Everything pointed at you (your posts) is not necessarily pointed. In this case, it's the flat tip of an eraser. Yes I'm aware of what it says. No, I never mentioned Bohr. In the first place you were talking about Hydrogen, for which this concern is moot. In the second place, I said Balmer had no way of knowing that his discovery was a special case of the general rule Rydberg would stumble onto a few years later. The history of this is one of incremental successes leading to refinements in understanding, contrary to the way you put it. That was what Balmer had no way of knowing, that he was seeing a subset of the higher permutations. Hence my remarks.