|
|
|||
ED. NOTE: It is not that the world might be flat that agitates people (the initial response from many is, “So what? What difference does it make?”) but the fact that the world may not be of the globular design that we have been taught all our lives. That is what really lights ’em up! When I completed Edward Hendrie’s book a year ago, I personally found it to be the most fascinating and irrefutable hunk (700+ pages) of research that I have ever read on any subject. Now I find it amusing that most critics of the idea do not challenge it with countering facts but usually with mere insults only. Here Canadian reader Gordon Watson uses some of each. Author Edward Hendrie then has a retort:
The book advertised on this website i.e. The Greatest Lie on Earth – is fatally-flawed. His work on the lunar landing hoax, is excellent. HIs theory about the Earth being a flat plane, is worse than nonsense. Just take a look at the graphic on the front cover of the book. If the Equator is a circle 21,000 miles around, then in Mr. Hendrie’s world, and in the real world, that circle is ~= 7000 miles across the north pole. Ask yourself : “in the real word …is it?” No. Inside Hendrie’s book he uses the same graphic image, again, only with the scale referencing the degrees at the Equator with nautical miles. That very scale ruins his entire logic. In a word “longitude” … the distances in the southern hemisphere do not compute. the Bible says “call no man a fool without a cause. Mister Hendrie is the greater fool for persisting in his foolishness” when his own book avoids dealing with the glaring discrepancies of distances between points on Gleason’s 1892 map, compared with the same points/ distances undeniable in the real world. GORDON WATSON
~~~~~~~
Watson states that The Greatest Lie on Earth is “fatally flawed” and “worse than nonsense.” He alleges that the book “avoids dealing with the glaring discrepancies of distances between points on Gleason’s 1892 map, compared with the same points/ distances undeniable in the real world.”
It seems that Watson has an issue with reading comprehension. The book states clearly in a chapter titled “Map of the Flat Earth,” that “the globe model presents the traveler with a significantly different configuration than does the flat earth model, particularly in the so-called “southern hemisphere.” The discrepancy between the reality of a flat earth and the myth of a globe have found many a seafarer off course as they traveled the south seas.”
The book gives several examples where the false charts based upon a globe model caused seafarers to wreck their ships in the southern hemisphere.
The book explains how the ship “Challenger” completed the circuit of the southern region, indirectly, to be sure, circumnavigating Antarctica. The approximate circumference of Antarctica is supposed to be approximately 14,460 statute miles on the globular earth model. However, the Challenger spent three years and traversed nearly 69,000 miles. That is a distance that would have allowed the ship to circle Antarctica over 4 times if the earth were, in fact, a globe. The 69,000-mile long journey around the circumference of the earth that is Antarctica, however, is perfectly explained by a flat earth.”
The book explains how “voyagers, who found that their charts, which used a globular earth model, almost always put them off course in the south seas. ‘We found ourselves every day from 12 to 16 miles by observation in advance of our reckoning.’ Another southern seafarer stated: ‘By our observations, at noon we found ourselves 58 miles to the eastward of our reckoning in two days.’”
The book explains in detail with specific dates and measurements how “the spherical earth charts did not account for the expanse of distance between the lines of longitude the further south one travels on a flat earth. Consequently, the mariners’ true position on the earth, determined by using celestial navigation and a chronometer, was found to be off by several degrees from the position on the chart that was plotted using dead reckoning. One mariner detailed the distance that the erroneous charts, which assumed a globular earth, put them off course in the south seas.”
Watson’s critique of the book is impeached in the very pages of the book. His acerbic critique says more about him than it does about the book. Indeed, his critique of the book is “fatally flawed” and “worse than nonsense.”
Edward Hendrie
Author of The Greatest Lie on Earth