Longest Land Meridian

Get a map. Are you telling me that you don't know how to find a map? Try the library. Lindum is not evidence. Maps are evidence. Get a map.

Any chance you found a map of the world yet, WT?

Thread moved here from the Free For All (No New Topics) forum.

Now that you are back Ray, did you have any further comments on this topic?Shall we drop the rest of the GP discussion?

Thread moved here from the Limbo forum.

I need until Monday, May 23rd before I can properly produce a closing message to this thread.Thanks.Ray Martinez

This topic (LLM) was an off-shoot from the "Proof of God" topic.The LLM topic was started on 8-5-04. In this topic opponents first pointed out by observation, and then by crude but reasonable measurements that my claim asserting the GP resided on the LLM was not true.Because the originators of the LLM claim never supplied figures or arguments - just assertions, I silently agreed with the LLM refutation.I also broke silence here:http://EvC Forum: PROOF OF GOD -->EvC Forum: PROOF OF GODNote the date: 7-7-04 - way before the LLM topic was started.I initiated this link in the above post:http://www.catchpenny.org/pyramid.htmlFor some reason opponents never embraced the claims.I continued to ignore my opponents demands for debate concerning the LLM because they refused to recognize the height evidence voluminously posted by me. I simply wanted to give them a taste of their own medicine so to speak. Back then I had 3 different sources who produced the same data which proved the height of the GP, and today I could add 2 or 3 more sources for a total of 6.Based on the evidence and arguments of Percy and others I agree the GP does not reside on the LLM, while new evidence could overturn I have yet to find it.I concede the LLM claim - the GP does not reside on the LLM.Ray MartinezEdit: minor tense correction.RMThis message has been edited by Ray Martinez, 05-22-2005 04:54 PM

I can see no hint in that post that you were no longer in support of the LLM. If you had decided it was wrong please explain all your posts in the LLM thread.Of the two links you supply the one that supports your sources doesn't seem to work now.The other one attacks not only the LLM but also the LLP.The height evidence was not ignored. It was discussed at great length . The LLM was separated out because it is a simpler claim. If you now realize it is wrong we can move on to others.If you wish to carry on with the height discussion or care to defend any of the others I'm sure there will be some who would enjoy playing.ABE -- sorry I missed your last line -- thank you for the retraction of the LLM claim).Meanwhile I take it from this post (112) that you have now agreed the LLM is wrong (and in fact you are claiming to have known it was wrong while you continued to support the LLM claim in this thread). Is that the case? (see ABE note)Which of the claims made do you still support? Only the height one?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-22-2005 07:35 PM

What I said, and what I am saying is that I silently agreed with the general refutation of the GP residing on the LLM VIA the posting of that link.My posts in the LLM topic were basically three-fold:1) Buy time while I researched the issue.2) Solidify what I believe is a double standard: Theist data shouted down as unsupported assertions, while secular, when asserting, to be the product of research based on educational credentials and peer review, which in reality is a process to ensure nothing contradicts what another scholar of the same worldview already spoke up for.3) Treat my opponents the exact same way they treated the height evidence. I didn't know that.Many links in the "Proof of God" debate do not work now. Yes, and if observation can be trusted it seems to have a strong case. It was instantly branded as fraud or unsupported assertions WHEN the data proved the claim.Petrie made his measurements in Egypt as did Rutherford.Opponents have no problem embracing Petrie.Lemesurier showed how Rutherford and secular Cole matched. Well thats good to know.But until it is decided what constitutes evidence of the physical measurements of the GP it will be a waste of time.We must accept the figures of those who spent many years in Egypt.How many matching set of figures qualifies as fact and confirmation ? I said I suspected it was unprovable via the lack of data.I also already explained my motives. All except the LLM and longest longitude.Ray Martinez

In post Message 112 you claim that you "broke silent" in the linked message. Like Ned I can see no sign that you did so.As to your comments on the LLM thread:

quote:

---

1) Buy time while I researched the issue.

---

I have to say that I see no reason not to deal with the evidence presented by Lindum because of that. After all that in itself would be valid research and should have been easy to address.

quote:

---

2) Solidify what I believe is a double standard: Theist data shouted down as unsupported assertions, while secular, whenasserting, to be the product of research based on educational credentials and peer review, which in reality is a process to ensure nothing contradicts what another scholar of the same worldview already spoke up for.

---

Again I will point to Lindum's evidence as an example that that was not the case. Your sources did not provide equivalent evidence.
I will also point out that in gneral when your sources did provide evidence it was investigated - not shouted down as an unsupported assertion - and often found to be less than entirely accurate (e.g. our discussion over Rutherford's chronology, comparing the Septuagint with Bibles based on the Masoretic text).

quote:

---

3) Treat my opponents the exact same way they treated the height evidence.

---

A tit-for-tat mentality which does not take account of the actual merits of the evidence is not conducive to productive discussion.As I remember it your sources claimed a quite exact height for the Pyramid which could not be confirmed by any other source, and it became clear that measurement to that accuracy was not even possible. When a non-expert source makes an assertion to support an obvious agenda and better sources which have no particular axe to grind say otherwise then I don't think that any rational person should trust the former over the latter.

LOL, I can't believe I just read through 8 pages of "can you confirm the length of the first segment of the GP meridian?"

Thats all you ever did - assert contrary to the evidence. I see nothing has changed.RM

I suggest you review the actual discussion. You will find out that your assertion is untrue.

Hi Ray,

quote:

---

I said I suspected it was unprovable via the lack of data.
  —Ray

---

There was no lack of data - that was the point of this thread. Measuring physical objects (in this case, it is land masses) is about as close to "proof" as you're going to get outside of mathematics; I gave you some online resources with which you could check the data yourself.From your previous post:

quote:

---

I initiated this link in the above post:

​

http://www.catchpenny.org/pyramid.html

​

For some reason opponents never embraced the claims.
  —Ray

---

If you go back to the original pyramid thread, you will see Percy's response, with which I agree: the catchpenny site does not provide any evidence to back their claim; it simply overlays lines on the original Smyth map with their own assertions. They do not constitute evidence against your original position; only my data and that of Ned in the original thread are available for "peer review" within, at least, this forum. There is no "scholarly bias" here - you were essentially invited to be part of an informal peer-review process.

quote:

---

I concede the LLM claim - the GP does not reside on the LLM.
  —Ray

---

I agree. However, if you should ever be actually willing to investigate the claim, I will be happy to discuss your results. It is a shame you never chose to do so before, since you could have pointed out the glaring (although inconsequential) error in Ned's figures ( sorry Ned!!).Cheers and welcome back!Lindum

Me!?? I?!! made a mistake?Ok, so it happens once in awhile.What is it this time? Please tell me.