If you know full well what he opened the book with, and are a follower of his writings, surely you should follow them all, or do you get to choose which bits to follow? I do not have to respect a person who also in turn disrespects almost every eminent scientist mentioned in his book. Newton being a chief among them, along with Herschel, and a bunch of others. I am doing what he says, critiquing the statements and experiments, and showing why such statements as the needle always points directly to the pole are flawed.
I have already been warned by Junker to stoop using that term, but i guess it is relative to your question, i will answer it, but cannot understand however, why you never get warned for personal attacks, and ranting, i am led to believe that you are an ALT of Junker; but in this context i am answering your question.
From the dictionary;
Charlatan;
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.”
synonyms: quack, mountebank, sham, fraud, fake, humbug, impostor, pretender, masquerader, hoodwinker, hoaxer, cheat, deceiver, dissembler, double-dealer, double-crosser, trickster, confidence trickster, cheater, swindler, fraudster, racketeer.
Which is pretty much an apt description of him, in my OPINION.
If your OPINION of him was that he was a doctor, without any proof, then MY OPINION of him is the term I used. I never anywhere said that he was not a flat earth believer. He may have believed in a flat earth, but certainly he claimed to have a special knowledge about the earth being flat, when all the empirical evidence points to it being round, so yes i think my Opinion is correct.
Which gets us knowhere. I agreed to stop using the term to avoid arguments and bans, and would hoped you would do the same, but it looks like you have a get out of jail free card, and are able to use whatever language you wish. It’s like tying to debate and being only allowed a 1/4 of the dictionary.
Anyway on to the topic;
I am exploring the “proofs” provided in EnaG and was hoping for a rational discussion, other than “He was true, you are wrong.” That does not add anything to the discussion at all.
Exploring why someone is wrong is not disrespectful. Again i refer you to his preface that i copied, and you copied.
As for providing evidence that experiments in EnaG are flawed, I am pretty certain I did. The pictures of the magnetic field around a bar magnet and the picture provided in ENAG along with his assertion that the needle points directly to the pole are evidence that his statement is incorrect, and therefore flawed at 1st principles.
This then can be taken (in the same way he uses the argument) that the “earth cannot be plane so must be global”.
I see yourself have not advanced any theories yourself other than EnaG proves xxxx or yyyy.
When you can back up your slavish beliefs of dodgy annecdotal experiments heavily reliant on 3rd party accounts taken from articles written in journals or magazines, with modern day observations and accurate measurements i will take you more seriously.
As for Tom Bishops statements i will address that in another post.
No, I don't cherry pick what Dr Rowbotham says, I've been very fair to people here. You, on the other hand, are different. You personally disrespect the memory of Dr Rowbotham and post 'experiments' which are nothing more than a post on a forum. That's not an experiment, it's a message board post.
And it's also outrageous how you imply he's a charlatan. Now I've called you out you backtrack and say it's your
opinion, which is still incorrect. You say he's not a Dr, yet can provide no proof whatsoever to back up those claims. We can at least point to his grave, what have you got? Oh yeah, he didn't go to uni in Germany or America. Because as we know, all doctors in those days went to Germany and America, none of them qualified domestically
And
nowhere in his book does he claim to have 'special knowledge'. That's a claim you've simply made up right now.
If you simply disagreed with him, that's fine. But constantly calling him charlatan is not respectful.
The evidence in his book was logically sound and the facts are irrefutable. Earth is not a globe.
I can see that you've not proved anything, and instead spouted out what amounts to
"Charlatan Rowbotham was wrong, I've sailed around the world (apparently) so I am right"
The articles he mentioned were referred to, his outright experiments did not rely on newspaper sources. You'd know this if you read his book properly. You have yet to prove him wrong.
Perhaps you should get out of the armchair, rethink your slavish beliefs, and maybe, just maybe, you'll start to think for yourself. The evidence points to earth being flat, though I doubt it. You are so blinkered in your views that nothing whatsoever would sway you. We could take to to space and show you the earth being flat and you still wouldn't believe.
There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
Show Posts