many of the confluence points in those areas.   Notably NOT from people who had tremendous problems with scaling the Ice Wall, fighting off UN gunships, running out of air or being chilled to absolute zero - because you'd think they'd mention that in their visit reports!

So right there - we can probably discount the FE map on the Wiki. (*WHY* is that still there?)

Of the 6,839 confluence points on Earth that are either on land, or within sight of land - they have photographs and visit reports for 6,459 of them.  Places like Europe, North America and Australia have near 100% coverage.   Each report lists the people who were present to witness the event, the time, the date, etc.  Many of them leave email addresses and are interested to talk about their findings.

I'm fairly sure we can use this database of pictures as additional proof of the round earth...but I'm still working through the "chain of proof" part - so some patience will be needed here.   We want to be very careful to get it right.

But if anyone else has any thoughts on the usefulness of this enormous body of evidence, it would be interesting to hear it.

Obviously, the locations were found by map and verified by GPS - so our Flat Earth friends here will want to start off by proving that these people were not standing where they claimed to be when they took the photos.

This should be a simple matter to demonstrate.   Find a confluence point that's in a town or village - or at some road intersection.   Find a map that provides the lat-long of this place from an era before GPS existed (circa 1972) - go to confluence.org and we'll see whether their GPS got them to the correct location.

Seem like a plan?

Do this for enough places and our FE community will be forced to concede that GPS is indeed reasonably accurate....or maybe not...maybe the Earth is flat and GPS's are horribly inaccurate.   We'll see!


*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Another careful proof project.
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2017, 06:29:13 PM »
Another great thread idea.  Is it possible to get stickies on these?
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

I do not have the bandwidth to maintain a conversation with you.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Another careful proof project.
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2017, 07:09:30 PM »
Soo...I think I have a pre-GPS paper map of the area around 32N 102W.

The Confluence project page is here:

  http://confluence.org/confluence.php?visitid=19898

Google Maps confirms the photos seem to be taken from somewhere pretty close to the right spot - you can see a "nodding donkey" and a bunch of other oil-extraction facilities nearby in the Google Maps view:

  https://goo.gl/maps/k6bE2ZBeycy

Of course the FE'rs will quite correctly point out that this *could* be due to the mapping airplane that Google uses (they don't use satellites for high-res mapping) having the same GPS error as the guy on the ground with his Garmin GPSMap'76 back in 2014).

So what we need to do now is to find a paper map and figure out if it's the same spot on the ground at the intersection of those lat/long lines.

This really crappy map from the 1940's shows the confluence point tucked in between the river and old hwy 12 - which was renamed i20 when the great interstate network was built out:

 

Here's some other maps from 1920 and 1907:

 
 

What's clear from this is that VERY old maps are not too accurate - the 1907 map doesn't even agree with the 1920 or 1940 maps, let alone the GPS!

I believe I have some early 1970's maps (not necessarily of this area) which should be a lot more accurate - but still pre-GPS...I'll see what I can find.

What would be good (if anyone has one) would be a UK "ordinance survey" map that covers a confluence point near some decent landmark.  Those maps were stunningly accurate and made long before GPS existed.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 07:17:04 PM by 3DGeek »

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Another careful proof project.
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2017, 08:30:34 PM »
For the Midland TX map - the 1940's map is hopelessly to beat-up to use - but it's in close agreement with the 1920's map...so I used that one instead.

It's amazing that not one of the place names on the 1920's map still exist - except for Midland itself.  Germania seems to have been renamed to "Greenwood", Thaxter no longer exists because it's merged into Midland - all you can find are a couple of street names that include "Thaxter"...and there is no sign of "Slaughter" either!)

When I lay the 1920's map over the Google Images map - I can see the general path of the river (it's been redirected in a couple of places) but the branch that heads south from the confluence point is completely gone in the Google image.  But the scar of the old railroad track is a big help for alignment - so I think I have the maps lined up about right.

It looks like they agree more precisely in longitude - but Google (and the guy with the GPS) seem to be putting the confluence point about 400 feet North of the 1920's map.

Some of that could be the expected maximum GPS error for an older Garmin device of around 100 feet.  Some will be simply that the 1920's map is much lower scale and the lines marking the latitude/longitude are about 100 feet wide.  Some will be error in the 1920's map - which is really the wrong scale for this sort of work.

But the take-away here is that the distances aren't THAT far apart.   Within a couple of hundred feet compared to an old-school surveyor on a horse isn't bad.

We definitely need some higher resolution pre-GPS maps of areas where there are confluence points...if anyone has one they can scan, then let's give it a try.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Another careful proof project.
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2017, 09:46:11 PM »
For the Midland TX map - the 1940's map is hopelessly to beat-up to use - but it's in close agreement with the 1920's map...so I used that one instead.

It's amazing that not one of the place names on the 1920's map still exist - except for Midland itself.  Germania seems to have been renamed to "Greenwood", Thaxter no longer exists because it's merged into Midland - all you can find are a couple of street names that include "Thaxter"...and there is no sign of "Slaughter" either!)

When I lay the 1920's map over the Google Images map - I can see the general path of the river (it's been redirected in a couple of places) but the branch that heads south from the confluence point is completely gone in the Google image.  But the scar of the old railroad track is a big help for alignment - so I think I have the maps lined up about right.

It looks like they agree more precisely in longitude - but Google (and the guy with the GPS) seem to be putting the confluence point about 400 feet North of the 1920's map.

Some of that could be the expected maximum GPS error for an older Garmin device of around 100 feet.  Some will be simply that the 1920's map is much lower scale and the lines marking the latitude/longitude are about 100 feet wide.  Some will be error in the 1920's map - which is really the wrong scale for this sort of work.

But the take-away here is that the distances aren't THAT far apart.   Within a couple of hundred feet compared to an old-school surveyor on a horse isn't bad.

We definitely need some higher resolution pre-GPS maps of areas where there are confluence points...if anyone has one they can scan, then let's give it a try.

What we need to find are old Plats(sp?) used in real estate.  They are deadly accurate as they show every subdivision of land in an area.  When I was a kid my best friends dad was a realtor and had a map of Amarillo in his office that showed every lot in town.
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

I do not have the bandwidth to maintain a conversation with you.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Another careful proof project.
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2017, 02:09:00 AM »
For the Midland TX map - the 1940's map is hopelessly to beat-up to use - but it's in close agreement with the 1920's map...so I used that one instead.

It's amazing that not one of the place names on the 1920's map still exist - except for Midland itself.  Germania seems to have been renamed to "Greenwood", Thaxter no longer exists because it's merged into Midland - all you can find are a couple of street names that include "Thaxter"...and there is no sign of "Slaughter" either!)

When I lay the 1920's map over the Google Images map - I can see the general path of the river (it's been redirected in a couple of places) but the branch that heads south from the confluence point is completely gone in the Google image.  But the scar of the old railroad track is a big help for alignment - so I think I have the maps lined up about right.

It looks like they agree more precisely in longitude - but Google (and the guy with the GPS) seem to be putting the confluence point about 400 feet North of the 1920's map.

Some of that could be the expected maximum GPS error for an older Garmin device of around 100 feet.  Some will be simply that the 1920's map is much lower scale and the lines marking the latitude/longitude are about 100 feet wide.  Some will be error in the 1920's map - which is really the wrong scale for this sort of work.

But the take-away here is that the distances aren't THAT far apart.   Within a couple of hundred feet compared to an old-school surveyor on a horse isn't bad.

We definitely need some higher resolution pre-GPS maps of areas where there are confluence points...if anyone has one they can scan, then let's give it a try.

What we need to find are old Plats(sp?) used in real estate.  They are deadly accurate as they show every subdivision of land in an area.  When I was a kid my best friends dad was a realtor and had a map of Amarillo in his office that showed every lot in town.

Oooh!  Now that's a good idea.

We need building plats laid before 1973 - but that's easy.   In Texas, I think you can go to the local property tax office and get this data online as scans of the original blue-print plat maps.   I have copies of the one for my house (but it's only 10 years old).

This will work great in the USA...we can compare the plat map coordinates with the Google Maps coordinates (presumed to be GPS).   The USA isn't as large as I'd like for another "quadrilateral proof" - but those plat map coordinates are very precise - so we should be able to show errors in the flat Earth assumptions that way too.

Are you listening Tom?   We have a new way to break your FE theory!


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Another careful proof project.
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2017, 02:11:56 AM »
Are you assuming that the Round Earth coordinate system did not exist before 1973?

*

Offline Merkava

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Masterdebater
    • View Profile
Re: Another careful proof project.
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2017, 04:25:11 AM »
Are you assuming that the Round Earth coordinate system did not exist before 1973?

GPS didn't.
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Another careful proof project.
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2017, 06:10:42 PM »
Are you assuming that the Round Earth coordinate system did not exist before 1973?

Of course, it did.  That's how surveyors were able to accurately plot out tracks of land long before GPS.  You see Tom,  as much as you hate to admit it, math and science have been around long enough to allow people to know what they were buying and selling in real estate transactions.  Where I come from in the Texas panhandle my family has been farming since the mid-1800s. The land is flat as a pool table and most of it is laid out in one square mile tracts with a county road grid.  1 sq mile or 640 acres or 1 section.  Sometimes sub divided into 1/4 and 1/2 section plots.  Oil companies invest millions of dollars based on the surveys when they lease land.  Almost all of the USA is segmented using The Public Land Survey System (PLSS).  Sub divisions are Section, Township, Range, half section, quarter section, or quarter-quarter section.  It's an X/Y Coordinate system and works very well.  This was figured out long before satellites allowed precision on the spot locations.   

Of course Google Earth confirms these numbers. 

You would have us believe that a mile is not a mile, an acre is not an acre, a section is not a scetion, etc.  If a mile is a mile, then 100 miles is 100 miles, 1000=1000 and the distance from New Your to LA or Paris is a known thing.



Check mate.


The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

I do not have the bandwidth to maintain a conversation with you.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Another careful proof project.
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2017, 06:16:28 PM »
Are you assuming that the Round Earth coordinate system did not exist before 1973?

No - the first step toward my goal here is to demonstrate, through careful step-by-step procedures that we can in fact rely on GPS data to deliver accurate Lat/Long information.

In order to prove that, I propose comparing GPS data and photos in the confluence project with Google Maps photos and with maps that were made before the existence of GPS.

If those three agree to within a reasonable error metric for a widely spaced set of points - then we may conclude that GPS readings and Google Earth readings are an accurate portayal of the Lat/Long coordinates assigned by the old-school techniques that were used for map-making prior to those technological advances.

That's all I wish to establish for this first step.   Once we agree (or not) about that - I'll use GPS data to demonstrate further issues with FET.

It has been pointed out that public "Land Plat" records (in at least the USA) are extremely precise and can easily be found for most of the USA based on pre-GPS technologies.

So - let's first establish the general principles of whether GPS can or cannot be considered reliable.

I believe you're on record as saying that they are not...so this is an important first step.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Another careful proof project.
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2017, 06:20:00 PM »
Are you assuming that the Round Earth coordinate system did not exist before 1973?

Of course, it did.  That's how surveyors were able to accurately plot out tracks of land long before GPS.  You see Tom,  as much as you hate to admit it, math and science have been around long enough to allow people to know what they were buying and selling in real estate transactions.  Where I come from in the Texas panhandle my family has been farming since the mid-1800s. The land is flat as a pool table and most of it is laid out in one square mile tracts with a county road grid.  1 sq mile or 640 acres or 1 section.  Sometimes sub divided into 1/4 and 1/2 section plots.  Oil companies invest millions of dollars based on the surveys when they lease land.  Almost all of the USA is segmented using The Public Land Survey System (PLSS).  Sub divisions are Section, Township, Range, half section, quarter section, or quarter-quarter section.  It's an X/Y Coordinate system and works very well.  This was figured out long before satellites allowed precision on the spot locations.   

Of course Google Earth confirms these numbers. 

You would have us believe that a mile is not a mile, an acre is not an acre, a section is not a scetion, etc.  If a mile is a mile, then 100 miles is 100 miles, 1000=1000 and the distance from New Your to LA or Paris is a known thing.

Check mate.

Be careful in your assertions here.   If the Earth is round, then a "square mile" isn't a 1 mile x 1 mile area of land...it's a bit more than that...not much more - but over a larger area (say 100 miles by 100 miles) then the error becomes quite significant.

I'm not taking that approach here...I'm simply verifying that we can use GPS data to reliably produce Lat/Long coordinates that Tom Bishop and his fellow FE'ers will accept.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Another careful proof project.
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2017, 06:23:08 PM »
Are you assuming that the Round Earth coordinate system did not exist before 1973?

Of course, it did.  That's how surveyors were able to accurately plot out tracks of land long before GPS.  You see Tom,  as much as you hate to admit it, math and science have been around long enough to allow people to know what they were buying and selling in real estate transactions.  Where I come from in the Texas panhandle my family has been farming since the mid-1800s. The land is flat as a pool table and most of it is laid out in one square mile tracts with a county road grid.  1 sq mile or 640 acres or 1 section.  Sometimes sub divided into 1/4 and 1/2 section plots.  Oil companies invest millions of dollars based on the surveys when they lease land.  Almost all of the USA is segmented using The Public Land Survey System (PLSS).  Sub divisions are Section, Township, Range, half section, quarter section, or quarter-quarter section.  It's an X/Y Coordinate system and works very well.  This was figured out long before satellites allowed precision on the spot locations.   

Of course Google Earth confirms these numbers. 

You would have us believe that a mile is not a mile, an acre is not an acre, a section is not a scetion, etc.  If a mile is a mile, then 100 miles is 100 miles, 1000=1000 and the distance from New Your to LA or Paris is a known thing.

Check mate.

Be careful in your assertions here.   If the Earth is round, then a "square mile" isn't a 1 mile x 1 mile area of land...it's a bit more than that...not much more - but over a larger area (say 100 miles by 100 miles) then the error becomes quite significant.

I'm not taking that approach here...I'm simply verifying that we can use GPS data to reliably produce Lat/Long coordinates that Tom Bishop and his fellow FE'ers will accept.

Very good point.  I think the way to think of it is that the longer the sides the less square the plot would be.
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

I do not have the bandwidth to maintain a conversation with you.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Another careful proof project.
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2017, 03:29:22 PM »
Are you assuming that the Round Earth coordinate system did not exist before 1973?

Of course, it did.  That's how surveyors were able to accurately plot out tracks of land long before GPS.  You see Tom,  as much as you hate to admit it, math and science have been around long enough to allow people to know what they were buying and selling in real estate transactions.  Where I come from in the Texas panhandle my family has been farming since the mid-1800s. The land is flat as a pool table and most of it is laid out in one square mile tracts with a county road grid.  1 sq mile or 640 acres or 1 section.  Sometimes sub divided into 1/4 and 1/2 section plots.  Oil companies invest millions of dollars based on the surveys when they lease land.  Almost all of the USA is segmented using The Public Land Survey System (PLSS).  Sub divisions are Section, Township, Range, half section, quarter section, or quarter-quarter section.  It's an X/Y Coordinate system and works very well.  This was figured out long before satellites allowed precision on the spot locations.   

Of course Google Earth confirms these numbers. 

You would have us believe that a mile is not a mile, an acre is not an acre, a section is not a scetion, etc.  If a mile is a mile, then 100 miles is 100 miles, 1000=1000 and the distance from New Your to LA or Paris is a known thing.

Check mate.

Be careful in your assertions here.   If the Earth is round, then a "square mile" isn't a 1 mile x 1 mile area of land...it's a bit more than that...not much more - but over a larger area (say 100 miles by 100 miles) then the error becomes quite significant.

I'm not taking that approach here...I'm simply verifying that we can use GPS data to reliably produce Lat/Long coordinates that Tom Bishop and his fellow FE'ers will accept.

Very good point.  I think the way to think of it is that the longer the sides the less square the plot would be.

Surveyors know these things - and take account of them.  That's why the legal definition of a plot of land is determined by lat/long.  If you look at a formal land title, the lat-longs are stated to lots of places of decimals - the distances less so - and the areas are rarely reported to more accurate than a tenth of an acre.

Their lives would be a LOT easier if the world was flat!