Re: Burden of Proof

OK true believers....  I have read the FAQs.  I have read a lot of your posts in a lot of the forums...
I am struggling to understand your stance on FE vs. RE.  Your defense of FET is basically "because we said so"  The explanation of the 32 mile diameter sun lighting up an area on the Earth of 7900 Kilometers doesnt work.  It is stated in your FAQ that the sun orbits the Earth at a height of 3000 mi would not light up that much of the Earth. 
I have also read your "documentation" that can be accessed through Tom's signature link.  There is a reference to aeronautic research taking place during an author's lifetime that happened before the Wright Brothers first flight at Kitty Hawk.  How can aeronautic research take place if there is no such thing at that time?  I do not mean in any way to sound rude or condescending.  I am trying to understand further your belief set, because to me it all sounds like a Terry Pratchett novel.  I asked some similar questions to the Hollow Earth society.  If someone can show me some real proof that your theories arent complete nonsense then I will take it under advisement.  If not then tell A'Tuin that I said HI

OK true believers....

I am not a "true believer" however I would like to suggest that the Flat earth is a relatively new society which began during the modern era of physics.

If you would step back for a moment and consider that Burden of Proof regarding a round Earth may have failed and this hypothesis is simply as plausible as the majority of scientific theories in use today.

If you would be so kind as to provide proof for RE I would appreciate it as the burden of proof is on you since this is the arena of the Flat Earth Society.

I am not trying to prove or disprove FE or RE.  I agree that we are in your arena.  My main reason for being on this site and posting here is knowledge.  I want to learn as much as I can in the time that I have on this Earth whether it be round or flat.  As I stated, I have read your FAQ, and many of your posts, and can see absolutely no attempts by any member to answer simple questions. 
Your standpoint is that there is no scientific proof to back RE and ours is that there is no scientific proof to back FE.  So we are at an impass. 
All I want to know is why or where can I read something definitive about this theory.  And dont send me to Toms BS literature guide. 

All I want to know is why or where can I read something definitive about this theory.  And dont send me to Toms BS literature guide.

There is this forum, and a few others which share the same theme. In fact... I am rather impressed with the huge following this Society has...

http://www.google.com/trends?q=flat+earth%2C+round+earth&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Additionally some people have posted historical leaflets and publications from the society in the past. Due to the rise of the internet those publications may have taken a second seat to the forum format. Not sure... you may have to dig around and wade through some of the non-sense to find what you want... for the most part there are sections of the site reserved for angry venting and gibberish.

There are however some fairly valuable bits of information floating around... not all of it specifically dealing with the Flat Earth Society Specifically... jmo...

In fact... I am rather impressed with the huge following this Society has...

http://www.google.com/trends?q=flat+earth%2C+round+earth&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Of course, when you do the same graph against the number of searches for NASA...

Dave27, have you read Earth: Not A Globe?

Oscar,
no I have not read it all. 

What exactly is your point?

I asked some similar questions to the Hollow Earth society.

There's a Hollow Earth Society too?

What exactly is your point?

You linked us to something that was showing the popularity of the search of FE vs RE, so I figured I would demonstrate the FE still wasn't as searched as NASA.

There's a Hollow Earth Society too?

Yes... typically they think that the earth is hollow... some of the more scientifically correct attribute the hollow nature being related to plasma cores...

Others blame the theory on Nazi scientific propaganda.

In any event... seismic waves for one reason or another indicate a hollow, plasma or molten core at the center of the earth and the moon...

Not too sure... maybe it is just a theory and not a society... perhaps I am wrong...

You linked us to something that was showing the popularity of the search of FE vs RE, so I figured I would demonstrate the FE still wasn't as searched as NASA.

Yes... I see... This is interesting...



Am I missing any odd-ball-out theories?

No one would bother searching for the concept of RE if they already believed it and saw no reason not to.
Similarly, who would search for nonlinear line? Earth would be searched more. Round would seem redundant to the general population.