Latest News

47 Comments on Flat Earth – Bedford Level Experiment 2016

  1. Awesome video, I would have loved to have been there with you guys.

  2. tearnfourstar // 15th Jul 2016 at 3:33 pm // Reply

    lol 12.30…. ‘why have we never heard about 0.318?’ It is just the
    reciprocal of pi (1/3.14159…) so of course multiplying it by the
    circumference will give you information about the radius, ‘the hidden math
    equation of all time’ is something twelve year olds are taught to do…
    smh, the part at the end was a fail but I think it’s awesome what everyone
    did at the flat earth meetup though, how come you don’t do it at sea where
    there are no barriers to your vision, and where the water is colder hence
    less of a mirage effect?

  3. david marsh // 15th Jul 2016 at 3:48 pm // Reply

    Meeting Dave, and the FEUKers was a great experience for me and Siouxie. A
    landmark event for flat earthers. Thanks Dave

  4. not sticking your tongue out? is that a reference to Kali?

  5. bedroom bully // 15th Jul 2016 at 5:55 pm // Reply

    big up yaself dave keep them videos coming brother you are enlightening
    people good work.

  6. thodal2000 // 15th Jul 2016 at 6:04 pm // Reply

    Check njwildbergers channel for better more exact math. He is a PhD
    mathematician. He lays out the problems with angles, pi etc when it comes
    to geometry. Too much info to post here. Search for parameterization of a
    the circle.

  7. Do some research of how atmospheric refraction works, it would be
    impossible ofer a flat earth.
    On a Flat Earth: If U travel stright East along the Equator , without
    turning left, will U and up on the Soutpole or go in a circle around the
    Northpole?,

    • loadfaster // 15th Jul 2016 at 8:56 pm // Reply

      +sortsius basically a straight doesn’t curve…. a globe curves in all
      directions… a circle only curves on the edge or side… you can go
      straight on a flat earth but not a globe…

    • if U are looking on the AE map of the earth, is the distance ( a complete
      circle) of the equator, smaller then the distance of the Antarctic circle
      at 66°33′ south of the equator, around, I dont think so,
      Whats your thoughts?

    • I meen going paralel to the sealevel , at same height elevation to the
      senter of the Globe, lets say 10 000 ft above she sealevel, Can U fly
      stright along the Equator, , its same distance to the Nortpole and
      Southpole from that latitude.,
      Yes, the Earth is curves downward in all direction (therefore U cant see a
      curv from groundlevel, we are small and the earth is BIG)

    • loadfaster // 15th Jul 2016 at 9:45 pm // Reply

      +sortsius I agree you defiantly can fly along the equator.. but I don’t
      think it’s actually straight though…

  8. Accipiter nisus // 15th Jul 2016 at 7:37 pm // Reply

    Great job guys and another great video from you Dave.I have one question
    about fb group page,why UK only ? I dont see the point

    • Because it’s about meeting up and actually going out and doing experiments,
      not something you can do remotely

    • Accipiter nisus // 15th Jul 2016 at 8:51 pm // Reply

      +dmurphy25 wish you luck and much more energy in future.Regards from
      Serbia.Have a nice weekend

  9. 7:35 “The calculation of 8 inches per miles squared is actually wrong”
    No it’s not. It’s accurate. From ground level. Up to 1000 miles.
    This constant questioning and denial of it’s veracity only serves to muddy
    the waters.
    When applying the various mathematical formulas for calculating the amount
    of drop-off, used in geometry and trigonometry, you can verify this for
    your self.
    Search Youtube for “Ball Earth Maths” and you’ll find an excellent 4 part
    series by John Le Bon that proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    • +M Norway sorry, but you are just plain wrong.

      8″ per mile squared is VERTICAL DROP FROM TANGENT.

      It is NOT the formula for distance to horizon nor is it hidden height at a
      distance (except when observer height is exactly zero).

      Follow the link for a detailed derivation of the *correct* equations for
      both and a graphic showing why it’s the wrong value.

      http://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/derivation-for-height-of-distant.html

      Where
      h₀ = elevation of observer
      d₀ = total distance to distant object
      R = Earth Radius (calculate based on latitude)

      d₁ = √h₀ √[h₀ + 2 R] = observer distance to Horizon
      h₁ = √[(d₀ – d₁)² + R²] – R = height of distant object obscured by horizon
      (WHEN √h₀ √[h₀ + 2 R] < d₀) And yes, you also need to account for actual radius, elevation bias, and refraction (all of which I cover in my blog post).

  10. RavenPrecept // 15th Jul 2016 at 8:51 pm // Reply

    6 feet of hill between a 6 mile distance.
    The curve is basically a hill with the top half way, so at 3 miles.
    The Earth is 4000 miles radius
    It forms a right angled triangle.
    So 4000×4000+3×3 gives you the square of the longest side.
    Root that and you get 4000.001125 miles.
    The .001125 is the hill. In feet is x 5280 = 6 feet

    Also if it’s miles squared * 8 = inches curvature it also works;
    3x3x8/12 = 6 feet.

    This is why the original experiment was done with a small boat and a man in
    the water. However the globalists say that being close to the water allows
    for refraction. You can’t win.

    • Francis Francis // 16th Jul 2016 at 2:01 am // Reply

      there’s no hill, everything curves away downwards from your perspective, if
      we were on a ball

    • Embrace the Ball // 16th Jul 2016 at 1:11 pm // Reply

      Do you realize that Rowbotham, perhaps inadvertently, also mentions the
      effects of refraction? That’s why Wallace, in his Bedford Level experiment,
      placed his targets high above the water, to avoid that problem (a problem
      which he was acutely aware of, being not only a scientist, but an
      experienced surveyor).

  11. Lee Stephenson // 15th Jul 2016 at 10:00 pm // Reply

    Thx Dave. My Dad loved saying figures don’t lie, but liars figure. Cheers

  12. Barry White // 16th Jul 2016 at 12:00 am // Reply

    I can tell the flat earth is the truth just by the people that are in it.
    Nice. Honest. Real. Smart. Compare to the arrogant a-hole ballers.

    • +M Norway actually, he means the Earth has traveled taking him with it,
      which it has.

      Both our journey around the sun at 43,000 miles per hour, and our path
      around the galaxy at 483,000 miles per hour contribute to the parallax of
      the stars.

      But remember the other stars are also all moving around the Galaxy so our
      RELATIVE motion is not 483,000 miles per hour.

      But stars do move, albeit very slowly – we measure and there are tens of
      thousands of scientific papers with massive amounts of details on the
      subject.

      Reference:
      https://astrosociety.org/edu/publications/tnl/71/howfast.html

      His failure is he didn’t obtain any actual information on the subject &
      didn’t calculate what he expected to see – so he’s just making up more
      nonsense.

    • Barry White // 17th Jul 2016 at 9:27 pm // Reply

      When I say I flew to Germany I’m on a plane nitwit.,when I say I’m flying
      thru outer space I’m obviously on the magical flying globe spaceship. And
      we are flying at the satatic speed of 66600mph and our satanic tilt if 66.6
      degrees not whatever lie you uttered this time. I realize the deceivers
      made their numbers come out right. They can’t be that obvious. You tube the
      latest videos on flat earth angular displacement and perspective that
      demonstrates exactly how they pulled off that lie. Parallax – total
      bullshit. I own one of the nikon p900s. Can zoom in on stars supposedly
      quadrillion miles away and see geometric shapes in the middle and the donut
      ridge around the outside. Students in the future w simply laugh their
      physics teachers out of the classrooms.

    • Barry White // 17th Jul 2016 at 9:36 pm // Reply

      I can’t help but think this psalm applies to what they tried to do but will
      fail “for the intended evil against thee: they imagined a mischievous
      device, which they are not able to perform.” Psalm 21:11. Not able to keep
      the lie going to bring on your alien invasion…the globe. You fail. 500
      years of lies down the drain

    • Stephen Grant // 17th Jul 2016 at 9:41 pm // Reply

      +Dark Star *This* is where you stop arguing 🙂

  13. @jeranizm. you’re not measuring drop! curvature is not a drop, you have to
    look level.

  14. For real? WTH? This is what is sometimes so frustrating dealing with “flat
    earthers”. You go to all that trouble and not put a camera right off the
    water. Unbelievable. If you guys are going to be the fore runners of waking
    people up, you have to put in all the work. Why go to that length and NOT
    put a camera off the water?!?!?!?!?!? Worried about a hundred dollar
    tripod?!?!?!?!?!?! This type of experimentation and explanation is why
    people believe we live on a ball and are hurling through space at millions
    upon millions of miles. We do not put in the work. I can not afford to do
    something like this and I am as sure as heck if I did get the chance, I
    would make the most of it and destroy ALL my equipment to get that shot. Do
    you not understand how important this is?!?!?!?!?!? Use these arguments
    also. They will get you a lot farther in the debate and these can not be
    looked around.
    https://www.facebook.com/The-Geocentric-Flat-Earth-Hypothesis-299628783714979/
    

    • Agreed. I’m sure Rowbotham didn’t worry too much about getting wet. Though
      having it on the bridge is actually a better idea as the effects of
      refraction will be much stronger closer to the water, and therefore make
      accurate calculations much harder to come by.

  15. Flat Earth And Other Hot Potatoes // 16th Jul 2016 at 5:31 am // Reply

    Thanks for this Dave! I missed being there by mere days. The next one, the
    re-do, will have me there helping in whatever capacity is needed. 🙂
    enjoyed and shared.

  16. Lecy Slade // 16th Jul 2016 at 12:43 pm // Reply

    Nice to see so many involved, not sure about Jerans calculation at the end
    though 1 mile drop in 6 miles just doesn’t sound right, though that 8″
    calculation is around the entirety of the Ball not a slice off the top,
    which would be more.

  17. Curious Life of a Flat Earther // 16th Jul 2016 at 3:28 pm // Reply

    Love the name “The Feukers” … however, 8″ x distance squared is the
    correct formula to use for their ball model to calculate how much of a drop
    in curvature you would expect.

  18. Luuk Steitner // 17th Jul 2016 at 1:20 pm // Reply

    Why was there no one willing to put their tripod in the water? If you want
    to repeat the bedford level experiment you can only do it by placing the
    camera 8 inches above the water and expect to get the same results. By
    placing the camera on the bridge at approx. 7ft you should be able to see
    beyond 10 miles. It is nice to see a group of people trying to repeat this
    experiment but it was a complete failure. If you are willing to repeat this
    experiment and do it right, I’d be happy to pay for the tripod so you can
    actually place it in the water.

  19. Zaparoony Zap // 17th Jul 2016 at 8:31 pm // Reply

    You would need to explain this to surveyers and construction engineers that
    how they’ve been measuring for large projects and compensating for the
    curvature of the earth have been wrong all along.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


Shares
Share This