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.
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.