If you want to talk about theodolites you have to read the work we have done on it and start your arguments from there. You are just showing us the results we have already written about. You are wasting my time.
So basically it seems that your objection to the first experiment is that it is not well calibrated - some vague truth in then but I have shown the relevant stills which show the result very clearly.
But then...honestly Rowbotham's stuff is so hard to read, it's very wordy but I think the headline is theodolites aren't accurate either? Or is it something to do with some effect over water?
I've discussed this before, and explicitly shown why Rowbotham's objections are not only unfounded, but just wrong and inconsistent. But it doesn't matter, because their bible says it. Essentially Rowbotham took two theodolites, saw that they didn't match exactly (we have no idea how different they were) and decreed that clearly the lenses in them were bending the light so that the horizon didn't appear to rise to eye level as it should (thus meaning they are forever inaccurate in the eyes of a flerfer). Because when he sighted down a similar tool using only his eye, the horizon still looked to be at eye level. It's a groundless assertion (eyes are lenses too), but if we can only trust the center of the lens (as explicitly stated by Rowbotham) then if the horizon isn't in the center, it's clearly not there. If it was, it would show up in the undistorted center and prove him correct. So he has to make up some hogswash about how the tool developed to accurately measure angles at long distances, isn't accurate at all in the job it was made to do.
The experiment is bad. I see it is bad and Parallax can see that it is bad. There are no controls. There is no peer review. It hardly counts as an experiment.
Every surveyor knows that carefully laid positions and angles are required to line up to distant reference points. This experiment clearly fails. Surveyors don't just hold their spotting devices with their hands and guess their angles. Calibrated equipment is used carefully on tripods.
The experiment isn't bad. Do you see how the only two people claiming it's bad are the two who disagree with it's results? Doesn't that tell you something? The control is the water itself. Put the tube together if you don't understand/believe. The two sides will always remain locally level across them. 'No peer review' hah! Guess we can chuck out all of Rowbotham's stuff then too, as I've not once seen peer review on any of it, other than the Bedford Level, which achieved no less than 3 different results. This goes for the Bishop Experiment too. No possibility of peer review when there's not enough detail provided.
We're not attempting to measure the angle, just show that the horizon drops further from eye level as you go higher. Which the experiment demonstrates quite well. Also, you don't believe surveyors anyway, so who cares what they do?