To be perfectly fair, when the guy said the test was inconclusive, he was right… To a point.
His failure was that he only did the test once and in one location, which just proves a hill/valley could be playing a factor in the results. To have true empirical results, the test would need to be done at multiple locations, each a random but sizable distance apart.
The scientific method relies on repeatability and reliability in data to provide proof to anything and he wasn’t really using either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl-uYf622J4
To be perfectly fair, when the guy said the test was inconclusive, he was right… To a point.
His failure was that he only did the test once and in one location, which just proves a hill/valley could be playing a factor in the results. To have true empirical results, the test would need to be done at multiple locations, each a random but sizable distance apart.
The scientific method relies on repeatability and reliability in data to provide proof to anything and he wasn’t really using either.