Talk:Behind the Curve
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re-write of page edit
I'm going to work on adding some content to this page, if anyone has anything they want to add, or if someone is already doing this, let me know. MCaronNZ (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Allegations of Improper Depiction of Experiments edit
The Flat Earth Society, a subject of this documentary, and a well-known Flat Earth organization, issued a statement with an allegation that an experiment depicted in Behind the Curve was depicted improperly. The statement appears here on their front page, and here as well: https://wiki.tfes.org/Behind_the_Curve
They say:
Questions have come up about the light experiment at the end of the film. We point to the following from an account of a self-proclaimed Round Earth proponent who was present at the Jeran event (archive link):
"In about 10 tries, with the light held waist-high at 17 feet above water we never clearly saw it through the center panel hole. On one of the attempts, maybe the fourth of ten, we clearly saw it when Enrique lifted it over his head. On that one, Jeran asked him to raise it and lower it a few times, and it would appear when Enrique raised it and vanish when he lowered it. That was the "gasp" moment. Jeran said, "that's interesting." I noted it was the prediction for a round Earth. When they repeated the whole procedure, it did not happen again. I suggested having Enrique move from side-to-side a bit when occluded by the panel, in case it was lateral alignment that was off. Jeran accepted the suggestion, but it made no observable difference."
Of about ten observations, the fourth observation was the only one where the event occurred, and the only one which was published in the documentary. Nine of the ten trials did not see the event. The above description of inconsistency suggests the presence of curving light rays in the experiment—refraction. The manner in which the experiment was portrayed in the film by the producers further suggests dishonesty. The documentary does not show the times the event did not occur. Misrepresentation of this nature is called scientific fraud. Had the results of all ten trials been honestly presented it would have, assuredly, been a far different segment.
Should this viewpoint be included in the Wikipedia article?
From the comments section there is a video of Jeran saying the same thing. Jeran's response starts at the 14:20 mark. He states that there was no consistency to the experiment and that everyone walked away with the impression that nothing was proved either way.
"Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal"
"Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"
KnowingTree (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Jeran Campanella aka jeranism edit
He went to prove a flat earth by having three boats spaced apart on a flat lake, the first two had holes on boards at the same height the third he held a lazer beam at the same height! When the lazer bean didnt go thru the two holes as it would on a flat earth he had to hold the lazer beam higher to get it to go thru the two holes! Thus proving a curved lake, curved water surface and curved world! --Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Why is this described as a Netflix documentary? edit
Netflix had nothing to do with making it. They are not the subject of the documentary. All that they do is distribute it. Don't they distribute other documentaries about other subjects? Becalmed (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)