[Woody]

So here are my questions and I will try to keep with in what I have personally experienced:

1. Why can some from a higher vantage point see things I can not?  When sailing someone up on the mast can see islands other boats, etc when on person on deck can not.

2. How was Erastosthenes able to calculate the circumference of the Earth in 300 BC?  Simply by measuring shadows at different locations, the method he used would not have been accurate if the Earth was not round. 

3. Why when sailing do I see objects rise from the horizon and not just appear?

4.  How can I or sailors in the past successfully navigate with celestial navigation when it is based on a round Earth?  It would simply not be accurate with a flat model.

5. What causes  lunar eclipses and phases? What is casting a shadow on the moon?  With a Flat Earth model I do not see how the Earth would end up between the Moon and Sun.

6. Why can I see different constellations depending on my distance from the equator?  With a flat earth model this would not change.  I can measure the distance from the horizon using a sextant.  Depending on my direction of travel they will either move closer or further away from the horizon. 

7. Why is it dark in one location of the planet and light in another? 

Thanks in advance for your time answering these questions.

[Roundy]

They are simple questions!  Please read the FAQ for the answers, and welcome to FES! 

[Woody]

They are simple questions!  Please read the FAQ for the answers, and welcome to FES! 

I did and after reading your reply went back to check and did not see any answers.

Here is an answer to how Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of the Earth. 



It is an experiment that can be recreated, only works if the earth is Round.  You can do it yourself.  A friend and yourself can measure the length of the shadows of two equally long sticks, measure the distance between the two, then do the math.  Please do not comment on the first part of the video when she talks about how we can view the Earth from space and have vidoes, pictures, etc.

Afterwards you can test the validity by doing the same thing in the video.  Do to human error you will be a little off unless you decide to use more precise measuring equipment than a hand held ruler or measuring tape.

I can not find a reliable answer to what is the length of the equator according to a flat earth model.  Basically if I traveled exactly along the equator and ended up back where I started how far did I travel?

What I observe is that when things do not fit into the flat Earth model they are either considered a hoax or are explained away with an unsubstantiated explanation.

I can present evidence from as far back as 300 BC as the video demonstrates.  It can be recreated, return predictable data and be verified to at least support the Earth is round.

The answers I am looking for to my questions is data, math, science that supports a FE model. The answers I found so far here tend to lack that.

The responses I was able to find about phases of the Moon and lunar eclipses are it is a projection.  With no evidence presented except the person said so. The only other answer I have seen is 1/2 is transparent and the other 1/2 is opaque. That person mentioned the fact that there were instances when people can witness a lunar eclipse during the day.  Under the RE model it can happen and all the pictures of this type of event depict the only conditions of when it can occur using that model.

I have not seen any answers to how I can navigate using celestial navigation which the math only works for a round Earth model. 

None of those questions were answered in the FAQ forum at least to my knowledge.  Unless the answers were basically because we think it is this way.

[Roundy]

I did and after reading your reply went back to check and did not see any answers.

Try reading harder.  I have faith in you!  And try the wiki too.  There's bound to be something about Eratosthenes' crackpot observation in there somewhere.

[CableDawg]

I did and after reading your reply went back to check and did not see any answers.

Try reading harder.  I have faith in you!  And try the wiki too.  There's bound to be something about Eratosthenes' crackpot observation in there somewhere.

How, exactly, does one read harder?  Is that the same as reading between the lines?  Is that the same as reading something and then dismissing it in whole or in part and inserting what you believe or want to believe is true?

As to pointing to your FAQ or Wiki, you do understand that this is nothing more than circular logic don't you?  Why can you not point people to peer reviewed, repeatable and repeated experiments and theories instead?

You believe in a FE for your reasons and that is perfectly acceptable.  Do you believe all FE ideas equally or do you dismiss some as less valid or not valid at all?  If you dismiss all other FE ideas and maintain your chosen version of belief to be the correct one how did you come to that version of truth?

Please do explain this from a personal perspective as the FAQ's and Wiki are very general (and offer support for so many versions of FE truth) so referencing back to them does no good in supporting your personal belief.

[Woody]

I did and after reading your reply went back to check and did not see any answers.

Try reading harder.  I have faith in you!  And try the wiki too.  There's bound to be something about Eratosthenes' crackpot observation in there somewhere.

How, exactly, does one read harder?  Is that the same as reading between the lines?  Is that the same as reading something and then dismissing it in whole or in part and inserting what you believe or want to believe is true?

As to pointing to your FAQ or Wiki, you do understand that this is nothing more than circular logic don't you?  Why can you not point people to peer reviewed, repeatable and repeated experiments and theories instead?

You believe in a FE for your reasons and that is perfectly acceptable.  Do you believe all FE ideas equally or do you dismiss some as less valid or not valid at all?  If you dismiss all other FE ideas and maintain your chosen version of belief to be the correct one how did you come to that version of truth?

Please do explain this from a personal perspective as the FAQ's and Wiki are very general (and offer support for so many versions of FE truth) so referencing back to them does no good in supporting your personal belief.

I have not seen any information on these forums backed by data, math, verifiable experiments, etc except  by people arguing the Earth is round.  What I have seen for the FE model are basically,"We think the Earth is flat so it is", backed by theories with no supporting evidence,dismissing everything that does not conform with their theory as a hoax, conspiracy, flawed or wrong.  Even simple observations that everyone can do are given no weight unless it fits their model.

What I have read to support FE theory:

The sun is 3,000 miles away and smaller then what we are told.

The moon is hollow with 1/2 the surface being opaque and the other 1/2 being transparent to explain the phases of the moon.  The moon is a projection or reflection, even seen a couple saying it is a hologram.

The satellites and the ISS that can be observed with telescopes do not exist, holograms or closer then we are told they are.  Under the dome and I assume in the atmosphere with no regard that friction would continually degrade their altitude.

That all the pics, vids, and live feed from all of the space agencies on Earth are faked.  With the proof being that these people are not capable of creating these fake images as professionally and as of high quality as people in the film industry and make obvious mistakes rather frequently.  For some reason NASA fakes stuff in a pool while people in Hollywood manage to create the illusion of weightlessness without the use of a pool.  Seems if air bubbles are a problem for NASA they would adopt the methods film makers in Hollywood use.

Light would have to behave differently then we currently understand it.  Their evidence is since it would make no sense in their model the data we got so far must be wrong.  It can not travel as far as we say it can if it did then we would be able to see it all the time from anywhere on Earth.

I have not seen a single thing that at the very least gives evidence that it is plausible.  I can find a lot of the it has to be this way or the FE model does not work evidence though.

They seem to want to disregard that some rather clever people around and after 300 BC thought the Earth might be round from observing the movements of the planets and the world around them.  Then they decided to offer evidence they were correct by using things like math and reproducible and verifiable experiments.

The closest reproducible experiment I have been able to find information on is the Bedford Level experiment.  Which there is evidence that it is flawed. A surveyor named Wallace decided to accept a challenge to prove the Earth was round and assumed that the results that Rowbuthan got were caused by not taking into account density gradients in the air.  A bet was made, witnesses and judge decided on and the result was Wallace won the bet.

[rabinoz]

I did and after reading your reply went back to check and did not see any answers.

Try reading harder.  I have faith in you!  And try the wiki too.  There's bound to be something about Eratosthenes' crackpot observation in there somewhere.

Just why was "Eratosthenes' crackpot observation" so crackpot. He used his eyes and senses, with a bit of help from others. He had very primitive measuring tools! Yes, he paced out (probably paid someone) the distances, and measured shadow angles by measuring the lengths of the shadow and the pole. Surely that's as Zetetec as you can get!

Why you call him a "crackpot" was he based his result on a spherical earth, but that had been accepted for hundreds of years!

Yes, if the flat earth was the accepted model at the time I guess he would have come up with a figure for the height of the sun.

But, I challenge you to repeat Eratosthenes experiment but with a number of very different spacings of the measuring points.  Say 7.5° (almost the same as Erosthanes), 15°, 30°, 45° and 60°.  I am sure you can find members that live in suitable locations.  I think you will find great differences in the height of the sun - mind I have seen some weird explanations for this!

But, please don't label these old observers as "crackpots" because they disagree with you.  Up until the telescope they had little more in the wasy of measuring instruments than eyes and angle measuring instruments that could be constructed with the tools available - mind some very amazing instruments were constructed.

[Roundy]

I did and after reading your reply went back to check and did not see any answers.

Try reading harder.  I have faith in you!  And try the wiki too.  There's bound to be something about Eratosthenes' crackpot observation in there somewhere.

Just why was "Eratosthenes' crackpot observation" so crackpot. He used his eyes and senses, with a bit of help from others. He had very primitive measuring tools! Yes, he paced out (probably paid someone) the distances, and measured shadow angles by measuring the lengths of the shadow and the pole. Surely that's as Zetetec as you can get!

Why you call him a "crackpot" was he based his result on a spherical earth, but that had been accepted for hundreds of years!

Yes, if the flat earth was the accepted model at the time I guess he would have come up with a figure for the height of the sun.

But, I challenge you to repeat Eratosthenes experiment but with a number of very different spacings of the measuring points.  Say 7.5° (almost the same as Erosthanes), 15°, 30°, 45° and 60°.  I am sure you can find members that live in suitable locations.  I think you will find great differences in the height of the sun - mind I have seen some weird explanations for this!

But, please don't label these old observers as "crackpots" because they disagree with you.  Up until the telescope they had little more in the wasy of measuring instruments than eyes and angle measuring instruments that could be constructed with the tools available - mind some very amazing instruments were constructed.

Eratosthenes wasn't even close to what REers claim is the true circumference of the Earth.  It honestly boggles the mind that REers are so quick to point to him as helping to prove your theory.  This is why we FEers refer to the indoctrination we go through our entire lives as brainwashing! 

[Bookish Neptune]

I did and after reading your reply went back to check and did not see any answers.

Try reading harder.  I have faith in you!  And try the wiki too.  There's bound to be something about Eratosthenes' crackpot observation in there somewhere.

How, exactly, does one read harder?  Is that the same as reading between the lines?  Is that the same as reading something and then dismissing it in whole or in part and inserting what you believe or want to believe is true?

As to pointing to your FAQ or Wiki, you do understand that this is nothing more than circular logic don't you?  Why can you not point people to peer reviewed, repeatable and repeated experiments and theories instead?

You believe in a FE for your reasons and that is perfectly acceptable.  Do you believe all FE ideas equally or do you dismiss some as less valid or not valid at all?  If you dismiss all other FE ideas and maintain your chosen version of belief to be the correct one how did you come to that version of truth?

Please do explain this from a personal perspective as the FAQ's and Wiki are very general (and offer support for so many versions of FE truth) so referencing back to them does no good in supporting your personal belief.

I have not seen any information on these forums backed by data, math, verifiable experiments, etc except  by people arguing the Earth is round.  What I have seen for the FE model are basically,"We think the Earth is flat so it is", backed by theories with no supporting evidence,dismissing everything that does not conform with their theory as a hoax, conspiracy, flawed or wrong.  Even simple observations that everyone can do are given no weight unless it fits their model.

What I have read to support FE theory:

The sun is 3,000 miles away and smaller then what we are told.

The moon is hollow with 1/2 the surface being opaque and the other 1/2 being transparent to explain the phases of the moon.  The moon is a projection or reflection, even seen a couple saying it is a hologram.

The satellites and the ISS that can be observed with telescopes do not exist, holograms or closer then we are told they are.  Under the dome and I assume in the atmosphere with no regard that friction would continually degrade their altitude.

That all the pics, vids, and live feed from all of the space agencies on Earth are faked.  With the proof being that these people are not capable of creating these fake images as professionally and as of high quality as people in the film industry and make obvious mistakes rather frequently.  For some reason NASA fakes stuff in a pool while people in Hollywood manage to create the illusion of weightlessness without the use of a pool.  Seems if air bubbles are a problem for NASA they would adopt the methods film makers in Hollywood use.

Light would have to behave differently then we currently understand it.  Their evidence is since it would make no sense in their model the data we got so far must be wrong.  It can not travel as far as we say it can if it did then we would be able to see it all the time from anywhere on Earth.

I have not seen a single thing that at the very least gives evidence that it is plausible.  I can find a lot of the it has to be this way or the FE model does not work evidence though.

They seem to want to disregard that some rather clever people around and after 300 BC thought the Earth might be round from observing the movements of the planets and the world around them.  Then they decided to offer evidence they were correct by using things like math and reproducible and verifiable experiments.

The closest reproducible experiment I have been able to find information on is the Bedford Level experiment.  Which there is evidence that it is flawed. A surveyor named Wallace decided to accept a challenge to prove the Earth was round and assumed that the results that Rowbuthan got were caused by not taking into account density gradients in the air.  A bet was made, witnesses and judge decided on and the result was Wallace won the bet.

I think at some point you will have to set aside every book you ever read and every bit of t.v. you ever watched.

Now with a clear conscience, setting aside everything you have ever been told, step outside and look up.

Tell us what you know? What you honestly know. It's not much. I know. I was there.

Now come back inside and ask yourself this question...

Where do you draw the line with what you believe? All your life you have picked and chosen what to believe. All of which were written by another man.

What are your personal experiences in life that makes you able to choose what is real and what is fact?

There is a term for this its called indoctrination.

[Woody]

I did and after reading your reply went back to check and did not see any answers.

Try reading harder.  I have faith in you!  And try the wiki too.  There's bound to be something about Eratosthenes' crackpot observation in there somewhere.

How, exactly, does one read harder?  Is that the same as reading between the lines?  Is that the same as reading something and then dismissing it in whole or in part and inserting what you believe or want to believe is true?

As to pointing to your FAQ or Wiki, you do understand that this is nothing more than circular logic don't you?  Why can you not point people to peer reviewed, repeatable and repeated experiments and theories instead?

You believe in a FE for your reasons and that is perfectly acceptable.  Do you believe all FE ideas equally or do you dismiss some as less valid or not valid at all?  If you dismiss all other FE ideas and maintain your chosen version of belief to be the correct one how did you come to that version of truth?

Please do explain this from a personal perspective as the FAQ's and Wiki are very general (and offer support for so many versions of FE truth) so referencing back to them does no good in supporting your personal belief.

I have not seen any information on these forums backed by data, math, verifiable experiments, etc except  by people arguing the Earth is round.  What I have seen for the FE model are basically,"We think the Earth is flat so it is", backed by theories with no supporting evidence,dismissing everything that does not conform with their theory as a hoax, conspiracy, flawed or wrong.  Even simple observations that everyone can do are given no weight unless it fits their model.

What I have read to support FE theory:

The sun is 3,000 miles away and smaller then what we are told.

The moon is hollow with 1/2 the surface being opaque and the other 1/2 being transparent to explain the phases of the moon.  The moon is a projection or reflection, even seen a couple saying it is a hologram.

The satellites and the ISS that can be observed with telescopes do not exist, holograms or closer then we are told they are.  Under the dome and I assume in the atmosphere with no regard that friction would continually degrade their altitude.

That all the pics, vids, and live feed from all of the space agencies on Earth are faked.  With the proof being that these people are not capable of creating these fake images as professionally and as of high quality as people in the film industry and make obvious mistakes rather frequently.  For some reason NASA fakes stuff in a pool while people in Hollywood manage to create the illusion of weightlessness without the use of a pool.  Seems if air bubbles are a problem for NASA they would adopt the methods film makers in Hollywood use.

Light would have to behave differently then we currently understand it.  Their evidence is since it would make no sense in their model the data we got so far must be wrong.  It can not travel as far as we say it can if it did then we would be able to see it all the time from anywhere on Earth.

I have not seen a single thing that at the very least gives evidence that it is plausible.  I can find a lot of the it has to be this way or the FE model does not work evidence though.

They seem to want to disregard that some rather clever people around and after 300 BC thought the Earth might be round from observing the movements of the planets and the world around them.  Then they decided to offer evidence they were correct by using things like math and reproducible and verifiable experiments.

The closest reproducible experiment I have been able to find information on is the Bedford Level experiment.  Which there is evidence that it is flawed. A surveyor named Wallace decided to accept a challenge to prove the Earth was round and assumed that the results that Rowbuthan got were caused by not taking into account density gradients in the air.  A bet was made, witnesses and judge decided on and the result was Wallace won the bet.

I think at some point you will have to set aside every book you ever read and every bit of t.v. you ever watched.

Now with a clear conscience, setting aside everything you have ever been told, step outside and look up.

Tell us what you know? What you honestly know. It's not much. I know. I was there.

Now come back inside and ask yourself this question...

Where do you draw the line with what you believe? All your life you have picked and chosen what to believe. All of which were written by another man.

What are your personal experiences in life that makes you able to choose what is real and what is fact?

There is a term for this its called indoctrination.

So what you are suggesting is disregard stuff learned by previous generations?  That knowledge should not be passed on?

So lets take something like aerodynamics.  If I want to design a plane do ignore the knowledge gained by people that came before me?  Should I disregard what was learned and start from scratch and spend years relearning things I can get from a book?

Seems funny I can go outside and observe planets and moons rotating around them with a telescope, but for some reason that observation is wrong in your eyes.

I can observe Mars.  I can observe retrograde.  Simply observation and conclusions gives evidence that Earth is in orbit closer to the sun. 

I have witnessed the hull down effect.  Many times as explained by Rowbotham and with simple observation able to determine why.  It is generally with smaller ships already in my field of view taking into account how far I should be able to see them taking the curvature into account.  I have also witnessed many times a ship approach and the first thing I see is the higher parts of the ship.  Viewed through my binoculars I can then see a little more of the ship than I could with the naked eye.  Still not the whole ship and I can watch through the binoculars that ship rise over the horizon.  So by observation I am able to conclude that Rowbotham's conclusions on the subject is only a partial truth.

I have observed different constellations appearing or disappearing as I sailed closer or further away from the equator.

What I witness in these forums sometimes seems to be people ignoring that we advance in knowledge be building on the knowledge of previous generations. 

For some reason discoveries through out the history of mankind keep reinforcing that we live on a spherical globe orbited by a spherical moon which both orbit a spherical sun.

[Woody]

I did and after reading your reply went back to check and did not see any answers.

Try reading harder.  I have faith in you!  And try the wiki too.  There's bound to be something about Eratosthenes' crackpot observation in there somewhere.

Just why was "Eratosthenes' crackpot observation" so crackpot. He used his eyes and senses, with a bit of help from others. He had very primitive measuring tools! Yes, he paced out (probably paid someone) the distances, and measured shadow angles by measuring the lengths of the shadow and the pole. Surely that's as Zetetec as you can get!

Why you call him a "crackpot" was he based his result on a spherical earth, but that had been accepted for hundreds of years!

Yes, if the flat earth was the accepted model at the time I guess he would have come up with a figure for the height of the sun.

But, I challenge you to repeat Eratosthenes experiment but with a number of very different spacings of the measuring points.  Say 7.5° (almost the same as Erosthanes), 15°, 30°, 45° and 60°.  I am sure you can find members that live in suitable locations.  I think you will find great differences in the height of the sun - mind I have seen some weird explanations for this!

But, please don't label these old observers as "crackpots" because they disagree with you.  Up until the telescope they had little more in the wasy of measuring instruments than eyes and angle measuring instruments that could be constructed with the tools available - mind some very amazing instruments were constructed.

Eratosthenes wasn't even close to what REers claim is the true circumference of the Earth.  It honestly boggles the mind that REers are so quick to point to him as helping to prove your theory.  This is why we FEers refer to the indoctrination we go through our entire lives as brainwashing! 

Really?  What are you referencing?  He used the stadia as a measurement of distance and there were two standards.  Using 1 standard he was off by 1%. Using the other he was off by 16%.

Lets say historians are wrong and have the wrong information on the actual distance a stadia is. His observations support and are supported by the observations of others up until today.

Why not consider the measuring equipment he had to work with if your source of information states he was not even close.  The fact is I can accurately determine the circumference of a sphere using his method.  If you perform the experiment today outside on the Earth with modern measuring equipment you will get very close to what is generally accepted as the circumference of the Earth is if it is sphere.  If not you will get different results or .

Why not prove his methodology and conclusions wrong?  It should be very easy to do.

I doubt you can since this experiment and conclusion has been under peer review and scrutiny for generations and confirmed by other observations.

[rabinoz]

I did and after reading your reply went back to check and did not see any answers.

(Roundy on February 01, 2016, 02:00:27 AM)

Try reading harder.  I have faith in you!  And try the wiki too.  There's bound to be something about Eratosthenes' crackpot observation in there somewhere.

(Roundy on January 29, 2016, 07:36:02 AM)
Just why was "Eratosthenes' crackpot observation" so crackpot. He used his eyes and senses, with a bit of help from others. He had very primitive measuring tools! Yes, he paced out (probably paid someone) the distances, and measured shadow angles by measuring the lengths of the shadow and the pole. Surely that's as Zetetec as you can get!

Why you call him a "crackpot" was he based his result on a spherical earth, but that had been accepted for hundreds of years!

Yes, if the flat earth was the accepted model at the time I guess he would have come up with a figure for the height of the sun.

But, I challenge you to repeat Eratosthenes experiment but with a number of very different spacings of the measuring points.  Say 7.5° (almost the same as Erosthanes), 15°, 30°, 45° and 60°.  I am sure you can find members that live in suitable locations.  I think you will find great differences in the height of the sun - mind I have seen some weird explanations for this!

But, please don't label these old observers as "crackpots" because they disagree with you.  Up until the telescope they had little more in the wasy of measuring instruments than eyes and angle measuring instruments that could be constructed with the tools available - mind some very amazing instruments were constructed.

(rabinoz on January 31, 2016, 11:54:46 PM)

Eratosthenes wasn't even close to what REers claim is the true circumference of the Earth.  It honestly boggles the mind that REers are so quick to point to him as helping to prove your theory.  This is why we FEers refer to the indoctrination we go through our entire lives as brainwashing! 

(Roundy on February 01, 2016, 02:00:27 AM)

Really?  What are you referencing?  He used the stadia as a measurement of distance and there were two standards.  Using 1 standard he was off by 1%. Using the other he was off by 16%.

Lets say historians are wrong and have the wrong information on the actual distance a stadia is. His observations support and are supported by the observations of others up until today.

Why not consider the measuring equipment he had to work with if your source of information states he was not even close.  The fact is I can accurately determine the circumference of a sphere using his method.  If you perform the experiment today outside on the Earth with modern measuring equipment you will get very close to what is generally accepted as the circumference of the Earth is if it is sphere.  If not you will get different results or .

Why not prove his methodology and conclusions wrong?  It should be very easy to do.

I doubt you can since this experiment and conclusion has been under peer review and scrutiny for generations and confirmed by other observations.

I (RABinOZ!) got all confused with the nested quotes!  Just to set the record straight.  I was supporting Eratosthenes 100% and as you say, depending on the stadia size assumed his result could be very close.  Pity old Christopher chose the other value, maybe not so bad, though I don't think the Incas and Aztecs were too happy!

To say "Eratosthenes wasn't even close to what REers claim is the true circumference of the Earth." is a gross fabrication.

The FE supporters like to denigrate all these old figures, but they did marvelous work with the equipment at hand! (Like mark 1 Greek or Eqyption eyeballs etc).

But I repeat my challenge again (I know the answer I would expect):
But, I challenge you to repeat Eratosthenes experiment but with a number of very different spacings of the measuring points.  Say 7.5° (almost the same as Eratosthenes), 15°, 30°, 45° and 60°.  I am sure you can find members that live in suitable locations.  I think you will find great differences in the height of the sun - mind you I have seen some weird explanations for this!

[Roundy]

The more commonly agreed length he would have been using for a stadion put his estimate at 16% off what REers now claim is the circumference of the Earth.  That is a good guess at best.  If I measured my height and told you that I was seven feet tall while standing in front of you, you would think I was an idiot, because it's clearly almost a full foot taller than I actually am.  That's comparable to the difference between what Eratosthenes came up with and what modern globularists come up with.  If a poll was done that was said to have a margin of error of +/- 16%, nobody would take it seriously.  Again, that's comparable to Eratosthenes' accomplishment.

But keep trying to defend its accuracy, by all means, because every one of you that does so only proves my point about the gullibility of REers.

[Woody]

The more commonly agreed length he would have been using for a stadion put his estimate at 16% off what REers now claim is the circumference of the Earth.  That is a good guess at best.  If I measured my height and told you that I was seven feet tall while standing in front of you, you would think I was an idiot, because it's clearly almost a full foot taller than I actually am.  That's comparable to the difference between what Eratosthenes came up with and what modern globularists come up with.  If a poll was done that was said to have a margin of error of +/- 16%, nobody would take it seriously.  Again, that's comparable to Eratosthenes' accomplishment.

But keep trying to defend its accuracy, by all means, because every one of you that does so only proves my point about the gullibility of REers.

I'll try to clarify my argument.

So you are saying that someone being 16% off on the circumference of the Earth in 300BC totally invalidates his conclusions?  I am no historian, but imagine the methods of measuring distances in and around 300 BC involved methods that would introduce many chances for human error.  Maybe requiring someone pacing off the distance and walking in a straight line taking into account dips and rises in the terrain.  I imagine there had to be some errors in measuring the distance between the two points and even get precise measurements of the shadows.

Where did you find the information that the most common standard used for stadions was the one that made him off by 16%?  Are you going to ignore that the other standard put him off by 1%?  I accept the possibility that it could be either one.  Seems to me if he was off by 1% it showed the extreme care  he took ensuring the measurements were correct.

Why can I go recreate his experiment today and get what we are told is the circumference of the Earth?

Why then can I get a round object, put two sticks in it, shine a light on it, measure the shadows and the distance between them and get the circumference of the object?

Are you telling me I can not do the above? 

[rabinoz]

The more commonly agreed length he would have been using for a stadion put his estimate at 16% off what REers now claim is the circumference of the Earth.  That is a good guess at best.  If I measured my height and told you that I was seven feet tall while standing in front of you, you would think I was an idiot, because it's clearly almost a full foot taller than I actually am.  That's comparable to the difference between what Eratosthenes came up with and what modern globularists come up with.  If a poll was done that was said to have a margin of error of +/- 16%, nobody would take it seriously.  Again, that's comparable to Eratosthenes' accomplishment.

But keep trying to defend its accuracy, by all means, because every one of you that does so only proves my point about the gullibility of REers.

And if I asked you to estimate the distance to the sun, what answer would you give?

If I look up the Wiki I see "Modern Mechanics describes how on a Flat Earth the sun can be computed to 3,000 miles via triangulation".
On the "Flat Earth Society" site I find this post

Height of Sun Discrepancy in Flat Earth literature. « on: December 19, 2007, 01:40:51 PM »
In Rowbotham's book, he estimates the height of the sun as being 700 miles. Modern FEers, however, estimate the height of the sun to be 3,000 miles.
Why the discrepancy?

So, while the you are raving on about a probably non-existent error of 16%, the eminent scientist  Rowbotham found the sun at 700 miles, while the FES now says 3,000 miles.  Now, Rowbotham had available quite accurate measuring methods and poor old Erosthanes had to pace out distances.

If FE supporters differ by a factor of over FOUR, that's okay, but if of an ancient observer might out by 16%, he gets castigated!