[Thork]

I have decided to settle this once and for all. Below I have set out much of the information that I know about this. I contacted the head librarian of the Royal Astronomical Society in London.

This is a copy of the following message you sent to Sian Prosser via Royal Astronomical Society

This is an enquiry email via https://www.ras.org.uk/ from:
[insert real name]

Dear Sian,

I am a member of the Zetetic Council for the Flat Earth Society (Yes, we are still going strong).

I am trying to find information about a paper on 'Zetetic Astronomy' that was read before the Council and Members of the Royal Astronomical Society, Somerset House, Strand, London (Sir John F. W. Herschel, President), Friday, Dec. 8, 1848.

No account of such a paper appears in the Notice for that month.

The paper was submitted by Dr Samuel Birley Rowbotham (pseudonym Parallax - author of Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe - link as follows http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm)

That book is one of the most important texts ever written for our society and the society Rowbotham built is the one we maintain today.

We know it was submitted for peer review but because it did not appear in the monthly Notice, we have no idea what the Royal Astronomical Society said about it. We have our own Flat Earth history archives and would love to add this information and share it with our members.

I do know that on Dec. 8, 1848, the Secretary of the Astronomical Society (De Morgan by name) said, at the close of the proceedings,—"Now, gentlemen, if you will promise not to tell the Council, I will read something for your amusement": and he then read a few of the arguments which had been transmitted by the lecturer.

Whilst I am sure my enquiry will be met with as much mirth today, as his appearance was then, the opinions of one of our greatest adversaries would be a real asset to our collection.

I understand you endeavour to help with enquiries 'as far as limited resources allow' but hope this slightly unusual request might pique someone's interest enough to check the archives. Alternatively I understand 'Access to the Library itself may be given at the discretion of the Librarian, or of one of the Officers of the Society, to those who have a need for information which cannot be fulfilled by public and national libraries.' I suspect I would have little luck in finding what I seek, but would be happy to try if such an invite was forthcoming.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this e-mail and regrettably, I have to add that I'm not crazy. I am one of many who find the history of our society fascinating.

[insert real name]
Member of the Zetetic Council for the Flat Earth Society.

And now we wait. I may have to take a trip to London to dig about for it myself. Anyhoo ... being as I have been very forthcoming with the information I have provided, I trust you will respectfully hold back your opinions until the documents are delivered or I have confirmation that RAS will not help me.

Interestingly, they do have an entire section called the Herschel Archives, and I hope that the document we seek is there. Their online library is very light and returns no search results for a number of key words.

[Gulliver]

I have decided to settle this once and for all. Below I have set out much of the information that I know about this. I contacted the head librarian of the Royal Astronomical Society in London.
<...snip...>

So you lied about already submitting the peer review--as I expected.

Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.

[Thork]

I have decided to settle this once and for all. Below I have set out much of the information that I know about this. I contacted the head librarian of the Royal Astronomical Society in London.
<...snip...>

So you lied about already submitting the peer review--as I expected.

Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.

Why don't you fuck off?

[Rama Set]

Regardless of whether or not Thork is in a state of grace, I would like to see his inquiry come to fruition. Being right is not as important as Gulliver thinks.

[Gulliver]

Regardless of whether or not Thork is in a state of grace, I would like to see his inquiry come to fruition. Being right is not as important as Gulliver thinks.

I too would love to see the inquiry answered. I predict that despite Thork's outlandish claims, the RAS did not peer review EnaG. Heck even Thork's own accounting gives a very different title as to the paper presented. There's also no way the a book as long as, and as error-riddled as, EnaG could have been presented in a single evening.

Also, I do not intend to attack Thork's argument by pointing out his lie in this thread. I do however hope to let noobs know that looking for Thork's posting can be useless because he lies about what he has posted.

[Rama Set]

The title if the paper was Zetetic Astronomy. I hazard to guess that that was meant to be descriptive of the paper's particular contents and not a presentation of the book although they may overlap.

[markjo]

The title if the paper was Zetetic Astronomy. I hazard to guess that that was meant to be descriptive of the paper's particular contents and not a presentation of the book although they may overlap.

Please note the first line of the cover page:

[Rama Set]

Yeah.  I still think my position is likely.

[Gulliver]

Yeah.  I still think my position is likely.

Just to clarify, the presentation was of only 16 pages.

[Rowbotham, Samuel B.] Zetetic astronomy. A description of several experiments which prove that the surface of the sea is a perfect plane, and that the earth is not a globe. Being the substance of a paper read before the Royal Astronomical Society on the evening of Dec. 8, 1848. By ‘Parallax' [pseud.] Birmingham, W. Cornish, 1849. 16 p. illus.
   QB638.R87

[Ghost of V]

I'm interested in what "approaching destruction by fire" means.

[Thork]

I'm interested in what "approaching destruction by fire" means.

Then read the chapter.

[Gulliver]

I'm interested in what "approaching destruction by fire" means.

I'm surprised that you haven't read the last chapter of EnaG.

By the way, this prediction is stupid. Rowbotham argues that the oxides of inflammable bases would contribute by decomposing and "volatilise". So he thinks rocks would "unburn" and catch fire. Simple chemistry eludes him.

[Thork]

Regardless of whether or not Thork is in a state of grace, I would like to see his inquiry come to fruition. Being right is not as important as Gulliver thinks.

I too would love to see the inquiry answered. I predict that despite Thork's outlandish claims, the RAS did not peer review EnaG. Heck even Thork's own accounting gives a very different title as to the paper presented. There's also no way the a book as long as, and as error-riddled as, EnaG could have been presented in a single evening.

Also, I do not intend to attack Thork's argument by pointing out his lie in this thread. I do however hope to let noobs know that looking for Thork's posting can be useless because he lies about what he has posted.

I stated that it has been peer reviewed. I have proved that it has. I only do not know the specific wording of the review. Where are all these lies you keep talking about? I have shown the work that was peer reviewed, the exact time and date of who with. I have linked to the papers submitted. I also know that from newspaper articles it was received favourably at the time.

[Thork]

And I have a response. More research for me to do over the weekend, but if anyone is able to help uncover some flat earth history with me, I'd be very happy with any contributions.

Dear [insert real name],

Thanks for your enquiry.

Council minutes only record the title and author of papers read before council, and do not give any idea of critical responses to the papers. All I can do for the moment is confirm that the paper was read.

I've also had a look in our pamphlets and tracts collections to see if the 1849 16-page pamphlet (mentioned on your webpage) was preserved with any annotations made by members of the RAS, but have not been able to find anything by the name of Samuel Birley Rowbotham or his pseudonym.

Can you give me any more information about the 1849 pamphlet e.g. its exact title?

Also, can you give me the source of De Morgan's quotation?

As with most libraries with archives and special collections, access to the areas where they are stored is restricted to library staff, but if I am able to find anything which might be relevant to the history of your society, you are welcome to make an appointment to visit the library and consult it.

Kind regards,

Sian

Dr Sian Prosser
Librarian and Archivist
Royal Astronomical Society
Burlington House
Piccadilly
London W1J 0BQ

So my main problem is the 1849 pamphlet. Any information we can garner is useful though. If someone can link the newspaper review as well, that would be awesome. I can't remember where I last saw it.

and who says we don't do any research at FES? 

[Gulliver]

Regardless of whether or not Thork is in a state of grace, I would like to see his inquiry come to fruition. Being right is not as important as Gulliver thinks.

I too would love to see the inquiry answered. I predict that despite Thork's outlandish claims, the RAS did not peer review EnaG. Heck even Thork's own accounting gives a very different title as to the paper presented. There's also no way the a book as long as, and as error-riddled as, EnaG could have been presented in a single evening.

Also, I do not intend to attack Thork's argument by pointing out his lie in this thread. I do however hope to let noobs know that looking for Thork's posting can be useless because he lies about what he has posted.

I stated that it has been peer reviewed. I have proved that it has. I only do not know the specific wording of the review. Where are all these lies you keep talking about? I have shown the work that was peer reviewed, the exact time and date of who with. I have linked to the papers submitted. I also know that from newspaper articles it was received favourably at the time.

Where did you prove that EnaG was peer reviewed? You claim to have already post this peer review, yet you can't point to the post. Where you did post the peer review?

You lied in this thread but claiming to have posted here the peer review while you are still looking for it.

[Thork]

Info gathering.

The De Morgan quote comes from the book 'A budget of paradoxes' Volume II by Augustis De Morgan ... page 89.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26408/26408-h/26408-h.htm

The 16 page pamphlet was titled 'Zetetic Astronomy' and was edition 1 of ENaG. - I can't find an original of that.

I'm going to add S Goulden as one of Rowbotham's pseudonyms. He has dozens but seems to be using that one at the time.

@Gulliver. Help or get out. Squabbling with you is a waste of my time. And I have proved it has been peer reviewed again because the royal astronomical society has just bloody confirmed they reviewed it.

Do not fill 8 pages of your squealing. I want to use this thread for those actually interested in uncovering the data. Not those who want an argument for argument's sake.

[Gulliver]

Info gathering.

The De Morgan quote comes from the book 'A budget of paradoxes' Volume II by Augustis De Morgan ... page 89.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26408/26408-h/26408-h.htm

The 16 page pamphlet was titled 'Zetetic Astronomy' and was edition 1 of ENaG. - I can't find an original of that.

I'm going to add S Goulden as one of Rowbotham's pseudonyms. He has dozens but seems to be using that one at the time.

@Gulliver. Help or get out. Squabbling with you is a waste of my time. And I have proved it has been peer reviewed again because the royal astronomical society has just bloody confirmed they reviewed it.

Do not fill 8 pages of your squealing. I want to use this thread for those actually interested in uncovering the data. Not those who want an argument for argument's sake.

So you don't have the peer review of EnaG. So you lied when you said that you posted that peer review here.

Where did the RAS confirmed that they reviewed it, not just 16 pages? Do you understand the difference between a "review" and a "peer review"? What concerns did the reviewers have? Were the concerns addressed before publication?

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility.

What did the reviewers have to say about the fatal error in the cannonball experiment?

[Thork]

Please get out.

the 1st edition of ENaG was the 16 page version. It was peer reviewed. It wasn't published. Are you an imbecile or something?

[Gulliver]

Please get out.

the 1st edition of ENaG was the 16 page version. It was peer reviewed. It wasn't published. Are you an imbecile or something?

Tell us how you know these things:

• the 16-page brochure was the first edition of the 425+ page book.
  the RAS did a peer review (not just a review) of the 16 pages

Also:
Tell us why you lied about posting the RAS peer review here.
Tell us why you don't reject the Rowbotham's conclusion from the cannonball experiment?

[Rama Set]

Please get out.

the 1st edition of ENaG was the 16 page version. It was peer reviewed. It wasn't published. Are you an imbecile or something?

Tell us how you know these things:

• the 16-page brochure was the first edition of the 425+ page book.
  the RAS did a peer review (not just a review) of the 16 pages

Also:
Tell us why you lied about posting the RAS peer review here.
Tell us why you don't reject the Rowbotham's conclusion from the cannonball experiment?

How is your home life right now?