Wednesday 9 March 2016

82) “The Port Nicholson Light in New Zealand is 420 feet above sea-level and visible from 35 miles away where it should be 220 feet below the horizon.”

What is the "Port Nicholson Light"? As to my knowledge, that doesn't exist. If Mr. Dubay means the Pencarrow Head Lighthouse (since Port Nicholson refers to Wellington), that was decommissioned in 1935.

It was replaced by Baring Head Lighthouse, but this one neither has the focal height nor the range that he is "citing".

Where does he get his information? What are his sources for these names and numbers that he claims to "disprove"? Apart from not providing his sources, in his calculations he never factors in any of the following:

-Correct height of the observer
-Correct focal heights of the lighthouses (height of the building+ ground level)
-Atmospheric refraction.
On top of that, he doesn't have any kind of photographic evidence for his claim to begin with.

From now on, I will refer every following claim to this one, when it contains neither of the above mentioned basic requirements for an investigation.

When your claim has the same quality as, say "In 1832 word spread that Sir Alfred Rowbottle of Lancashire had seen pink unicorns dancing in his backyard", it should be obvious to anyone that this is the worst kind of claim that you can make, when your evidence is nothing but eye-witness testimony. And when you even fail to provide that worthless piece of evidence, you just have no claim to begin with, no proof or disproof of anything in any way, shape or form.

No comments:

Post a Comment

(Please make your comment reasoned and based on evidence . Abusive comments will be totally ignored.)