What was the piece of evidence that convinced you that the Earth was flat?

To all FEer's

At one point in your life you would have been exposed to something that made you say 'Damn you are right, the world is flat!!'

What was that?

I was exposed to FES. That make me believe the Earth is flat.

The FES has been toiling for many years to reveal a deep conspiracy at the heart of modern civilisation.  I find these efforts admirable, so I paid attention. Their accumulated evidence is what convinced me that FES was something worth sticking with.

Prof GC  - that response just makes you sound like you are easily lead.

Matrix - thanks but was was the evidence that you were exposed to to make you say 'Yes, Now I'm convinced?
I am open minded but you are presenting me with nothing.

Prof GC  - that response just makes you sound like you are easily lead.

Why do you believe the earth is round?

Gobsmacked - I appreciate where you're coming from; you want me to say "Well I was like you once until I read this post" but sadly that moment never happened for me.

You see, I've been here a couple of months now getting to know all these guys. I've seen the same arguments get trotted out over and over and still take part in them. But I'm still here.

Isn't that evidence of something in itself?

That's an interesting corollary; what made you suddenly believe that the earth is a whirling globe hurtling through space?

I obviously have not been into space. I have never been to either pole.

I have been exposed to photographs, TV programs etc that educates people that the Earth is round. You say it is all a cover up yet you cannot give any reasons why except - and I will quote from your FAQ 'The motive is unknown although it is probably money'.

You cannot show any clear cut evidence to counter the Round Earth theory. So as a sensible human being I will be more prone to go with the evidence that has more back up. Just as happens in any court of law, debate etc.

The side that can produce the most evidence generally is the side I would believe.

I am not here to make fun or to ridicule. I'm just curious as to why you believe the Earth is flat and what convinced you. If your claims are true then show your evidence and as yet, unfortunately, no one has.

Regards

I obviously have not been into space. I have never been to either pole.
I have been exposed to photographs, TV programs etc that educates people that the Earth is round

So in other words, you just believe what youve been told.

You cannot show any clear cut evidence to counter the Round Earth theory. So as a sensible human being I will be more prone to go with the evidence that has more back up. Just as happens in any court of law, debate etc.

Define "clear cut evidence"

The side that can produce the most evidence generally is the side I would believe

"Generally" being the key word.

Just for reference, I never claimed the Earth was flat. What I specifically said was that FES (Flat Earth Society) was worth sticking with.  You seem like a reasonable, intelligent person so I'll let you know now that at least 95% of the people here do not believe the Earth is flat. If you have a look through some of the threads (esp. in 'angry ranting' or the infamous stickied 'gravity' thread) you will find why there are so many people here.

Just don't tell anyone I told you.

Prof GC  - that response just makes you sound like you are easily lead.

Says. I'm not the one who thinks the Earth is round cos the easily faked pictures say so.

I have been exposed to photographs, TV programs etc that educates people that the Earth is round. You say it is all a cover up yet you cannot give any reasons why except - and I will quote from your FAQ 'The motive is unknown although it is probably money'.

Actually, the FAQ has a very important link in it that you probably missed.  For most people the belief that the earth is flat begins with the obvious observation that it appears flat, but there is actually even stronger evidence that it's not round.

Earth Not a Globe

This book presents evidence that the surface of standing water cannot possibly be convex.  Many FEers have duplicated the experiments on their own and gotten the same results.  Don't worry, you don't have to read the whole thing; the experiments at the beginning of the book are the ones that prove the earth is flat.

You see, FEers believe there is a Conspiracy because it can be demonstrated that the earth is flat.  I guess this would be the evidence you've been missing.

DrainCoverLover, I know what you are getting at here. I think I have explained my stance.

If you are a FE'er then you must have just believed what you have been told also as I am assuming you have never been in a position to see the flatness of the Earth with your own eyes.

If you were to give me a good reason why the worlds governments would want to cover this all up (and thats why they have drilled the Round Earth theory into us) then I maybe able to weigh up both sides equally. But, 'probably money' seems a lazy reason.

What convinced you? That was the point of the thread after all.

Roundy thanks that is very interesting. I shall read more over the next few days.

What is your theory as to why Governments would cover up a flat earth?

Well not the governments, but the space agencies in order to get lots of money for doing not much more than faking a few photos and videos.

Exactly.  The governments as a whole have little, if any, involvement.  NASA, for example, is duping the American government into believing they have a legitimate space program so they can get all that dirty funding.  It stands to reason that it would cost a lot less to fake a space program than to actually have one.

Could they not do the same with a flat earth?

Isn't that evidence of something in itself?

evidence that your an idiot.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Someone earlier said there was an ice wall that you would reach if you headed south from any point on our earth. Why has no one flown next to or over or even close enough to see whats over the other side?

evidence that your an idiot.

Irony incarnate.

You fail.

Quote from: Matrix on August 31, 2008, 12:51:23 PM

Isn't that evidence of something in itself?

evidence that your an idiot.

Enjoy your B&.

Quote from: roundiesunite on August 31, 2008, 01:52:32 PM

Quote from: Matrix on August 31, 2008, 12:51:23 PM

Isn't that evidence of something in itself?

evidence that your an idiot.

Enjoy your B&.

Bampersand? 

I'd like to get back to the original question please.

To all FEer's

At one point in your life you would have been exposed to something that made you say 'Damn you are right, the world is flat!!'

What was that?     

In my experience changes of any core beliefs are a gradual process and due to a culmination of things.

This book presents evidence that the surface of standing water cannot possibly be convex. 

So there is no such thing as a drop of water? Because that's essentially what the Earth's oceans are (according to RET): a gigantic drop of salt water surrounding the rocky crust of the Earth, with the exception of the continents. If you look at it from a more distant perspective like that, you will notice that the oceans are not actually standing water at all. Not only are they basically a drop of water, they have currents as well and are therefore in constant movement. So they defy every possible definition of "standing water". In addition, presuming that the author's argument is just an observation of water in a still container or on a flat surface, the reason for the flat surface would be gravity. Due to the nature of gravity, there is no actual up or down in space, only "in" towards concentrations of matter (read:objects). The water on Earth is only strongly affected by the gravitational pul of Earth itself, which pulls it evenly inward to form a roughly spherical shape. The only other object that has a major effect on the oceans but not the rest of the Earth is the Moon, which causes the tides.

Well, then. I've contradicted a whole lot of FET doctrine just now, haven't I?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 31, 2008, 01:14:30 PM

This book presents evidence that the surface of standing water cannot possibly be convex. 

So there is no such thing as a drop of water? Because that's essentially what the Earth's oceans are (according to RET): a gigantic drop of salt water surrounding the rocky crust of the Earth, with the exception of the continents. If you look at it from a more distant perspective like that, you will notice that the oceans are not actually standing water at all. Not only are they basically a drop of water, they have currents as well and are therefore in constant movement. So they defy every possible definition of "standing water". In addition, presuming that the author's argument is just an observation of water in a still container or on a flat surface, the reason for the flat surface would be gravity. Due to the nature of gravity, there is no actual up or down in space, only "in" towards concentrations of matter (read:objects). The water on Earth is only strongly affected by the gravitational pul of Earth itself, which pulls it evenly inward to form a roughly spherical shape. The only other object that has a major effect on the oceans but not the rest of the Earth is the Moon, which causes the tides.

Well, then. I've contradicted a whole lot of FET doctrine just now, haven't I?

Way to totally misinterpret a sentence.

If you go to a large body of water, say a lake, on a totally windless day, so that the surface of it is entirely still, and you look across it, on a Round Earth you would be able to measure the curve. The experiments listed in this book show that you cannot.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 31, 2008, 01:14:30 PM

This book presents evidence that the surface of standing water cannot possibly be convex.

So there is no such thing as a drop of water? Because that's essentially what the Earth's oceans are (according to RET): a gigantic drop of salt water surrounding the rocky crust of the Earth, with the exception of the continents. If you look at it from a more distant perspective like that, you will notice that the oceans are not actually standing water at all. Not only are they basically a drop of water, they have currents as well and are therefore in constant movement. So they defy every possible definition of "standing water". In addition, presuming that the author's argument is just an observation of water in a still container or on a flat surface, the reason for the flat surface would be gravity. Due to the nature of gravity, there is no actual up or down in space, only "in" towards concentrations of matter (read:objects). The water on Earth is only strongly affected by the gravitational pul of Earth itself, which pulls it evenly inward to form a roughly spherical shape. The only other object that has a major effect on the oceans but not the rest of the Earth is the Moon, which causes the tides.

Well, then. I've contradicted a whole lot of FET doctrine just now, haven't I?

Wow, way to misinterpret!  You should take a look at what the book actually says before passing a judgment like that.

The fact that FET is cool. No kids in school believe it.

To all FEer's

At one point in your life you would have been exposed to something that made you say 'Damn you are right, the world is flat!!'

What was that?

For me, it was when I realized that I was getting my science information from the same government that believes abstinence-only sex ed works, and the war on drugs can be won.

If they're that misguided, they're probably wrong about the shape of the earth too.

To all FEer's

At one point in your life you would have been exposed to something that made you say 'Damn you are right, the world is flat!!'

What was that?

The Bible and my parents both say it's flat and I feel in my heart it is flat and that God is there.