I never stated that. Your comment is irrelevant to the conversation.
You'll see that it's a question and not a comment, if you read it again ;-) And it is very relevant question. You're saying that you can't referee to an observation made by others. Many other Flat Earthers state that they'll not rely on observations you have not done yourself.
How do you make consensus in the zetetic 'scientific' world?
Your turn.
Your question fits the definition of 'comment.' Regardless, I may have interpreted it as rhetorical aided by your subject-verb disagreement.
Of course valid results do not "die with the person." It is still irrelevant within the context of our discussion. A claim was made regarding first hand evidence obtained from experimentation. All I asked for were details. That would allow me to recreate the experiment if I chose to validate for myself. Instead, all I see is people sidestepping the issue.
Christer Fuglesang is making a very good point IMHO. You direct people to the wiki to be informed.
If you have verified the experiments and observations yourself how do you know you are guiding people to valid information.
I assume you have read my threads pointing out discrepancies, Bishop Experiment and wiki fact checking. It took me about 20 minutes to verify the information. Those were the only experiments, evidence and statements made that gave me enough information to check. The rest lacked any data that would allow me to check into them myself.
The wiki is where YOU guide people to go to seek the truth.
I do not think Samuel Rowbotham is around what makes him a more honest and trustworthy source of information than Dave Akerman? Have you met either to personally judge their character?
It really does seem your line of reasoning is that knowledge and experience dies with the person. Then the next generation needs to backtrack and relearn.