The Bedford Level Wager and Flat Earth

The middle marker conundrum in the words of Carpenter, Hampden, and Wallace

I have been dialoguing about the Flat Earth with an engineer and pastor who brought the Bedford Level Experiment into the discussion — particularly the conundrum of the rise of the middle marker. Turns out there is only a little conundrum and plenty of confuscation and redirection. I hope my current discussion ends better than that of Hampden’s Bedford Level Wager. With God — all things are possible.

Listen to the audio version instead.

My studies had me digging into the primary source material to understand what actually happened in the 1870 experiment at the Old Bedford Canal. Eric Dubay tells part of the story in The History of Flat Earth - but he misses some facts and mis-tells the story in places. I’ll admit, it takes devoted study to sort out the details: Hampden leaves out important data, Carpenter fills in some blanks, and Wallace hangs himself with his words. All three write in a language a century and a half divorced from modern English.

Let’s start by looking at a brief history of the Bedford Level Experiment. I’ve drawn my conclusions from first-hand accounts from three major players in the experiment as well as a few news clippings and other documents. The sources will be included so the reader can do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

Let’s start by introducing the players.

Main Players in the Bedford Level Experiment

• Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, aka, Parallax: This Flat Earth believer conducted experiments on the Old Bedford Level canal that showed water was not convex as would be required if we lived on a globe. He writes about his experiments, processes, and proofs in his 1865 book Zetetic Astronomy.¹

• John Hampden: After studying Rowbotham’s writings, this English scientist of the Royal Academy came to believe that science, the Bible, and common sense proved the earth is flat. In January 1870, with full confidence, Hampden issued a wager for anyone who could prove the earth was a globe. He offered up to £500 British Sterling — today’s equivalent of nearly £73,000 — or $91,000 USD.

• Alfred Russel Wallace: This friend of Charles Darwin and Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society of London took John Hampden up on the offer to prove the earth’s rotundity, eventually matching the deposit of £500 into an account to be settled by referees. Wallace repeatedly maintained that he could easily prove the earth was a globe by showing that markers in the middle between two points would be higher than those on either end — thus the topic of the middle marker.

• William Carpenter: This English printer, author, and flat earth believer, was chosen as the “referee” for John Hampden. Up until the “wager,” Hampden and Carpenter were unacquainted, which was one of Wallace’s demands in a referee.

• John Henry Walsh: Editor of The Field magazine, Walsh was the chosen “referee” for Alfred Russel Wallace. After a few snafus in the wager, Walsh left his post in the hands of another referee mentioned below. Later, in a turn of events, Walsh became the umpire who would singlehandedly (?) decide the outcome of the wager amidst protests from both Hampden and Carpenter. Later, Hampden sued Walsh and the courts overturned the wager on a technicality — despite Hampden’s desire that they try the facts of the case. The judgment was in favor of Hampden, and Walsh was required to return the £500 to Hampden.²

• Mr. Martin Coulcher: This local apothecary was appointed as the referee in the stead of John Henry Walsh, but he proved to be somewhat questionable in his dealing with the facts of the outcome — which will be pointed out below.

Original Agreements of the Wager

Science Direct reports that John Hampden's original challenge appeared in the Journal of Scientific Opinion as follows:

The undersigned is willing to deposit from £50 to £500, on reciprocal terms, and defies all the philosophers, divines and scientific professors in the United Kingdom to prove the rotundity and revolution of the world from Scripture, from reason or from fact. He will acknowledge that he has forfeited his deposit, if his opponent can exhibit, to the satisfaction…

Referee William Carpenter fills in the missing portion of the challenge in his booklet: Water Not Convex:³

…of any intelligent referee, a convex railway, river, canal, or lake. [Signed] John Hampden. ⁴

Wallace accepted the challenge in February of 1870 and drew up the following agreement, which both parties signed.

The undersigned having each deposited the sum of £500 in Messrs. Coutts' Bank, do hereby agree, that if Mr. Alfred R. Wallace, on or before the 15th day of March, 1870, proves the convexity or curvature, to and fro, of the surface of any canal, river, or lake, by actual demonstration and measurement, to the satisfaction of Mr. John Henry Walsh, of 346, Strand, London, and Mr. William Carpenter, of 7, Carlton Terrace, Thornford Road, Lewisham Park, London, (or, if they differ, to the satisfaction of the umpire they may appoint) the said Alfred R. Wallace is to receive the above-mentioned two sums amounting to £1000., by cheques drawn by Mr. John Henry Walsh to his the said Alfred R. Wallace's order; — and if the said Alfred R. Wallace fails to show such actual proof of the convexity of any canal, river, or lake, the above mentioned sums are to be paid in like manner to Mr. John Hampden. Provided always that if no decision can be arrived at, owing to the death of either of the parties the wager is to be annulled, or if owing to the weather being so bad as to prevent a man being distinctly seen by a good telescope at a distance of four miles then a further period of one month is to be allowed for the experiment or longer as may be agreed upon by the referees. Feb. 8, 1870. Alfred R. Wallace.- John Hampden.⁵

What Wallace Sought to Prove

Wallace chose the Old Bedford Canal as a suitable location to prove the rotundity of the earth.

Wallace writes:

The test I am going to use is very simple and conclusive. I have prepared half-a-dozen signal posts each six feet long and with red and black circles attached to them, so as to be distinctly seen at a long distance. I shall set these up a mile apart on the water's edge, and then look along them with a powerful telescope. If the water line is straight and flat, the tops of these poles will of course be straight and flat too, but if the earth and water has a curvature of 4000 miles radius, then the tops of the poles will be equally convex, and they will be seen rising higher and higher to the middle point, and thence sinking lower and lower to the furthest one; and the amount of rising and falling will be nearly the feet and inches I have put down on the diagram on the other side. The upper figure shows what must be seen if the earth is round, the lower what must be seen if it is a plane. Of course the curvature shown is immensely exaggerated, but with a good telescope it will be easily seen if it exists.⁶⁷

Please note a few of the claims Wallace made as they will be critical to the discussion. Wallace maintained that:

1. His test would be very simple and conclusive.

2. If the water was level, the tops of the poles would be straight and level too.

3. If the water was convex (curved), the tops of the poles would be seen to rise higher and higher in the middle — and then sink lower to the furthest pole.

A Few Notable Inconsistencies

William Carpenter, in his Water Not Convex booklet, pointed out some inconsistencies in Wallace’s curvature claims. The common understanding of the day was that the earth’s curvature followed “the rate of about eight inches per mile; and in every succeeding mile, eight inches multiplied by the square of the distance."⁸⁹

Carpenter also quoted from Sir Richard Phillips’ A Million of Facts, which states the equivalent equation that must define the curvature of the earth if we live on a globe,¹⁰ yet — Carpenter points out that Phillips says the earth falls at this rate, hiding that which is beyond and does not rise and then fall as Wallace promised to prove.

“So which is it?” Carpenter questions correctly. Can the earth both fall and rise? Wallace claimed he could prove conclusively that it did both. And interestingly, he not only had his rising and falling wrong, but also the numbers for which it was to rise and fall.

Carpenter testified that Wallace’s illustrations had the earth rising in the middle at the rate of 3 feet and six inches in the mile, upwards in the middle, and then again downwards until at last, the sixth-mile marker would be neither higher nor lower than the line of sight, namely 6 feet. This theory contradicted the commonly-held scientific view that the curvature over six miles would be 24 feet and the middle point of three miles would be obscured by six feet — if we lived on a globe at the accepted circumference. Yet, Wallace claimed that the middle portion would be raised by five feet and six inches.¹¹

Carpenter, in good faith, believed that Wallace would stand corrected when faced with the facts of the matter — but wished to wait to discuss the topic until the experiment was conducted and considered along with the second referee. Sadly, that’s not what happened — but it took me some time to sort out the details.

My Visual Interpretation of Wallace’s Proposal

I put together some graphics to help me understand Mr. Wallace’s proposal. Sadly, I could not find the actual diagrams that Carpenter discussed. Instead, I have pieced my own renditions together based on Wallace’s, Carpenter’s, and Hampden’s descriptions. Here is what I came up with.¹²

And here is another view of what it might look like through the telescope.

Wallace claimed he could simply and conclusively demonstrate that we live on a globe with the above experiment. The middle marker would rise 5’ 8” and fall back down to the observer’s height at the six-mile mark — proving the curvature of the earth. As mentioned previously, his theory contradicted the accepted globe science of the day as well as modern globe science, which says that:

1. The first marker should drop 8”

2. The second marker should drop 16” (1 foot 4 inches)

3. The third marker should drop 72” (6 feet)

4. The fourth marker should drop 128” (10.66 feet)

5. The fifth marker should drop 200” (16.66 feet)

6. The sixth marker should drop 288” (24 feet)

These figures presuppose not a rise and a fall, but rather a continuous fall. Plus, they assume the observer is always on top of the world looking down on creation.

On Top of the World

Here introduces a topic that Hampden waxes on about in Is Water Level or Convex After All? Are we at the top of the world always? Or positioned elsewhere and how? Globe theory demands we are always at the TOP of the world (i.e., at the middle marker) — yet it defies sound logic and common sense by ignoring up and down.

The idea of being "always on the top " is something so glaringly absurd that we fail to see its utter impossibility. Squirrels in a revolving cage, felons on a treadmill may be justly compared to these insane philosophers who dare assert and argue that every living man, woman, and child on a revolving globe are one and all “on the top." — John Hampden¹³

An illustration shows the absurdity that Hampden speaks of.

In the above graphic, it can be seen that the person at 12 o’clock looks down to 1 and 11. Yet 11 and 1 each look up to 12 and down to the person below. Likewise, 2-5 and 7-10 look up and down. Yet again, we see the person at the bottom of the world must look up or is it down? Who can tell?

The Middle Marker

On the other hand, if any one person skips the person on their right or left — the skipped person does indeed become a raised middle marker as Wallace set out to prove. For example, if 12 looks to the left or right — skipping 11 and 1 and looking at 10 and 2 — then 11 and 1 are raised above 12 in comparison to 10 and 2. And if 3 does likewise then 2 and 4 each become a raised middle marker, as will all.

And so, Wallace sets out to prove something that would be logical if we lived on a globe — the rise of the middle marker. Yet, Carpenter points out that Wallace is trying to prove something altogether new and unaccepted in the scientific community that only projects a continuous fall or rise.

We cannot forego the tempting opportunity which is now afforded us for repeating the words of Mr. WALLACE, imposingly underlined as they stand before us in the original document. To lose five hundred pounds, or, to show the six-feet signal posts planted by the side of the canal rising higher and higher to the middle point, and thence sinking lower and lower to the furthest one. The surface of the earth is to be seen both "rising" and "falling!" How strange! Why, have we not just been provided with the exact amount of curvature in one continuously progressive scale, without any " ups" or downs," from eight inches in the first mile, to 130 feet in the fourteenth mile? Is Mr. WALLACE right, and all the other scientific men wrong? Does the surface of the earth curvate continuously upwards, or continuously downwards, or, first upwards and then downwards? Is there a gradual incline, a gradual decline, or is there first one and then the other? These are questions which every thoughtful man will ask. ¹⁴

Another question Carpenter asks of Wallace, “How will he do it?”

This brings us to the results of the initial “very simple and conclusive” experiment Wallace proposed and executed.

Failure of the First Experiment

On Tuesday, March 1, 1870, a small entourage with signals in hand, as well as a hatchet to clear bushes from the line of sight, set out to place the markers one mile apart along the shores of the Bedford Canal. Interestingly, only five markers were put into place by the party. No discs were placed on the Old Bedford Bridge, which would have been the sixth mile of observation from the Welney Bridge, which is where the observations would take place. The party stopped at mile five, placing only five signals.

The next morning, as they passed the Old Bedford Bridge, Carpenter noticed two markers placed upon it. He didn’t pay it much mind until after the second experiment was proposed. However, he did point out the markers to Mr. Walsh, Wallace’s referee, who acknowledged them.

The experiment commenced at Welney Bridge, and things did not go as simply and conclusively as Wallace had promised — and Carpenter had a few understandable concerns with Wallace’s methodology.¹⁵

1. Carpenter’s first protest was that Wallace chose to conduct the experiment from an unstable barge;

2. Second, Wallace did not use a spirit level to ensure the accuracy of his testing; and

3. Third, Wallace’s telescope had no crosshairs. This will become of tantamount importance in the results of the subsequent experiment.

Aside from Carpenter’s well-placed protests, the experiment still did not go as planned.

Wallace, Walsh (Wallace’s referee), and Carpenter (Hampden’s referee) each observed something that contradicted the others — and all parties agreed the results were inconclusive.

Why?

What Made the First Experiment Inconclusive?

At first, Wallace, twice reported that the second disc was below the first disc. This was precisely the opposite of what Wallace’s drawings had projected.

Carpenter asked Mr. Walsh, “What does he mean? That’s just what he doesn’t want to show. He has to show a rise up — to the middle.”

Mr. Walsh, the referee for Wallace replied, “Never mind what he wants to show,” then took a look for himself. He claimed that the first disc was below the second and made a sketch in Carpenter’s book.

Next, Carpenter took a look through the telescope, despite his protests as noted above of lousy location, want of a level, and lack of crosshairs.

To his surprise, only two of the discs were showing at all — and it was altogether uncertain which discs they were.

All the while, Mr. Hampden sat on the banks of the canal next to the barge as a “spectator of the farce.” Initially, Hampden was very laid-back toward the experiment. However, after the second experiment, his coolness heated into a raging fire. I will introduce that topic in the next section. But first, let us conclude with the results of this first failed experiment.

The team of watchers concluded that they must not have hatcheted enough shrubbery to provide an accurate line of sight to see all the discs — or perhaps the discs were not in a straight line. After the debacle, the party walked the banks of the Level and found that some of the signals had been innocently (?) tampered with. Notably, a young lad informed the group that at least one marker had been knocked down and he had put it up again.

Before moving on, it is helpful to understand Hampden’s frame of mind when proposing and entering into this wager.

Hampden’s Coolness About the Events

The Bible commands believers to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. When initiating his wager, it seems Hampden was as innocent as a dove. He truly believed that the empirical evidence would convince any serious seeker that we live on a flat, stationary earth and not a spinning ball.

I’ve fallen under this spell myself. After all, the evidence for a Flat Earth is so convincing, how could anyone deny it? Yet, people do deny it. Here are five reasons (which are really only two) why I believe this happens.

1. Brainwashing: From birth onward, children and adults are constantly indoctrinated in the globalist model. It becomes almost impossible to break free from this kind of mind manipulation. If you repeat a lie often enough then it becomes the accepted truth. This is how propaganda is spread and believed among the masses.

2. Cognitive dissonance: This is so close to #1 that it almost doesn’t need its own mention. Yet, some people simply cannot accurately process facts and evidence that contradicts what they’ve been taught or believed since childhood. It is easier for them to accept two opposing views than to change their reality.

3. Emotional connection: Again, this is closely related to #1, yet it deserves a discussion of its own. It is a well-known marketing fact that most people make decisions based on their emotions rather than evidence. NASA and other governmental agencies understand this well. Part of the brainwashing that leads us to believe we live on a spinning ball comes from the emotional attachment people have toward astronauts and the idea of space travel. Many people have been emotionally led to believe in an idol of the infinite nature, beauty, and glory of space and galaxies far, far away.

4. Sheer inability to think critically: Again, this is connected to #1. Part of brainwashing includes dumbing down our innate curiosity and critical thinking skills. We are taught to obey authority, trust the experts, and believe what we are taught without questioning — even to the point of humiliation, i.e., if you question the shape of the globe you are a laughable idiot. I’ve done my share of laughing — and now I am the one laughed at.

5. Intentional deception: Most people fall into one or all of the four categories above — however, there is a more devious class of people. These are the ones who know the globe model is not true and continue to propagate the lie. They can be higher-ups in NASA or governmental agencies, deep state operatives, members of secret societies, moles in Christian organizations, trolls on the Internet and social media, or Luceferians who want to keep people away from the truth about God’s creation. These people intentionally spread false information, mock and censor those trying to expose the truth, and do whatever they can to keep the lie going and the people confused about the truth. Or perhaps they deceive because of a threat, fear, or potential loss of wages — or a wager.

These five categories can be whittled down into two: 1) The Deceived; or 2) The Deceivers. It can be difficult to tell these two apart. This is where we must be as innocent as doves and wise as serpents. If we are only innocent as doves, we might believe that everyone falls into the first category: deceived. And if we are only wise as serpents, we might too quickly lump someone into category two: deceiver. Without understanding the nuances of why people are deceived — we might innocently assume an intelligent person presented with irrefutable evidence that the earth is flat — would heartily accept it. That is not the case with everyone. And to me, this is where Hampden made his error. He was too innocent when going into his wager. A little wisdom would have given him an edge.

Hampden was warned by friends to be wary of Wallace in the wager — but he didn’t listen. Instead, he ignored all warnings, thinking the best of the situation. He started as innocent as a dove — but failed to be wise as a serpent. And it came back to bite him.

Hampden’s and Carpenter’s Foolishness

William Carpenter shared the sentiment with which Hampden began the wager with Mr. Wallace. Carpenter writes, “The course of the experiment bade fair to run smoothly enough, since all the preliminary arrangements had been made with the utmost good-will.”

He also thought how wonderful it would be to have a man like Wallace onboard with the true shape of the earth. So confident of this matter, he thought, “He won’t mind having to pay five hundred pounds” to discover the truth.

At the beginning of the wager, Hampden wrote Carpenter saying, “The grand match is sure, now, to come off. I hope and pray the right may win.”¹⁶

Hampden failed to listen to the advice and admonitions of his acquaintances to use some serpent-like wisdom in the matter, which later led to great bitterness, accusations of libel, and lawsuits.

Hampden writes:

If there is one class of men, next to horse dealers and jockeys who bear the unenviable reputation of being the most tricky and unscrupulous in their assertions, it is members of our scientific societies. Most of them are, more or less, if not entire infidels, at all events so sceptical in their religious opinions that anything like a high moral tone, either in conduct or principle, is looked for in vain. Pure assumption, and pretended improvements on the works and Word of God are the characteristic features of most of their philosophy. Of this Mr. Hampen was repeatedly warned by several of his correspondents, but he was in hopes that his antagonist, Mr. Wallace, would prove an exception to some of the rest; and he is still under the impression that Mr. W. has been made to act the knave against his better nature. ¹⁷

Hampden was so confident that the truth would prevail, that he ignored the advice of his friends and gave Wallace complete liberty to conduct the experiment as he willed.

Mr. Hampden has been blamed for allowing such unrestricted liberty to his opponent, but he purposely refrained from all interference, as he wished to leave the entire responsibility in the hands of Mr. Wallace — knowing, too, that, unlike a game of chance, the identical water would remain in statu quo for many years to come, and that if Mr. Wallace’s experiment did not tally with any and every that had been or might be made on the same spot, Mr. Hampden would be armed with a power of exposure which would be of infinitely more value to the cause than a decided victory at the outset. ¹⁸

One important reason for Hampden’s lackadaisical attitude in the experiment remains true today: “The identical water would remain in statu quo for many years to come,” meaning that any truth seeker could conduct the experiments themselves in the future.

Because of these facts, Hampden initially determined that it was not necessary to be present for the experiment. He changed his mind when his acquaintances pressed the importance of observing the momentous event for himself.

After the fiasco of the first experiment, Hampden began to see that there was wisdom in his friends’ advice. The outcome of the second would cement the idea in stone.

New Experiment Suggested

Immediately after the inconclusive results of the first experiment, a new experiment was suggested by Wallace. This experiment would also seek to prove the rise in the middle marker. The results of this second experiment made the news, were published in The Field magazine, and went down in history [falsely — as I seek to prove] as the proof that the earth is a globe. ¹⁹²⁰

I’d like to remind the readers that the Bedford Level and other bodies of water are still in place, perfectly level (not convex), and ready for anyone willing to do the experiments and trust the results. When there are testimonies on both sides, we each have a duty to seek out the truth on our own. We should not trust the experts — but do the experiments ourselves before making a conclusion.

Wallace proposed the new experiment as follows: “A good signal at each end, and one the same height in the center, will answer every purpose. And it will be clear of all the unsteady atmosphere near the water.” All parties agreed unanimously. ²¹

Additionally, Wallace agreed to find a better telescope for the experiment, which Carpenter and Hampden assumed would include a spirit level and crosshairs.

At this time, namely Thursday, March 3, Mr. Walsh excused himself as referee and Mr. Coulcher took his place.

Revisiting the Old Bedford Bridge Markers

Barely five minutes after Mr. Walsh left for London, Carpenter began to question what he saw in the first experiment, namely the two red markers on Old Bedford Bridge. He remembered they were placed without the knowledge or involvement of the rest of the party.

That’s when Carpenter considered that perhaps those were the two red discs he saw in the telescope on Wednesday the 2nd of March. He sent the following message to Walsh.

Friend Walsh, I don't know what I could have been thinking of not to know that the two red discs seen apparently high up on Old Bedford Bridge were two signals which Mr. Wallace nailed to the bridge the day before you came down here, and which you saw as we were being driven past, on the road to Welney, on the morning of the experiment, and the sketch of which I have in my note-book. I think Mr. Wallace could have satisfied us had we asked him.

At this juncture, Carpenter began to question not just the methodology of Wallace, but now even his motives. He supposed that if Wallace saw those two signals on Old Bedford Bridge — he should have clearly observed that the earth is flat and not a globe. What motive could Wallace have to continue the experiment if that was the case? Carpenter concluded: Money.

Carpenter muses:

And, Mr. WALLACE, one word with you. You saw those two red signals or you did not. If not, it is presumptive evidence to me of the blinding influence of a money risk; if you did, you know that the water is level — horizontal — flat; that there is no curvature; that you have lost the wager; that the earth is not a globe! But you will try again, to-morrow, in all probability: although the fact is, if you do no more, the question is settled already. A thousand times may the experiment be tried, and a thousand times will the same result follow. Signals affixed to the bridge, but a little higher than a row of others along the canal, are seen over the tops of those in the row, and in their true position, a distance of six miles! And, therefore — and, indisputably, therefore — the surface of the water is horizontal!

Yet, Carpenter knew he could prove none his speculations concerning Wallace. So, he set his mind on the next phase of the experiment.

Preparations for the New Experiment

To prepare for this next undertaking, Wallace sent a man with a plumb bob in hand to measure the height of the parapet on Welney Bridge. “13ft. 3in. above the water,” said Mr Wallace.²² ²³

Since the experiment was quite different from the first, Wallace presented new sketches to Carpenter, demonstrating what he sought to prove — which was painstakingly similar to the sketches provided to Hampden in the original, only with fewer markers.

In the sketch, Wallace claimed that the middle marker would appear at least 18ft above the marker on the Old Bedford Bridge, which would be a rise of five or six feet compared to the other two markers.

On Thursday, March 3, Wallace secured a new telescope as promised. Friday the 4th, the weather was not suitable for the experiment, but the rising barometer pointed to Saturday as the perfect day to resume their wager.

Two new signals, six feet by three feet, and white with a black band in the middle were attached to the Welney and Old Bedford bridges. A disc from the previous experiment would be used as the central marker, but placed at the proper height.

Carpenter conferred with Mr. Coulcher (Wallace’s replacement referee), sharing Wallace’s diagram — so he would know what Wallace sought to prove, namely a five to six-foot rise in the middle marker. At this point, all parties were in agreement.

Bedford Level on Saturday, March 5, 1870

With perfect weather for an experiment involving telescopes, the parties set out to make sure all the arrangements and signals were correct.

They removed the old signals from the previous experiment and tossed them by the side of the canal. Next, they constructed a new marker, placing a red disc 13 feet and 4 inches above the water. Wallace insisted on keeping a second disc on the pole about 9 feet 4 inches above the water. He said the second disc would not matter.

Carpenter thought the second disc was unnecessary, but didn’t see how it could cause any harm or mistake. Here, I would like to argue with Carpenter and Wallace. It is this second disc that thoroughly confused me about the results posted in The Field magazine. I suspect, Wallace may have used this second marker to confuse others as well.

It was this second disc at 9 feet 4 inches that caused me to dive deep into this topic in the first place. I will discuss this more when we look at the results of the second experiment.

When the party came together at Welney Bridge to observe the “rise” in the middle marker, Wallace recycled his previous antics. Rather than use a telescope with a spirit level or cross hairs — he pulled out the same telescope he used in the original experiment.

Naturally, Carpenter protested.

Wallace responded, “O, the one we have does beautifully; but we’ll have the other one if you want it!"

Carpenter responded: “If I want it: Mr. WALLACE! Truth and Justice demand it.”

Wallace pulled out “a beautiful piece of mechanism, with every necessary appliance — a Troughton Level, by Stanley, of Holborn — a surveyor's telescope with cross-hairs and spirit-level.”

Carpenter helped adjust it to its true level — but rather than use it, Coulcher and Wallace kept using the Brighton, an astronomical telescope without spirit-level or crosshairs, to conduct the experiment.

What They Observe

“Yes!” exclaims Wallace. “There’s the centre signal higher than the bridge in the distance! Make a sketch of it, Mr. Coulcher!”

Coulcher makes the sketch and Wallace exclaims, “And that’s all I have to show! The centre disc is five feet above the bridge.”

“Will you sign this, Mr. Carpenter?” asks Mr. Coulcher, producing the sketch.

“Yes, certainly,” replies Carpenter. "I will sign the paper to the effect that it is like what is seen through that telescope, in that position; but that it is utterly useless for the purpose of this experiment.”

Carpenter signed the paper under protest, noting its uselessness to prove anything without a crosshair.

Wallace sought to have the matter decided on the spot, but Carpenter would have none of it. Carpenter took the surveyor’s telescope for a proper look. “O dear, no! Mr. Wallace: look through this telescope! This is beautiful! Beautiful — as level as possible! All three objects in a line! There's the bridge, the centre signal, and the horizontal cross-hair, in a regular —”

Wallace interrupted Carpenter, “We've nothing to do with the cross-hair! The position of the eye settles that point: the telescope is the same height above the water as the signal and the bridge, and you can't move your eye to alter its position more than the eighth of an inch!”

With Wallace attempting to put an end to the observation and discussion, Carpenter protested until he was able to make his own sketch — making use of the crosshairs as ought to be done. Mr. Coulcher signed Carpenter’s drawing, agreeing that it was accurate as observed with the crosshairs.

Why are crosshairs so critical in this experiment? We will discuss it now.

The Need for The Cross-Hairs

Hampden waited in his carriage during the telescopic observations. After sketches were made from Welney Bridge, Hampden questioned Carpenter about the results. Their discussion explains the critical nature of the cross-hairs in the experiment.

Here was their conversation:

"But I say, Carpenter, is it right?"

"Yes, perfectly!” said Carpenter. “It is a beautiful sight with the surveyors' telescope. The three points are splendidly inline, and appear equidistant in the field of view. But, how absurd it is to suppose that the large telescope will answer the purpose, when it only shows the apparent relationship between two points instead of three! Mr. Wallace says that the observer cannot shift his eye more than the eighth-of-an-inch upwards or downwards: but the observer's eye is outside the telescope, and he is bound to have the three points depicted in the telescopic view. But I have my sketch properly attested by Mr. Coulcher; and, if we get the same thing at the other end, the affair will be virtually settled.”

The party proceeded to the Old Bedford Bridge to get a look from the other direction, with the same results. Carpenter was convinced that the three points using the cross-hairs of the telescope sufficiently proved that the water was level, and He genuinely expected that Wallace would concede.

Carpenter and Hampden retired easy that night, resting in their victory. But they could never expect the events that would follow.

The whole ordeal of the wager was wrapped up in the sketches of Carpenter and Coulcher, the necessity of the crosshairs, and the intent (or lack of intent) to follow the truth no matter where it led.

The Signed Drawings of Each Referee

It was the sketches with the crosshairs that should have decided the case. But that’s not what happened. Without the crosshairs, there were only two points of observation: the “middle” marker and the Welney or Old Bedford Bridge, depending on the viewer’s location. The crosshairs would have provided an accurate reference point, namely a third marker to decide if there was a rise in the middle marker and then a fall as predicted by Wallace.

Instead, there was a lot of misdirection.

Here is the picture that Carpenter signed under protest because it did not contain three reference points — and the image that caused me so much confusion as to the facts in this case. Why was I confused? Because I saw three reference points - due to Wallace’s marker that he said would not matter in the experiment — exactly what pressed me to dig deeper into this situation.

What I saw here, was a rise in the middle marker just as Wallace predicted. How could Carpenter protest so much, saying there were only two markers — when I clearly saw THREE in this picture?

I will share why I thought I saw three markers — when there were really only two. It took much digging into the material to understand what I was looking at.

With only two markers — and no crosshair — this picture can in no way demonstrate a rise in the middle marker. There is no reference point for the observation, either above or below.

Carpenter provided sketches also — his sketches were from an inverting telescope with crosshairs — which made the images appear upside down. Here is an image of Carpenter’s drawing. One drawing was taken from the Old Bedford Bridge and the other from the Welney Bridge. I have flipped them around for ease of viewing (because they are inverted).

Each sketch shows a perfect line of sight that is consistent with perspective on a flat surface. The line marked 3 is the crosshairs that represent the first marker of the viewer for context. The line marked 2 represents the top disc of the middle marker; and the line marked 1 represents the marker placed at the opposite bridge of the viewer, either from Welney or Old Bedford. See the image below to see how they form a straight line (without a rise in the middle).

I would have thought it better to number the crosshairs as “one” since it is the point of origination, the top of the middle marker as “two,” and the end marker at six miles as the third point. This is why I placed the arrow on a downward slope — because the viewer is at the top position. The markers continued to appear lower the further they were from the starting point, something consistent with perspective on a flat plane as I will demonstrate shortly.

If there had been a rise in the middle marker that evened out with the viewer’s height as Wallace claimed, the arrow would look much different, more like this.

It’s a fairly crude example, but it makes the point.

What matters is that referees Carpenter and Coulcher testified that these drawings were correct as observed through their differing telescopes, one with a cross-hair and one without. The sketch without the crosshair — Carpenter signed under protest stating that the observation was irrelevant without a crosshair — but accurately showed what was seen nonetheless.

Lest you think only Carpenter provided sketches with the crosshairs, I’d like to point out that Coulcher also sketched images through the inverting telescope with crosshairs. His sketches were nearly identical to Carpenter’s. The most interesting part of this story is that Carpenter attested that he NEVER signed these sketches — even though The Field magazine attested that he had. This weighs into the conclusions I’ve drawn on the matter. See the proposed sketches of Coulcher through the inverting telescope below. Once again, I’ve flipped them for ease of understanding.

As before, these sketches show a straight line that is consistent with the laws of perspective on a flat plane. While they are not numbered as are Carpenters — you can see the corresponding numbering as well as the lack of a rise in the middle marker.

So why would The Field Magazine maintain that Carpenter signed these drawings when he had not? The evidence suggests two possible reasons: 1) The Field lied about the data; or 2) The Field made an error about the data. I will share my evidence for both points. The other possibility of course is that Carpenter lied. I don’t find any support for that position so I will not address it.

Did The Field Make an Error?

There is evidence that The Field made an error in reporting that Carpenter signed Coulcher’s drawings after Carpenter denied that he had. Why do I conclude that? Because there were other errors in the publication as well.

The announcement of the winner was published in The Field magazine, on March 26, 1870, as follows:

Mr A. R. Wallace, by means of the experiment agreed on as satisfactory to Mr Hampden and his umpire by both of these gentlemen, has proved to my satisfaction “the curvature to and fro” of the Bedford Level Canal between Welney Bridge and Welch’s Dam (six miles) to the extent of five feet, more or less. I therefore propose to pay Mr A. R. Wallace the sum of £1000, now standing in my name at Coutts’ Bank to abide the result of the above test, next Thursday, unless I have notice to the contrary from Mr Hampden.

J. H. WALSH

What errors can be found in this announcement?

• First, Mr. Walsh (the editor of The Field) published the results of the experiment prematurely and against the wishes of more than one party, including his advisor, Mr. Carpenter, and Mr. Hampden.²⁴

• Second, Walsh had received notice from Hampden (or his referee) before and after to NOT pay the wager as it was not accurately agreed upon. He paid it anyway. Eventually, the courts required Walsh to return the £500.

• Third, Mr. Walsh claimed that the experiment took place between “Welney Bridge and Welch’s Dam (six miles)” — when it actually took place between Welney Bridge and the Old Bedford Bridge — Welch’s Dam being six miles beyond the Old Bedford Bridge. This “faux pas” is accepted by both FE and globe believers.²⁵

• Fourth, Mr. Walsh referred to Carpenter as an umpire — when indeed Walsh was the umpire and the so-called umpire was actually a “referee.”²⁶

• Finally, the pictures show no raise in the middle marker “to and fro” of any measure — let alone “five feet, more or less.”

These discrepancies seem more than accidental, which led me to another possibility to consider.

Did The Field Lie?

To remain innocent as doves, it might be best to assume Mr. Walsh, the original referee for Wallace, was merely mistaken in his March 26, 1870, publication of The Field. But there is evidence to support a case to be as wise as a serpent in the matter.

Mr. Wallace was careful to make sure that Carpenter and Hampden did not know each other before Wallace would agree to allow Carpenter as a referee. Yet, it seems Wallace may not have been as scrupulous in his dealings. Consider the following evidence.

1. When Carpenter sought an audience with Mr. Coulcher to discuss the results of the experiment to verify the outcome, Coulcher immediately asked him to agree to assign an umpire because they disagreed. Carpenter insisted on knowing how they could disagree when they had not taken the time to agree — the stipulation of the signed waiver, at least in Carpenter’s interpretation. Carpenter saw no reason to choose an umpire until they should prove to be at an impasse and only after comparing notes to see where they differ. Coulcher continually refused to discuss the results with Carpenter, repeating the same mantra, “I am fully satisfied that Mr. WALLACE has demonstrated the fact of the convexity of that canal.” Carpenter was unsatisfied until they could discuss the results. Coulcher stated again, “I have my report. Mr. WALLACE has demonstrated to me why it is so, and you cannot agree, and therefore we met to appoint an umpire….It's proved to my satisfaction."
   "But it has to be proved to our satisfaction,” Carpenter rebutted.

   “No, it has not,” said Coulcher.

   “Read the agreement again, Mr. Coulcher,” said Carpenter.
   “I gave you a paper that I don't agree, and wash my hands of the whole transaction," concluded Coulcher, who sent for a police officer to escort Carpenter from the premises.²⁷

   We must ask: Why not try to come to an agreement to be SURE that they disagree and why? Is it possible that Wallace strong-armed Mr. Coulcher to not discuss the results of the experiment with Carpenter as should have happened according to the wager? He repeatedly said that Mr. Wallace had prevailed upon him that the water was convex. Who was the true referee: Wallace or Coulcher?

2. Later, after no other resolution could be made, Walsh (Wallace’s initial referee) was appointed as the umpire. Hampden again gave the situation the benefit of the doubt, thinking Walsh trustworthy in the matter. Hampden writes, “I am sure we shall get it right at last.”²⁸ Before making his decision, Walsh invited Carpenter to discuss his conclusions in the matter, as well as his evidence. Also, the sub-editor of the paper agreed to publish Carpenter’s evidence in The Field alongside the naming of the winner in the wager. When Carpenter came to meet with Walsh — to his utter surprise —Mr. Wallace was there first. Carpenter writes, “What was the measure of [my] astonishment and the depth of [my] disgust when [I] found that, whilst Mr. HAMPDEN was miles away, at Swindon, Mr. WALLACE was at the office of The Field — alone, with Mr. Walsh!” Upon greeting Carpenter, Walsh quickly shared, “Well, Mr. CARPENTER, I have had no difficulty whatever in coming to a decision in favour of Mr. WALLACE!”²⁹ Again, Carpenter was denied the opportunity to discuss the results of the experiment. Walsh dismissed Carpenter without hearing his side of the story or his evidence, sharing that he had already made his conclusion based on the evidence as presented by Wallace. Had Wallace influenced Walsh’s decision? No doubt!

3. Before meeting with Walsh, Carpenter had informed Wallace that he had permission from the sub-editor of The Field to have his side of the story put into print in their magazine alongside the umpire’s decision. However, when Carpenter arrived to discuss the results with Walsh (and was informed a decision had already been made), he was also informed that The Field would not print his side of the story as promised. Would the results have been the same if Carpenter had never told Wallace his plans to publish? Everything smelled like a setup.

4. Carpenter was not satisfied with the entire process and took to questioning a witness involved in the decision-making, namely an optician named Mr. Solomon, who was a consultant in the case. Carpenter wanted “to ascertain the theory upon which the decision was based.”³⁰ After questioning Solomon, Carpenter discovered that Solomon didn’t take long to make his decision, but based it largely on the fact that it was an accepted fact that the earth was a globe.

Why all these unexplainable coincidences and inconsistencies? Why did Wallace meet with Walsh the day Walsh was slated to discuss the results with Hampden’s referee? Why did Walsh accept Wallace’s interpretation before discussing the results with Carpenter? Did Wallace buy Walsh off or threaten him? Could Wallace have had some dirt on Walsh that he could use to sway his decision? Were they involved in a secret brotherhood?

I suggest that Walsh may have “purposely” hidden a few clues in his “conclusion” to show that he was put under pressure to lie. These clues, of course, are the five errors in the publication as mentioned above, most glaringly replacing the Old Bedford Bridge with Welch’s Dam. People have been known to lie under pressure before — and even known to leave clues so others might discover the truth. And whether the motive for Wallace was £1000 pounds ($91,000 USD as of writing) or a bigger motive — such as to hide the fact that we don’t live on a globe — the stakes were high.

While I include much speculation, there is a good reason to question motives in this case. A good researcher will investigate the matter and draw their own conclusion. More importantly, they will conduct experiments themself to verify everything. After all — the water remains level to this day. It’s still there, just waiting to be viewed with unblinded eyes.

Perspective on Flat Surfaces

The true results of the Bedford Level Wager were not anything like what was reported in the mainstream media. Sound familiar? However, the results were consistent with the axiomatic laws of perspective on a Flat Earth — not a globe.

Consider a few images that align with the perspective on flat surfaces:

On a flat surface, the tops of things appear to get lower the further they are from the viewer. That’s exactly what was demonstrated by Carpenter. Things do not rise first and then fall. Perspective makes us realize that things are further away because they are smaller. There is no rise in the middle marker anywhere to be found on Earth (except on a hill) — because we do not live on a globe. If we lived on a ball globe — a rise in the middle marker would make sense. But we do not live on a globe.

Here’s another question to consider: Why don’t modern globalists predict a rise in the middle marker today? They know it would fail every time — because we live on a flat, non-rotating plane — just like their own documents say.³¹

In the Bedford Level Experiment, subterfuge triumphed over the truth — but it cannot and will not triumph forever. The creation was made by the Creator to demonstrate the attributes of the Creator. God wants His creation known and understood for how it was made. It leaves men without an excuse. The globe model is nothing more than an idol created by man to turn people away from the Creator.

The After-Math of the Experiment

Lawsuits: The farce that unfolded caused Mr. Hampden to become more than a little embittered toward Walsh and Wallace. Hampden used strong language to accuse Wallace of cheating and deceiving. Wallace didn’t like the accusations against him. On more than one occasion, Wallace sued Hampden for his inflammatory remarks. Hampden was found guilty in court for libel. Additionally, Hampden sued Mr. Walsh for fraudulently ruling in favor of Wallace, and the courts ruled that Walsh should return the £500 to Hampden.

Books Resulted: Carpenter and Hampden each wrote books exposing the disturbing and fraudulent events that happened during and after the experiment. Carpenter wrote, Water Not Convex: The Earth Not a Globe! Hampden wrote, Is Water Level or Convex after all? The Bedford Canal swindle detected & exposed, etc. I suggest you read these two books to gain a good understanding of what happened from their perspectives. These books provide at least two witnesses against Wallace, who also published works discussing this topic. Most important of all, do your own diligence to test and see if these things are true — most notably to see if water is indeed level or convex. There is no lack of level water to be found all around the earth to test the matter.

History Was Written, Falsely: The Bedford Level Wager has gone down falsely in the annuls of history as the experiment that proved we live on a globe. In 1901, the experiment was supposedly reproduced by Henry Yule Oldham. He fixed three poles at equal heights above the water and found the middle pole to be about 6 feet higher than the poles on either end.³² This should remind you of the phenomenon that Wallace claimed he would show that would prove the earth was a globe, namely the rise in the middle marker. Oldham’s “experiment was taught in schools in England until photographs of the Earth from space became available.”³³³⁴ The irony is astonishing when Wallace later claims that he never intended to prove a rise at all.

Wallace Eats His Words

Another interesting fact in this globalist power play was the progressive way that Wallace changed his language away from the middle marker in an effort — we suppose — to adhere to the accepted concept of a fall in the curvature, rather than a rise and then a fall as he initially predicted.

At first, Wallace sought to prove a five-foot+ rise in the middle marker. According to The Field report, this is precisely (more or less) what Wallace demonstrated. When The Field mentioned that the markers were equidistant, a reader named Mr. Westlake wrote The Field, saying that it would have been impossible for the markers to be equidistant. “If they had been equidistant, he (the referee) would unquestionably have been entitled to a decision in favour of Mr. Hampden, because the line joining the three points would have been, as he says, a straight line, and not a curved one as Mr. Wallace was required to prove.” Westlake added, “It requires but very little common sense to see this.”

We agree.

Yet, Mr. Westlake preferred to call the drawings a fraud and not the conclusions drawn from the drawings.

Later, Wallace denied ever trying to show a rise in the middle marker at all, but only a consistent fall. In a letter to The Field, Wallace writes, “I have never used the word ‘rise’ in connection with these experiments, and all the observations go to show, not a rise, but different degrees of depression below the true level line.”³⁵

The irony is that in 1901, Henry Yule Oldham also sought to prove the rise of the middle marker — even though Wallace had moved away from it.

If you are an honest man or woman, trusting in the concept of a rise in the middle marker to prove that we live on a globe, I recommend that you test the theory for yourself.

I know this was a long post — but it is critical to search out a matter before trusting the mainstream report. There were many nuances in this story that I couldn’t share because I wanted to keep the length down. Perhaps you’ll be inspired to research this topic some more yourself.

There is a reason they are hiding the Flat Earth from people.

A few encouragements for readers:

1. Be aware that there are deceivers out there who don’t want the truth told;

2. Think for yourself within the bounds of Scripture;

3. Don’t trust the experts even if you think they are on your team;

4. Be as wise as a serpent but as innocent as a dove;

5. Test everything;

6. Expect to be attacked and slandered for sharing/believing the truth — and rejoice;

7. Watch HelioSorcery to understand why evil men infiltrate good organizations;

8. Read the Secret Instructions of the Jesuits to learn more about the infiltrators;

9. Know that truth will prevail; and

10. Don’t lose heart!

I hope you enjoyed this discussion of the Bedford Level Wager. It was helpful for me to study it myself.

Grace and peace to those who believe!

1. Full Title: Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe! An Experimental Inquiry into the True Figure of the Earth: Proving it a Plane, Without Axial or Orbital Motion; and the Only Material World in the Universe. 1865

2. https://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/zAnon1877ReportsCases.pdf (accessed 11/21/23 — PDF copy on file upon request).

3. William Carpenter, Water, Not Convex: The Earth Not A Globe! Demonstrated by Alfred R. Wallace, ESQ., F.R.G.S., &c. on the 5th of March, 1870, by Experiments Conducted on the Old Bedford Canal, near Downham Market, Norfolk.

4. Ibid, page 4

5. Ibid, page 4

6. Ibid, pages 6-7

7. John Hampden: Is Water Level or Convex After All? The Bedford Canal Swindle Detected & Exposed. The Controversy Ended As All Such Impious Frauds Must End, in Victory for Truth, and the Defeat and Disgrace of Those Who Oppose It page 15. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Is_Water_Level_or_Convex_after_all_The_B/bi1bAAAAcAAJ?hl=en (accessed 11/21/23 — PDF copy on file if requested).

8. The equation of eight inches multiplied by the square of the distance is still used today, even though it is the equation of a parabola. It is accurate up to about 1000 miles. Learn more here.

9. Carpenter, Water Not Convex, pages 2, 6-7

10. Page 48 of A Million of Facts

11. Carpenter, Water Not Convex, page 7

12. I must have changed these images 4 or more times trying to depict what was explained. Carpenter says that the markers on the Old Bedford Bridge were both red — however, it seems that the other signals may have been red and black. I couldn’t pinpoint that down from the testimony I read. Even though the disc colors may not be accurate, the image still represents well enough what is intended.

13. Hampden, Is Water Level or Convex After All? page 11

14. Carpenter, Water Not Convex, page 6

15. Ibid, pages 8-9

16. Ibid, page 5

17. Hampden, Is Water Level or Convex After All? page 4

18. Ibid

19. In Is Water Level or Convex After All?, Hampden focuses on this second experiment. In Water Not Convex, Carpenter addresses both experiments in detail. Both witnesses are necessary to understand the truthfulness of the events.

20. Please note that this is a hostile witness. Nonetheless, it confirms the error on Walsh’s part: https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Chapter_02.html (Accessed 1/28/24 — PDF on backup).

21. Carpenter, Water Not Convex, page 10

22. Ibid, page 11

23. It is interesting to note that Eric Dubay in the History of Flat Earth attributes that this number was chosen arbitrarily as a symbol of Masonic numerology. I concur it is possible that the bridge was built with a parapet at that height for that reason — but Carpenter testifies that the number was chosen because it was the height of the parapet at Welney Bridge.

24. Carpenter, Water Not Convex, page 29

25. This hostile witness confirms the “faux pas” of The Field editor, Mr. Walsh: https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Chapter_02.html (accessed 1/28/24 — with PDF backup).

26. Ibid. See notes 24 and 25.

27. Carpenter, Water Not Convex, pages 19-20

28. Ibid, page 23

29. Ibid, page 27

30. Ibid, page 28

31. See 44 official documents that reveal a flat, non-rotating earth.

32. Oldham, H. Yule (1901). "The experimental demonstration of the curvature of the Earth's surface". Annual Report. London: British Association for the Advancement of Science: 725–726.

33. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_level_experiment

34. I’d like to remind the reader that images from space have been proven repeatedly proven fake and computer generated. Here is a playlist with some footage to consider.

35. https://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S162-163.htm