so from what I've come to understand...

okay, yes, if RET is false, then millions ARE under the effect of indoctrination,

however, I have yet so see ANY evidence that gives the impression of a flat earth, other than, "look around you, doesn't the earth look flat?" which as we all know doesn't hold any water

the burden of proof lies on the presenter, as we all know.

Burden of proof doesn't really work here, seeing as how we're in their territory.

maybe not quite on this site, but in real life it certainly does, they are, after all, the ones going against the majority

Quote from: giganthegreat on May 30, 2011, 08:09:49 AM

okay, yes, if RET is false, then millions ARE under the effect of indoctrination,

however, I have yet so see ANY evidence that gives the impression of a flat earth, other than, "look around you, doesn't the earth look flat?" which as we all know doesn't hold any water

the burden of proof lies on the presenter, as we all know.

Burden of proof doesn't really work here, seeing as how we're in their territory.

It also doesn't work because the burden of proof is actually on the RE'ers, not the FE'ers.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Burden+of+Proof

Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?

A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, government contractors can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden is on you to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.

Quote from: sillyrob on May 30, 2011, 08:12:22 AM

Quote from: giganthegreat on May 30, 2011, 08:09:49 AM

okay, yes, if RET is false, then millions ARE under the effect of indoctrination,

however, I have yet so see ANY evidence that gives the impression of a flat earth, other than, "look around you, doesn't the earth look flat?" which as we all know doesn't hold any water

the burden of proof lies on the presenter, as we all know.

Burden of proof doesn't really work here, seeing as how we're in their territory.

It also doesn't work because the burden of proof is actually on the RE'ers, not the FE'ers.

And we've proven FE isn't possible. What are we arguing about this for?

And we've proven FE isn't possible.

Where?

Quote from: sillyrob on May 30, 2011, 08:12:22 AM

Quote from: giganthegreat on May 30, 2011, 08:09:49 AM

okay, yes, if RET is false, then millions ARE under the effect of indoctrination,

however, I have yet so see ANY evidence that gives the impression of a flat earth, other than, "look around you, doesn't the earth look flat?" which as we all know doesn't hold any water

the burden of proof lies on the presenter, as we all know.

Burden of proof doesn't really work here, seeing as how we're in their territory.

It also doesn't work because the burden of proof is actually on the RE'ers, not the FE'ers.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Burden+of+Proof

Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?

A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, government contractors can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden is on you to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.

so you do not claim the earth is flat. because if you claim it, you have to prove it. burden of proof. burden of proof is on RE side and FE side. still RET looks more credible to me.

you are claiming just as many fantastic concepts
that there is an accelerator using dark matter to push the earth upwards
that two discs (sun and moon) could float freely above earth and stay on a certain track constantly
that there is a barrier of ice around the world that nobody has ever seen
that the south pole is a lie
that all of the governments of the world are in on a conspiracy to trick the populous (for no apparent reason)
that all footage of space has been forged
that all evidence of the existence, launch, and money spent on the saturn V(s) are false
that the u.s would fake 6 missions to the moon
that the u.s would fake a failed mission to the moon
that all knowledge of the sun and moon we have is false

wait, that makes me wonder, can satelites function under the FET? if not, then how do GPSs work? what about satelite tv?

Quote from: Puttah on May 30, 2011, 10:10:51 AM

And we've proven FE isn't possible.

Where?

By finding contradictions in FE theories that explain a real world phenomenon that they were created to do so, then fail to explain another.
Bendy light, celestial gears by tracking the stars, coriolis effect, etc.

Quote from: sillyrob on May 30, 2011, 08:12:22 AM

Quote from: giganthegreat on May 30, 2011, 08:09:49 AM

okay, yes, if RET is false, then millions ARE under the effect of indoctrination,

however, I have yet so see ANY evidence that gives the impression of a flat earth, other than, "look around you, doesn't the earth look flat?" which as we all know doesn't hold any water

the burden of proof lies on the presenter, as we all know.

Burden of proof doesn't really work here, seeing as how we're in their territory.

It also doesn't work because the burden of proof is actually on the RE'ers, not the FE'ers.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Burden+of+Proof

*sigh*  Here we go again. 

Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?

A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

And we aren't asking you to prove any of those things.  We are asking you to prove that the earth is flat.  That is your claim, therefore that is your burden.

A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

Zeteticism and skepticism are far different than the denialism that you routinely practice.

You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, government contractors can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden is on you to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

Again, we aren't asking you to prove those things.  We are asking you to prove that the earth is flat.  Please stay on topic.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim? 

Both parties share the burden, however the burden may not be equal.  That, and the fact that each side in this debate considers the other to be equally outlandish, so I would contend that, in this context,  both sides share the burden equally.

Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

Moller's burden of proof is to their investors and to the FAA, not to you.

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.
[/list]

Since we are the ones skeptical of your claims that the earth is flat, guess where that places the burden of proof.

Markjo,

You're right. The burden of proof is on Moller and his proponents to demonstrate their claims of fanatic never before seen technologies -- just like the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims of fantastic and never before seen technologies. You guys are the ones claiming that we can walk on the moon, explore the solar system, and send robots to mars. We didn't claim any of that. We're the skeptics. The burden of proof is on you, the claimants.

Also, we don't need to prove that the earth is flat. Anyone with two eyes can see that the earth is flat. The people claiming that the earth is round are the ones making the claims which oppose reality. The burden of proof is on the RE'ers.

If everyone can see that the the sky is blue and that leaves are green, the burden of proof is on the people saying that the sky is orange and that leaves are purple.

You guys are the ones making claims that no one can observe. You guys are the ones making claims that contradict reality. You are the ones who need to demonstrate your claims.

The burden of proof is purely on you RE'ers.

I love how this topic spiraled out of control!

also, what evidence is there that the earth is flat? what demonstrable proof can you give to us?

also, in my thread I created in the Q&A board, plenty of people told me when they began to question theory, and a couple of them have posted here

John Davis chalked it up to a "mystical experience" I do not know the specifics, could they have been drug-induced? who knows?

right there, we have religion, indoctrination(or at the very least, forceful teaching) and "the earth looks flat"

lol, problem?

Religion and indoctrination had nothing to do with why I'm a flat earther.  You completely misunderstood what I said.  I am a stout atheist.

I came to question whether the earth was round through a mystical revelation.  This did not sway my intellectual beliefs at all, other than it lead me to investigate the facts.  You accusation of me using drugs just shows the mindset behind globularists.  "If he doesn't want to believe what we believe, he must be a lunatic or on drugs!"  As if that would invalidate the argument anyway.  Classic ad pop from the the round earth camp.

lol, logic fail from a high schooler

Markjo,

You're right. The burden of proof is on Moller and his proponents to demonstrate their claims of fanatic never before seen technologies -- just like the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims of fantastic and never before seen technologies. You guys are the ones claiming that we can walk on the moon, explore the solar system, and send robots to mars. We didn't claim any of that. We're the skeptics. The burden of proof is on you, the claimants.

Tom, you keep going on and on about "fantastic and never before seen technologies" as if it means anything.  At one time or another, all technology was "fantastic and never before seen".  Today, spaceflight is neither "fantastic" nor "never before seen".  Evidence of such technologies and claims have been presented to you time and time again.  You simply refuse to open your mind enough to even consider the evidence because of your irrational distrust of NASA.

Also, we don't need to prove that the earth is flat. Anyone with two eyes can see that the earth is flat. The people claiming that the earth is round are the ones making the claims which oppose reality. The burden of proof is on the RE'ers.

Tom, I live in a river valley.  I can assure you that my little corner of the earth is not flat, nor have I ever seen anything in my travels that would make me believe that the rest of the earth is flat.

If everyone can see that the the sky is blue and that leaves are green, the burden of proof is on the people saying that the sky is orange and that leaves are purple.

Then it's a good thing we aren't discussing the color of the sky or the color of leaves.  Please stay on topic, will you?

You guys are the ones making claims that no one can observe. You guys are the ones making claims that contradict reality. You are the ones who need to demonstrate your claims.

Again, we have provided plenty of evidence to support RET.  Your refusal to consider any of it objectively seems to be the sticking point.

The burden of proof is purely on the RE'ers.

And I believe that we have met our burden.  Now it's your turn.

The earth is flat because of the overwhelming evidence which demonstrates it to be flat.

Could you please state that evidence.

Quote from: giganthegreat on May 30, 2011, 07:13:18 AM

I love how this topic spiraled out of control!

also, what evidence is there that the earth is flat? what demonstrable proof can you give to us?

also, in my thread I created in the Q&A board, plenty of people told me when they began to question theory, and a couple of them have posted here

John Davis chalked it up to a "mystical experience" I do not know the specifics, could they have been drug-induced? who knows?

right there, we have religion, indoctrination(or at the very least, forceful teaching) and "the earth looks flat"


lol, problem?

Religion and indoctrination had nothing to do with why I'm a flat earther.  You completely misunderstood what I said.  I am a stout atheist.

I came to question whether the earth was round through a mystical revelation.  This did not sway my intellectual beliefs at all, other than it lead me to investigate the facts.  You accusation of me using drugs just shows the mindset behind globularists.  "If he doesn't want to believe what we believe, he must be a lunatic or on drugs!"  As if that would invalidate the argument anyway.  Classic ad pop from the the round earth camp.

lol, logic fail from a high schooler

I apologize for misinterpreting your extremely vague answer, maybe next time you should be more clear

a mystical experience implies the inclusion of a god, or a deity, or some sort of phenomenal being, being an atheist myself, I assumed that your meeting with any of these had to be the from the effect of hallucination, most likely from some sort of hallucinogen

also, I never accused you of being indoctrinated, that was pointed towards another user (who, most likely, is a troll), don't quote me out of context

lastly, you have still haven't explained to me what this mystical experience was, perhaps clarity could lead to an understanding

PS: assuming that I'm a highschooler just shows your ability to underestimate highschoolers, and your ability to overestimate the validity of your theory

It seems you are from another Reimu, as am I, the humans here don't seem to tolerate the truth being spoken to them

You're right. The burden of proof is on Moller and his proponents to demonstrate their claims of fanatic never before seen technologies -- just like the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims of fantastic and never before seen technologies. You guys are the ones claiming that we can walk on the moon, explore the solar system, and send robots to mars. We didn't claim any of that. We're the skeptics. The burden of proof is on you, the claimants.

Also, we don't need to prove that the earth is flat. Anyone with two eyes can see that the earth is flat. The people claiming that the earth is round are the ones making the claims which oppose reality. The burden of proof is on the RE'ers.

From what we both know, seeing a relatively flat plain in our local surroundings can mean either the entire world is flat or it's a big sphere (or any other shape for that matter if big enough). Would you please quit with the "it looks flat when I look out my window" argument.

Now, f a rocket can lift off the ground and be constantly accelerating upwards at an ever faster rate, and pass the clouds well before all the fuel is spent, then one can conclude that you could possibly reach the moon. I'm not saying it does, but it's possible. I suppose this is possible on a flat Earth too - but I'm not sure why all FEers claim it isn't, I guess I've missed that detail in FET.

Ok so now onto another comparison. How can the coriolis effect work on a flat Earth? It works on a round Earth and we've shown it to. Can you now show your side of the theory?

also, to cpl, the dragon's name is brutalgothorius (bru-tOl-go-tho-rie-use)
and I'm rather surprised that nobody here has had any questions, does that mean that brutalgothorius is finally being excepted by the community?

nice name.. ill cam him bruty for short.. or when i text..

seriously, if you want people at the FES to believe your crazy stories and outlandish ideas..    youre gonna need graphics..

and the word is accepted...

Quote from: giganthegreat on May 30, 2011, 07:15:35 AM

also, to cpl, the dragon's name is brutalgothorius (bru-tOl-go-tho-rie-use)
and I'm rather surprised that nobody here has had any questions, does that mean that brutalgothorius is finally being excepted by the community?

nice name.. ill cam him bruty for short.. or when i text..

seriously, if you want people at the FES to believe your crazy stories and outlandish ideas..    youre gonna need graphics..

and the word is accepted...

your right, I should have reread what I posted

but, here is an actual picture of brutalgothorius (note: PICTURE, not drawing, he just actually looks like that)
http://media.onsugar.com/files/2011/05/19/0/1661/16613217/f3/chinese-dragon-red.jpg

but, here is an actual picture of brutalgothorius (note: PICTURE, not drawing, he just actually looks like that)
http://media.onsugar.com/files/2011/05/19/0/1661/16613217/f3/chinese-dragon-red.jpg

Nah it looks more like the loch ness monster than brutalgothorius. I know because I've seen the beast. Did you see him when your journeyed to the centre of the earth too?

Quote from: giganthegreat on May 31, 2011, 01:29:38 PM

but, here is an actual picture of brutalgothorius (note: PICTURE, not drawing, he just actually looks like that)
http://media.onsugar.com/files/2011/05/19/0/1661/16613217/f3/chinese-dragon-red.jpg

Nah it looks more like the loch ness monster than brutalgothorius. I know because I've seen the beast. Did you see him when your journeyed to the centre of the earth too?

Thats fucking Disney Evil!

Quote from: Puttah on May 31, 2011, 09:23:37 PM

Quote from: giganthegreat on May 31, 2011, 01:29:38 PM

but, here is an actual picture of brutalgothorius (note: PICTURE, not drawing, he just actually looks like that)
http://media.onsugar.com/files/2011/05/19/0/1661/16613217/f3/chinese-dragon-red.jpg

Nah it looks more like the loch ness monster than brutalgothorius. I know because I've seen the beast. Did you see him when your journeyed to the centre of the earth too?

Thats fucking Disney Evil!

Please watch your language in the discussion forums.

Quote from: sillyrob on May 29, 2011, 10:54:04 PM

EG, what evidence is turning people into FE'ers? Is it bendy light, which has less evidence than gravity, could it be moonshrimp, which has less evidence than God, or is it the faked space program, which is about as possible as a giant conspiracy that tens of thousands of people work for, yet none of them have leaked even the tiniest bit of information?

You can feel free to answer my question too Tom.

Thomas Baron leaked NASA's fraudulence.

He and his family were subsequently murdered.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Thomas+Baron+Silenced+for+Attempting+to+Expose+the+Truth

I've done more research into NASA's "whistle-blowers" than you ever could think of. Thomas Baron wrote a report that had to do with safety violations after Apollo 1. It had nothing to do with "exposing NASA". He was murdered because he jepordized the Apollo program.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2011, 10:55:43 PM

Quote from: sillyrob on May 29, 2011, 10:54:04 PM

EG, what evidence is turning people into FE'ers? Is it bendy light, which has less evidence than gravity, could it be moonshrimp, which has less evidence than God, or is it the faked space program, which is about as possible as a giant conspiracy that tens of thousands of people work for, yet none of them have leaked even the tiniest bit of information?

You can feel free to answer my question too Tom.

Thomas Baron leaked NASA's fraudulence.

He and his family were subsequently murdered.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Thomas+Baron+Silenced+for+Attempting+to+Expose+the+Truth

I've done more research into NASA's "whistle-blowers" than you ever could think of. Thomas Baron wrote a report that had to do with safety violations after Apollo 1. It had nothing to do with "exposing NASA". He was murdered because he jepordized the Apollo program.

Yes, building prop rockets and constructing the lunar lander out of assorted junk yard parts and stationary supplies definitely constitutes a safety violation.

Quote from: FEisBS on June 29, 2011, 10:31:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2011, 10:55:43 PM

Quote from: sillyrob on May 29, 2011, 10:54:04 PM

EG, what evidence is turning people into FE'ers? Is it bendy light, which has less evidence than gravity, could it be moonshrimp, which has less evidence than God, or is it the faked space program, which is about as possible as a giant conspiracy that tens of thousands of people work for, yet none of them have leaked even the tiniest bit of information?

You can feel free to answer my question too Tom.

Thomas Baron leaked NASA's fraudulence.

He and his family were subsequently murdered.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Thomas+Baron+Silenced+for+Attempting+to+Expose+the+Truth

I've done more research into NASA's "whistle-blowers" than you ever could think of. Thomas Baron wrote a report that had to do with safety violations after Apollo 1. It had nothing to do with "exposing NASA". He was murdered because he jepordized the Apollo program.

Yes, building prop rockets and constructing the lunar lander out of assorted junk yard parts and stationary supplies definitely constitutes a safety violation.

Loosely translated from Bishopspeak, this equates to "Yes, you are right and I am guilty spreading misinformation about the Thomas Baron affair".

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2011, 10:55:43 PM

Quote from: sillyrob on May 29, 2011, 10:54:04 PM

EG, what evidence is turning people into FE'ers? Is it bendy light, which has less evidence than gravity, could it be moonshrimp, which has less evidence than God, or is it the faked space program, which is about as possible as a giant conspiracy that tens of thousands of people work for, yet none of them have leaked even the tiniest bit of information?

You can feel free to answer my question too Tom.

Thomas Baron leaked NASA's fraudulence.

He and his family were subsequently murdered.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Thomas+Baron+Silenced+for+Attempting+to+Expose+the+Truth

I've done more research into NASA's "whistle-blowers" than you ever could think of. Thomas Baron wrote a report that had to do with safety violations after Apollo 1. It had nothing to do with "exposing NASA". He was murdered because he jepordized the Apollo program.

The police investigation to Baron's death revealed no signs of foul play.  If you or Tom have any evidence that it was indeed murder, I'm sure that the appropriate law enforcement agencies would be very interested.

Quote from: John Davis on May 30, 2011, 02:10:51 PM

Quote from: giganthegreat on May 30, 2011, 07:13:18 AM

I love how this topic spiraled out of control!

also, what evidence is there that the earth is flat? what demonstrable proof can you give to us?

also, in my thread I created in the Q&A board, plenty of people told me when they began to question theory, and a couple of them have posted here

John Davis chalked it up to a "mystical experience" I do not know the specifics, could they have been drug-induced? who knows?

right there, we have religion, indoctrination(or at the very least, forceful teaching) and "the earth looks flat"


lol, problem?

Religion and indoctrination had nothing to do with why I'm a flat earther.  You completely misunderstood what I said.  I am a stout atheist.

I came to question whether the earth was round through a mystical revelation.  This did not sway my intellectual beliefs at all, other than it lead me to investigate the facts.  You accusation of me using drugs just shows the mindset behind globularists.  "If he doesn't want to believe what we believe, he must be a lunatic or on drugs!"  As if that would invalidate the argument anyway.  Classic ad pop from the the round earth camp.

lol, logic fail from a high schooler

I apologize for misinterpreting your extremely vague answer, maybe next time you should be more clear

a mystical experience implies the inclusion of a god, or a deity, or some sort of phenomenal being, being an atheist myself, I assumed that your meeting with any of these had to be the from the effect of hallucination, most likely from some sort of hallucinogen

also, I never accused you of being indoctrinated, that was pointed towards another user (who, most likely, is a troll), don't quote me out of context

lastly, you have still haven't explained to me what this mystical experience was, perhaps clarity could lead to an understanding

PS: assuming that I'm a highschooler just shows your ability to underestimate highschoolers, and your ability to overestimate the validity of your theory

A mystical experience implies no such thing.  You are confusing a mystical experience with a religous one or perhaps a super natural one.  Even if it was a hallucination, this is no reason to discount it.  Review the collected works of William James especially his lectures at Edinburgh. 

You are correct, it was wrong of me to assume you were a high schooler;  perhaps just as wrong as you assuming I was hallucinating or was a religious minded person.    Apologies.  However my assumption about you says nothing about me underestimating high schoolers or overestimating my work.  I've met very intelligent articulate and logical high schoolers, but then again the vast majority lack the proper discipline and learning to properly argue something analytically and logically.  This is of course no fault of their own, but just their age.  Not everyone is a Bobby Fischer at 13 in their respective interests and that should be obvious.

The earth is round because it's obvious -

1) No other kind of stable bodies appear in the space but spheres. Flat earth would be contradicting all the evidence we have been observing.
2) There's absolutely not a single reason why earth should be flat instead of it being a sphere.
3) There's not a single evidence about earth being flat. You can't observe it from the ground, because earth is too big.
4) People have been noticing that earth is round long before governments, Nasa or similar associations existed. Thus the motive of the conspiracy is totally unknown.
+ The people, who noticed it first were scholars, philosophers, astronomers, travelers, sailors and other scientists. The round earth was discovered in different parts of the world by different cultures.
The motive of bringing up such 'lie' in the first place is unlikely to exist.
5) All the known science expects the world to be round and succeeds in its experiments, bringing us great technology and scientific achievements.
6) There are excursions to the south pole very often. Why don't you visit it yourself to make sure? http://wikitravel.org/en/South_Pole
7) Gravitational anomalies on the earth correlate with the round earth model. (Higher gravity at the poles and lower gravity at the equator and high mountains)
8 ) Earth's magnetic field expects rotating iron nucleus.
9) The lack of understanding gravity does not disprove the round earth, like lack of understanding how life began doesn't disprove life. It's just one more thing we haven't figured out yet.

10) Lots of people have been to international space station and other stations. It's unlikely that the conspiracy could hold together. They have families and relatives.
11) The sun and moon are not discs 3000miles away. We have technology to measure this. The perspective and viewing angle would distort the size and shape too much if this was the case anyway.
People from Brazil and people from US would see the approaching sun from different angle and with different size. However the sun appears approximately the same size from every part of the world.
The setting sun would appear to minimize instead of going behind the horizon. Moon couldn't be a disc because it's shadow is always on the opposite side to the sun. A simple telescope can show you the moon's
actual shape.

^Yes, you see what you have done there is created a list.

I don't know about the other FErs (although I suspect they have similar feelings), but I know I don't answer lists. Thork's view on lists

I hope that this will encourage you to break down your arguments in to a form that makes them realistically answerable.

PS: assuming that I'm a highschooler just shows your ability to underestimate highschoolers, and your ability to overestimate the validity of your theory

Well, this certainly isn't true. I openly admit to being a sophomore, and he's never been disrespectful because of it. John Davis is a nice guy, so long as you are as well.

The earth is round because it's obvious -

1) No other kind of stable bodies appear in the space but spheres. Flat earth would be contradicting all the evidence we have been observing.
2) There's absolutely not a single reason why earth should be flat instead of it being a sphere.
3) There's not a single evidence about earth being flat. You can't observe it from the ground, because earth is too big.
4) People have been noticing that earth is round long before governments, Nasa or similar associations existed. Thus the motive of the conspiracy is totally unknown.
+ The people, who noticed it first were scholars, philosophers, astronomers, travelers, sailors and other scientists. The round earth was discovered in different parts of the world by different cultures.
The motive of bringing up such 'lie' in the first place is unlikely to exist.
5) All the known science expects the world to be round and succeeds in its experiments, bringing us great technology and scientific achievements.
6) There are excursions to the south pole very often. Why don't you visit it yourself to make sure? http://wikitravel.org/en/South_Pole
7) Gravitational anomalies on the earth correlate with the round earth model. (Higher gravity at the poles and lower gravity at the equator and high mountains)
8 ) Earth's magnetic field expects rotating iron nucleus.
9) The lack of understanding gravity does not disprove the round earth, like lack of understanding how life began doesn't disprove life. It's just one more thing we haven't figured out yet.

10) Lots of people have been to international space station and other stations. It's unlikely that the conspiracy could hold together. They have families and relatives.
11) The sun and moon are not discs 3000miles away. We have technology to measure this. The perspective and viewing angle would distort the size and shape too much if this was the case anyway.
People from Brazil and people from US would see the approaching sun from different angle and with different size. However the sun appears approximately the same size from every part of the world.
The setting sun would appear to minimize instead of going behind the horizon. Moon couldn't be a disc because it's shadow is always on the opposite side to the sun. A simple telescope can show you the moon's
actual shape.

this is y i stopped posting months ago. i came here thinking i may get some insight. now i just want to bang my head against the wall because of the ignorance some people like TB have