On the 25th June 2016 the Flat Earth UK group met at the Old Bedford Level canal to recreate Samuel Rowbotham's iconic flat Earth experiment performed 178 years earlier.

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?

There’s an excellent video called *F L A T Proofs and Truths #3* here on YT
showing no sea curvature. See just the last 3 minutes if you’re in a hurry.

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.

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?,

+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)

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.

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).

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.

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).

+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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

well, he was paddling uphill over a curve…lol

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?

That’s why the next meet is at Brighton

There’s an excellent video called *F L A T Proofs and Truths #3* here on YT

showing no sea curvature. See just the last 3 minutes if you’re in a hurry.

Leave it up to jeranism to twist simplicity into a pretzel

Meeting Dave, and the FEUKers was a great experience for me and Siouxie. A

landmark event for flat earthers. Thanks Dave

Must of been greatm

Hello david we are a couple in brighton would love to join those

meetings,any chance? cheers

it was fantastic for me too – i can’t wait for many more 🙂

hi matita look for “The FEUKers (UK only)” on facebook and either myself of

one of the other admins will add you to group 🙂

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

Kali Muscle

No it was a reference to Matt sticking his tongue out when he was deep in

concentration… for crying out loud 🙁

+Society Is Misguided If you mad at me, you mad at God! lol

+B LaVan ahhahaaha

big up yaself dave keep them videos coming brother you are enlightening

people good work.

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.

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?,

+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)

+sortsius I agree you defiantly can fly along the equator.. but I don’t

think it’s actually straight though…

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

+dmurphy25 wish you luck and much more energy in future.Regards from

Serbia.Have a nice weekend

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).

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.

there’s no hill, everything curves away downwards from your perspective, if

we were on a ball

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).

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

look level.

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.

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.

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.

+M Norway try doing the calculation, see if Nasa’s calcs are correct.

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.

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.

Yep. Looking at a height of about 11.5 feet above the water level , a

bridge located 5.9 miles , disappeared below the horizon from a height of

only 2.2 feet… Sorry for my english.

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=9.6&h0=3.5&unit=metric

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.