93. The Holyhead Pier light and the Poolbeg lighthouse at a heights of 44 and 68 feet should not be visible from a ship 30 miles away on a spherical Earth

"The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!" 

Another dubious historical quote that I can prove is a lie

Dubay has copied this account from Samuel Rowbotham's Zetetic Astronomy and Rowbotham gives no source other than to say "It is well known".

However rather than going on hearsay, how about going to an official document issued by the British Admiralty to aid the captains navigating the seas around the world?
This extract was taken from "Sailing directions for the coast of Ireland. Part I." published in 1877 and compiled by Staff Commander Richard Hoskin of the Royal Navy from various Admiralty surveys.
https://archive.org/details/sailingdirectio01deptgoog 
"Poolbeg Light. - A white tower on the east end of the south wall at the entrance of the river Liffey, exhibits one fixed white light at an elevation of 68 feet above high water, visible 12 miles." 

Surprise surprise, using the correct calculations for a spherical Earth, an observer on a ship 12 miles distant would have to be at an elevation of 2 feet above the horizon.  It appears that the Admiralty were being a little conservative, but the observation is obviously entirely compatible with a spherical Earth.

As to the accuracy of this publication, the following is a quote from the Wikipedia entry on "Sailing Directions" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_Directions
"Many nations publish Sailing Directions for their home waters, where they are the International Hydrographic Organization's (IHO) primary charting authority. However, the most widely used Sailing Directions product is the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office's, 'Admiralty Sailing directions'"
Whist this quote refers to modern sailing directions I believe we can assume that they were also the most trusted source of coastal information at a time when Great Britain's sea power was unrivalled in the world.
In this case, it is Rowbotham that is shown to be the unreliable witness.  He may have been deliberately lying, or maybe he was just willing to give credit to any tall story as long as it supported his belief in a flat Earth.  My belief is that there are too many similar examples for this to have been an innocent mistake.  Dubay as usual just repeats any old nonsense without question.

There is also good reason to believe that all these observations of distant lighthouse sightings are bogus.
For details click the link below.

Why Dubay's lighthouse quotes are bogus



< Prev    91-100   Next >

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

127. Straight reflections of sunlight and moonlight are impossible on a spherical Earth

Image
"The fact that the Sun and Moon’s reflections on water always form a straight line path from the horizon to the observer proves the Earth is not a ball. If Earth’s surface was curved it would be impossible for the reflected light to curve over the ball from horizon to observer." This is a flawed argument because Dubay does not understand how reflections operate Although he doesn't describe it very well, I presume that Dubay is referring to the angle of reflection from a curved surface.  I.e. the curve of the Earth would mean that the angle of reflection off the surface would result in nearly all the light  not reaching the observer's eyes. The fact that, if this was how reflections worked, that the same would be true on a flat Earth seems to have escaped Dubay's notice. This type of reflection is called specular reflection, and takes place with mirror like surfaces.  Generally the surface of the water is not perfectly flat so the reflection of the light...
Read more

Debunking Eric Dubay's 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball

Image
Conspiracy Baloney aims to provide resources to counter to the influence of the crazy anti-science conspiracy theories that are out there. This blog is specifically to debunk Eric Dubay's " 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball", that I have found flat earthers often cite. There are quite a few resources out there that comprehensively debunk this book, but I think that one more voice can only help.  I have tried to keep the rebuttals as non technical as possible. Eric Dubay’s proofs are laughably simplistic and demonstrate an almost complete lack of understanding of maths and anything scientific or technical. A list of "proofs" that show Dubay is an idiot He also likes to give historical quotes as proofs.  Typical are quotes from the 1800’s but he even has one from before 1600!.  Not only are these opinions not proof of anything, but the fact that he can’t provide quotes from more up to date sources destroys their credibility. Worse, ...
Read more

9. Engineer W Winckler was published in the Earth Review in 1893 arguing that no engineer took the curvature of the earth into account

Image
“Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth  Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating,   “As an engineer of many years standing , I saw that this  absurd allowance is only permitted in school books.  No  engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind.  I  have projected many miles of railways and many more of  canals and the allowance has not even been thought of  much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means  this - that it is 8 ” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing  at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a  small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will  have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600  feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not  being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We  no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of  railway or canal, than of ...
Read more