[StinkyOne]

I disagree with the height estimate. But more importantly, how was the distance to the horizon computed?

I agree, the height seems off. Doesn't matter though. Here is a panorama looking due north at Santa Cruz from Monterey and nothing is visible on the horizon. Has the location and heading of the original picture ever been confirmed? There are beaches that would be visible from Monterey if the picture was taken facing more towards the east. (I do still think this is an example of refraction though due to evidence in the photo, regardless of where it was taken)

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6377069,-121.9346321,3a,15y,356.57h,95.02t/data=!3m11!1e1!3m9!1sAF1QipN42t6rRRqMqngsGNh6hMeVdYluVUJu2Ij2lFTg!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipN42t6rRRqMqngsGNh6hMeVdYluVUJu2Ij2lFTg%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya35.150703-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352!9m2!1b1!2i65

[3DGeek]

we know from the panorama source that is taken from atop a rock near the ocean's surface.

20-25 feet above the ocean's surface.  That puts the horizon 5.5-6 miles away.

How did you estimate that this panorama is taken 20-25 feet above the ocean surface?

This "rock" is clearly not of zero height.  It looks (guessing) to be a good 10' if not 20' above the water.   Even one foot of height difference make a significant difference to the distance you can see in a Round Earth model.

So unless you have MEASURED (with PROOF) that the camera was a specific height above the water - your results are entirely useless.

Measure how high the camera was above the water surface - provide evidence of that - otherwise this is junk.

[Tom Bishop]

The more important point is how you are computing the distance to the horizon in your rebuttal. By assuming that the earth is round?

[rodriados]

Honestly, I have been to the area during a road trip. That day, we started our journey in Santa Cruz and drove all the way to LA through the CA-1 road. He had clear skies all day, with some overcast here and there.

I've been to the wharfs of both Santa Cruz and Monterey, as well as to Lovers Point Park, the place these photos were taken from.

Unfortunately, I didn't take a photo of the view I had in Lovers Point Park. Well, I never thought people would argue about the Earth's shape based on that specific point. From Lovers Point Park, I wasn't able to see Santa Cruz's beach that day. The mountains behind it we're visible, though.

My experience may not convince anyone, due to the lack of evidence, but in no way one can convince me Santa Cruz is visible from Monterey, because I was there and it was not visible. Of course, I wasn't there for science, so I had no controls related to refraction or the like. But the Bishop experiment does not seem to have it either.

[Curious Squirrel]

The more important point is how you are computing the distance to the horizon in your rebuttal. By assuming that the earth is round?

You used RE distances for how far it was to the beach, why would that not be used? Setting that aside for the moment, does this mean you have an equation for how far the 'horizon' is on a FE? Would love to see such a thing, especially if it explains how you can see further when you go up higher.

[Tom Bishop]

My experience may not convince anyone, due to the lack of evidence, but in no way one can convince me Santa Cruz is visible from Monterey, because I was there and it was not visible. Of course, I wasn't there for science, so I had no controls related to refraction or the like. But the Bishop experiment does not seem to have it either.

A picture was posted where it was visible. Therefore your argument that it is never visible is incorrect.

The more important point is how you are computing the distance to the horizon in your rebuttal. By assuming that the earth is round?

You used RE distances for how far it was to the beach, why would that not be used? Setting that aside for the moment, does this mean you have an equation for how far the 'horizon' is on a FE? Would love to see such a thing, especially if it explains how you can see further when you go up higher.

Why would it mean that? Are you trying to divert attention away from your fallacious argument?

In fact, if the distance to the horizon is only 5.5-6 miles miles away on a Round Earth that means the opposite coast should NOT be visible under your RET. You are arguing against your own model!

[Curious Squirrel]

The more important point is how you are computing the distance to the horizon in your rebuttal. By assuming that the earth is round?

You used RE distances for how far it was to the beach, why would that not be used? Setting that aside for the moment, does this mean you have an equation for how far the 'horizon' is on a FE? Would love to see such a thing, especially if it explains how you can see further when you go up higher.

Why would it mean that? Are you trying to divert attention away from your fallacious argument?

In fact, if the distance to the horizon is only 5.5-6 miles miles away on a Round Earth that means the opposite coast should NOT be visible under your RET. You are arguing against your own model!

What fallacious argument? You asked how he was computing distance to the horizon. I was hoping that might mean you had a method to do that other than the one proposed under RE. Your image is also not very clear cut evidence the coast is visible either. You claim there's a 'white line' that you can follow and it's the coast. This line is barely visible at best, and quite possibly an artifact of the camera or similar. But your experiment claims you are able to 'see people on the water's edge' which is definitely not true of that photograph. Lastly, as has been explained, looking over water can have problematic effects for these types of observations and experiments.

Properly document and catalogue everything, along with the date and time of day. Preferably repeat it multiple times. Then we can have a proper discussion about what's being seen.

[rodriados]

A picture was posted where it was visible. Therefore your argument that it is never visible is incorrect.

Honestly, in the picture you posted I could not see a thing related to Santa Cruz, only the mountains behind it. You claim a thin brighter pixel line of Santa Cruz's Beach is visible. Sorry, I don't think this claim convinces anyone.

Besides that, if Santa Cruz was indeed visible in the picture you posted, your claim would still be invalid, because Santa Cruz is not always visible. And your argument is as incorrect as mine.

I have lived in Chicago for two months in 2016, and I traveled around the region. I could not believe my eyes when I clearly saw the city's skyscrapers from the opposite lake shore, in Michigan City, more than 50 miles away! That's actually the day I discovered some people still believes the Earth is flat.

The sight of Chicago's buildings from there is so rare, that pictures of the phenomenon was shown in local news broadcast.

Unfortunately, I couldn't see a grasp of Chicago the other two days I stayed in Indiana/Michigan. So, the fact I saw Chicago once more than 50 miles away rising above Lake Michigan, proves that the Earth is flat?

By the way, you can google for images of the phenomenon. I saw it with my bare eyes, but the picture I took with my phone shows only water.

[StinkyOne]

My experience may not convince anyone, due to the lack of evidence, but in no way one can convince me Santa Cruz is visible from Monterey, because I was there and it was not visible. Of course, I wasn't there for science, so I had no controls related to refraction or the like. But the Bishop experiment does not seem to have it either.

A picture was posted where it was visible. Therefore your argument that it is never visible is incorrect.

The more important point is how you are computing the distance to the horizon in your rebuttal. By assuming that the earth is round?

You used RE distances for how far it was to the beach, why would that not be used? Setting that aside for the moment, does this mean you have an equation for how far the 'horizon' is on a FE? Would love to see such a thing, especially if it explains how you can see further when you go up higher.

Why would it mean that? Are you trying to divert attention away from your fallacious argument?

In fact, if the distance to the horizon is only 5.5-6 miles miles away on a Round Earth that means the opposite coast should NOT be visible under your RET. You are arguing against your own model!

Tom, I posted a link that shows Santa Cruz is not visible from Monterey. You conveniently ignored that. It may be visible on SOME days due to humidity levels and light refraction, but it is not directly visible.

[3DGeek]

In fact, if the distance to the horizon is only 5.5-6 miles miles away on a Round Earth that means the opposite coast should NOT be visible under your RET. You are arguing against your own model!

Tom - the distance to the RET horizon is SENSITIVELY dependent on the height of the camera above the ocean AND to the height of the object you're looking at.

Eye Height      Horizon distance
    1'                 1.2 miles
    5'                 2.7 miles
    7.5'              3.4 miles
   10'                3.9 miles
   15'                4.7 miles
   20'                5.5 miles
  100'              12.3 miles
  500'              27.4 miles
 1,000'            38.7 miles
10,000'          122.5 miles
40,000'          245.2 miles

...add to that that when you're viewing the top of some distant object, you can see it at a distance equal to the sum of the horizon distance from your camera/eye height and the horizon distance from the height at the top of the object you're looking at.

So if your camera is 5' above sea level - the RET horizon is indeed only 2.7 miles away - but if you're looking at the tops of 500' cliffs (say) then it's visible at up to 2.7 miles PLUS 27.4 miles - so over 30 miles away.

Notice that the difference between putting the camera to your eye while standing at the water's edge (5' height) and holding the camera at arm's length above your head (7.5' perhaps) is to increase the horizon distance from 2.7 miles to 3.4 miles.

So using the "I can see XXX miles - so RET is busted" is meaningless unless you have carefully measured both camera height and the height of the thing you're seeing above the horizon.   Even small errors in those measurements will produce wildly incorrect results.

This (coupled with the weird refraction effects that happen as the light ray grazes the horizon) render these kinds of experiments entirely useless.

HENCE when people here ask how high was the camera above sea level - and you really don't know accurate to within a foot or so, your predicted RET horizon distances could be ANYTHING...and even if you can provide us with proof of your camera and target heights - the effects of refraction will make your results (at best) unreliable.

Since you fail to provide even the most basic camera height information - you can't use your photos to disprove the Round Earth.

[3DGeek]

I have lived in Chicago for two months in 2016, and I traveled around the region. I could not believe my eyes when I clearly saw the city's skyscrapers from the opposite lake shore, in Michigan City, more than 50 miles away! That's actually the day I discovered some people still believes the Earth is flat.

There are at least 50 buildings in the Chicago skyline that are over 500 feet tall.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Chicago

...so the tops of them will be visible more than 27 miles BEYOND the horizon.

If you're not literally standing on the water's edge, your eye height can easily be 10' to 20' above the water - and that's going to put the horizon about another 4 to 5.5 miles away.  So 35 miles is a conservative number.   Add in refraction - and the range can be much longer.

Google maps seems to put Michigan City well within 35 miles of some parts of Chicago...so there is no credible proof that you shouldn't be able to see them in RET...and (to be fair) no credible evidence that you should (given the heights of waves at the horizon, etc).

The point is not that I can prove that all of this works - it's that the FE'ers can't prove that it DOESN'T work...and this is their evidence.

IMHO, all of this line-of-sight-over-water stuff is useless as either proof or disproof of the shape of the Earth.  There are far too many unknowns - and the mathematics of the situation are SUPER-sensitive to the height over the water of camera and target - and NOBODY collects that data with enough precision.  Add in refraction - which we can't calculate without knowing air and water temperature gradients close to the surface over the entire distance between camera and target - and you have a set of data that is completely useless.

So please stop arguing about this stuff...it doesn't help either side of the debate.

[rodriados]

I have lived in Chicago for two months in 2016, and I traveled around the region. I could not believe my eyes when I clearly saw the city's skyscrapers from the opposite lake shore, in Michigan City, more than 50 miles away! That's actually the day I discovered some people still believes the Earth is flat.

There are at least 50 buildings in the Chicago skyline that are over 500 feet tall.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Chicago

...so the tops of them will be visible more than 27 miles BEYOND the horizon.

If you're not literally standing on the water's edge, your eye height can easily be 10' to 20' above the water - and that's going to put the horizon about another 4 to 5.5 miles away.  So 35 miles is a conservative number.   Add in refraction - and the range can be much longer.

Google maps seems to put Michigan City well within 35 miles of some parts of Chicago...so there is no credible proof that you shouldn't be able to see them in RET...and (to be fair) no credible evidence that you should (given the heights of waves at the horizon, etc).

The point is not that I can prove that all of this works - it's that the FE'ers can't prove that it DOESN'T work...and this is their evidence.

IMHO, all of this line-of-sight-over-water stuff is useless as either proof or disproof of the shape of the Earth.  There are far too many unknowns - and the mathematics of the situation are SUPER-sensitive to the height over the water of camera and target - and NOBODY collects that data with enough precision.  Add in refraction - which we can't calculate without knowing air and water temperature gradients close to the surface over the entire distance between camera and target - and you have a set of data that is completely useless.

So please stop arguing about this stuff...it doesn't help either side of the debate.

Just to make things clear, there was some unusual atmospherical conditions that day, and refraction allowed Chicago to be seen much further away than usually. And, to be honest, I was trying to explain Tom that even though I had a "better evidence than what he's provided", it doesn't prove absolutely anything.

[3DGeek]

I have lived in Chicago for two months in 2016, and I traveled around the region. I could not believe my eyes when I clearly saw the city's skyscrapers from the opposite lake shore, in Michigan City, more than 50 miles away! That's actually the day I discovered some people still believes the Earth is flat.

There are at least 50 buildings in the Chicago skyline that are over 500 feet tall.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Chicago

...so the tops of them will be visible more than 27 miles BEYOND the horizon.

If you're not literally standing on the water's edge, your eye height can easily be 10' to 20' above the water - and that's going to put the horizon about another 4 to 5.5 miles away.  So 35 miles is a conservative number.   Add in refraction - and the range can be much longer.

Google maps seems to put Michigan City well within 35 miles of some parts of Chicago...so there is no credible proof that you shouldn't be able to see them in RET...and (to be fair) no credible evidence that you should (given the heights of waves at the horizon, etc).

The point is not that I can prove that all of this works - it's that the FE'ers can't prove that it DOESN'T work...and this is their evidence.

IMHO, all of this line-of-sight-over-water stuff is useless as either proof or disproof of the shape of the Earth.  There are far too many unknowns - and the mathematics of the situation are SUPER-sensitive to the height over the water of camera and target - and NOBODY collects that data with enough precision.  Add in refraction - which we can't calculate without knowing air and water temperature gradients close to the surface over the entire distance between camera and target - and you have a set of data that is completely useless.

So please stop arguing about this stuff...it doesn't help either side of the debate.

Just to make things clear, there was atmospherical conditions that day, and refraction allowed Chicago to be seen much further away than usually.

Yep - I understand.

I'm just pointing out that when FE'ers say things like: "In fact, if the distance to the horizon is only 5.5-6 miles miles away on a Round Earth that means the opposite coast should NOT be visible under your RET."...this is an entirely meaningless statement without including the relevant camera and target heights above sea level.

Even given we have that data - you're right that refraction at grazing angles to the horizon introduces another problematic matter - but you can't even begin to enter into that discussion if you don't know the camera and target heights.

[model 29]

20-25 feet above the ocean's surface.  That puts the horizon 5.5-6 miles away.

And, just to confirm Round Earthers didn't re-invent mathematics yet: 6 is considerably less than 30, yes?

Indeed.  What does '30' have to do with this though?

I disagree with the height estimate. But more importantly, how was the distance to the horizon computed?

One of many calculators.  I think there is also a table in ENaG that matches.

A picture was posted where it was visible.

What is visible?  Hills?

In fact, if the distance to the horizon is only 5.5-6 miles miles away on a Round Earth that means the opposite coast should NOT be visible under your RET. You are arguing against your own model!

No, only around 190-200 ft.  A layer of cooler air directly above the water can result in a superior mirage though.

[CriticalThinker]

So, no rebuttal to my previous methodological issues with the Bishop experiment or general lack of evidence for a flat earth?  Any long distance 2 point visual exercise in attempting to see drop off can be dismissed as flawed experiments because they don't measure several variables if the initial assumption is truly that the earth is round.  In order to address confounding factors many data points would have to be collected but they just aren't in any of these experiments.  The 100 proofs are utter verbal nonsense and a wordy rebuttal could be made for every one of them.

Here's an example.  In the 100 proofs comes this little pearl of wisdom "If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."  Let me sum up the ignorance of this proof.  You need a scale to measure accurately and the scale would be far too small for a toy globe to be practical for anything.  That is why a ship carried multiple map of differing scales so that detail could be seen and measured.

Here's my rebuttal:  If the earth were a flat plane, there would be no distortion when mapped out on a flat piece of paper.  But such a thing is has never been seen and no navigator of any vessel would be foolish enough to travel using the FE map models in the wiki.  That ios proof that the earth cannot be flat.

There you go.  The FE model lacks any empirical evidence of any kind.  Unless there is something missing from your wiki that has real experiments then the FE model is based on pure fantasy.

Thank you,

Critical Thinker

[3DGeek]

Here's an example.  In the 100 proofs comes this little pearl of wisdom "If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."  Let me sum up the ignorance of this proof.  You need a scale to measure accurately and the scale would be far too small for a toy globe to be practical for anything.  That is why a ship carried multiple map of differing scales so that detail could be seen and measured.

Here's my rebuttal:  If the earth were a flat plane, there would be no distortion when mapped out on a flat piece of paper.  But such a thing is has never been seen and no navigator of any vessel would be foolish enough to travel using the FE map models in the wiki.  That ios proof that the earth cannot be flat.

Yeah - the "100 proofs" thing is a joke.  I was thinking of writing a piece debunking every one of them and calling it "100 debunks" - but my fingers are getting a little arthritic after 40 years of sitting in front of a computer typing - and it just didn't seem worth the pain involved!

If mariners were using flat maps to navigate by because they were more accurate than a globe - then how come we can't just use their maps to establish, once and for all, the map of the Flat Earth - something that Tom Bishop insists is completely unknown to them.

The reason that mariners DON'T take a globe along is that they need 1:1,000 scale maps - and keeping an 8 meter (26') diameter ball in the captains cabin of a small sailing ship is just a teensy bit less convenient than a drawer full of flat bits of paper.

Whoever wrote the 100 disproofs document was clearly a complete idiot and had never in his entire life even so much as glanced at a maritime navigation map.   Such maps go to great pains to explain what map projection they are using to get from a sphere to a flat map - and to point out the distortions that arise from that.  These AREN'T maps that assume that the earth is flat...they are drawn on the assumption that it's round.

If the idea that ship's captains don't use a sphere to navigate by is a "proof" of Flat Earthism - then I'm afraid I have to say that the fact that they use maps that are "projected" from a sphere is clear proof that the Earth ISN'T flat.

If you've ever looked at such large scale navigation maps (my father had a collection of all of the aviation maps of East Africa from when he flew for the Flying Doctor service there) - the first thing you notice is that if you try to line up their edges to make one big map - they don't fit together properly...and that's because each one is a flat projection of a sphere and the only way to put them together so that the edges match is to glue them onto a 24' diameter ball!

The 100 proofs thing is an embarrassment - and even the most ardent FE'ers should be able to admit that at least half of it's ridiculous criticisms are junk...they don't even agree with current FE theories.

[CriticalThinker]

Here's an example.  In the 100 proofs comes this little pearl of wisdom "If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."  Let me sum up the ignorance of this proof.  You need a scale to measure accurately and the scale would be far too small for a toy globe to be practical for anything.  That is why a ship carried multiple map of differing scales so that detail could be seen and measured.

Here's my rebuttal:  If the earth were a flat plane, there would be no distortion when mapped out on a flat piece of paper.  But such a thing is has never been seen and no navigator of any vessel would be foolish enough to travel using the FE map models in the wiki.  That ios proof that the earth cannot be flat.

Yeah - the "100 proofs" thing is a joke.  I was thinking of writing a piece debunking every one of them and calling it "100 debunks" - but my fingers are getting a little arthritic after 40 years of sitting in front of a computer typing - and it just didn't seem worth the pain involved!

If mariners were using flat maps to navigate by because they were more accurate than a globe - then how come we can't just use their maps to establish, once and for all, the map of the Flat Earth - something that Tom Bishop insists is completely unknown to them.

The reason that mariners DON'T take a globe along is that they need 1:1,000 scale maps - and keeping an 8 meter (26') diameter ball in the captains cabin of a small sailing ship is just a teensy bit less convenient than a drawer full of flat bits of paper.

Whoever wrote the 100 disproofs document was clearly a complete idiot and had never in his entire life even so much as glanced at a maritime navigation map.   Such maps go to great pains to explain what map projection they are using to get from a sphere to a flat map - and to point out the distortions that arise from that.  These AREN'T maps that assume that the earth is flat...they are drawn on the assumption that it's round.

If the idea that ship's captains don't use a sphere to navigate by is a "proof" of Flat Earthism - then I'm afraid I have to say that the fact that they use maps that are "projected" from a sphere is clear proof that the Earth ISN'T flat.

If you've ever looked at such large scale navigation maps (my father had a collection of all of the aviation maps of East Africa from when he flew for the Flying Doctor service there) - the first thing you notice is that if you try to line up their edges to make one big map - they don't fit together properly...and that's because each one is a flat projection of a sphere and the only way to put them together so that the edges match is to glue them onto a 24' diameter ball!

The 100 proofs thing is an embarrassment - and even the most ardent FE'ers should be able to admit that at least half of it's ridiculous criticisms are junk...they don't even agree with current FE theories.

I think that the underlying problem here is that the FE model isn't based in any science at all.  The claim that it can be demonstrated empirically through experimentation has produced nothing substantial.  It only works in the context of religion or literary fantasy, both I'm ok with as long as the FE community drops the science facade.  There is no empirical flat earth evidence, just assertion.  What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  It's like having an argument over who has the better imaginary friend.

If there is actual empirical evidence that is missing from the wiki that supports the FE model, please point me to it.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[3DGeek]

Here's an example.  In the 100 proofs comes this little pearl of wisdom "If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."  Let me sum up the ignorance of this proof.  You need a scale to measure accurately and the scale would be far too small for a toy globe to be practical for anything.  That is why a ship carried multiple map of differing scales so that detail could be seen and measured.

Here's my rebuttal:  If the earth were a flat plane, there would be no distortion when mapped out on a flat piece of paper.  But such a thing is has never been seen and no navigator of any vessel would be foolish enough to travel using the FE map models in the wiki.  That ios proof that the earth cannot be flat.

Yeah - the "100 proofs" thing is a joke.  I was thinking of writing a piece debunking every one of them and calling it "100 debunks" - but my fingers are getting a little arthritic after 40 years of sitting in front of a computer typing - and it just didn't seem worth the pain involved!

If mariners were using flat maps to navigate by because they were more accurate than a globe - then how come we can't just use their maps to establish, once and for all, the map of the Flat Earth - something that Tom Bishop insists is completely unknown to them.

The reason that mariners DON'T take a globe along is that they need 1:1,000 scale maps - and keeping an 8 meter (26') diameter ball in the captains cabin of a small sailing ship is just a teensy bit less convenient than a drawer full of flat bits of paper.

Whoever wrote the 100 disproofs document was clearly a complete idiot and had never in his entire life even so much as glanced at a maritime navigation map.   Such maps go to great pains to explain what map projection they are using to get from a sphere to a flat map - and to point out the distortions that arise from that.  These AREN'T maps that assume that the earth is flat...they are drawn on the assumption that it's round.

If the idea that ship's captains don't use a sphere to navigate by is a "proof" of Flat Earthism - then I'm afraid I have to say that the fact that they use maps that are "projected" from a sphere is clear proof that the Earth ISN'T flat.

If you've ever looked at such large scale navigation maps (my father had a collection of all of the aviation maps of East Africa from when he flew for the Flying Doctor service there) - the first thing you notice is that if you try to line up their edges to make one big map - they don't fit together properly...and that's because each one is a flat projection of a sphere and the only way to put them together so that the edges match is to glue them onto a 24' diameter ball!

The 100 proofs thing is an embarrassment - and even the most ardent FE'ers should be able to admit that at least half of it's ridiculous criticisms are junk...they don't even agree with current FE theories.

I think that the underlying problem here is that the FE model isn't based in any science at all.  The claim that it can be demonstrated empirically through experimentation has produced nothing substantial.  It only works in the context of religion or literary fantasy, both I'm ok with as long as the FE community drops the science facade.  There is no empirical flat earth evidence, just assertion.  What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  It's like having an argument over who has the better imaginary friend.

If there is actual empirical evidence that is missing from the wiki that supports the FE model, please point me to it.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

It seems that when you ask for that - you get the Rowbotham canal experiment shoved in your face - and all of the *MANY* attempts to verify it that found contradictory evidence will be discounted...for what reason, is unclear.