Just after FE's take on this

Just after FE's take on this

"Explanation: Here is what the Earth looks like during a solar eclipse. The shadow of the Moon can be seen darkening part of Earth. This shadow moved across the Earth at nearly 2000 kilometers per hour. Only observers near the center of the dark circle see a total solar eclipse - others see a partial eclipse where only part of the Sun appears blocked by the Moon. This spectacular picture of the 1999 August 11 solar eclipse was one of the last ever taken from the Mir space station, which was deorbited in a controlled re-entry in 2001. "

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040926.html

I'd be dissapointed in a "Photo Shop" blanket dissmissal.

Brett

Just after FE's take on this

"Explanation: Here is what the Earth looks like during a solar eclipse. The shadow of the Moon can be seen darkening part of Earth. This shadow moved across the Earth at nearly 2000 kilometers per hour. Only observers near the center of the dark circle see a total solar eclipse - others see a partial eclipse where only part of the Sun appears blocked by the Moon. This spectacular picture of the 1999 August 11 solar eclipse was one of the last ever taken from the Mir space station, which was deorbited in a controlled re-entry in 2001. "

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040926.html

I'd be dissapointed in a "Photo Shop" blanket dissmissal.

Brett

Quote

Just after FE's take on this

"Explanation: Here is what the Earth looks like during a solar eclipse. The shadow of the Moon can be seen darkening part of Earth. This shadow moved across the Earth at nearly 2000 kilometers per hour. Only observers near the center of the dark circle see a total solar eclipse - others see a partial eclipse where only part of the Sun appears blocked by the Moon. This spectacular picture of the 1999 August 11 solar eclipse was one of the last ever taken from the Mir space station, which was deorbited in a controlled re-entry in 2001. "

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040926.html

I'd be dissapointed in a "Photo Shop" blanket dissmissal.

Brett

Why should we trust anything from NASA's website?

If the earth is flat, how can the photos be anything but fake?

We disproved a round earth a while ago. Try to keep up.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0

Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"

A: It's a conspiracy

The evidence is all here. You can use the search function if you need to. It's at the top there.

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on September 22, 2008, 12:22:28 AM

The evidence is all here. You can use the search function if you need to. It's at the top there.

Even with the help of the search function, sifting through the immense piles of rubbish on this forum to find something seems like a pretty pointless endeavor. Surely, if there were any kind of irrefutable evidence pro FE or contra RE, it would have been compiled and presented as evidence by now.

The FAQ is, with all due respect, nothing but drivel.

If you have proof, present it.

The evidence is all here. You can use the search function if you need to. It's at the top there.

Expecting someone to search the entire content of this forum in order to find some obscure posts that may support FET is unreasonable. If you have proof, why should I be expected to spend my time finding it? Why can't you present it?

The evidence is all here. You can use the search function if you need to. It's at the top there.

Expecting someone to search the entire content of this forum in order to find some obscure posts that may support FET is unreasonable. If you have proof, why should I be expected to spend my time finding it? Why can't you present it?

I propose a solution to this argument. Here's how it goes:

Oscar Wilde links to one piece of evidence that disproves RET and that has never been answered. It has to be a conclusive one, where factors like refraction can be quantified.

Too bad none of them are valid. 

I just watched the "movie", and I really can't believe you consider THAT a strong enough proof, there's only dialogues, and a drawing at the end I could also do. Tom, are you sure the books and everything else in your signature is not the same comical/ironical material?

Quote from: Kira-SY on September 23, 2008, 01:19:57 AM

I just watched the "movie", and I really can't believe you consider THAT a strong enough proof, there's only dialogues, and a drawing at the end I could also do. Tom, are you sure the books and everything else in your signature is not the same comical/ironical material?

Did I tell you to look at the 10 minute movie? No. I specifically said to read the books which go into FET with some depth.

Quote from: Kira-SY on September 23, 2008, 01:19:57 AM

I just watched the "movie", and I really can't believe you consider THAT a strong enough proof, there's only dialogues, and a drawing at the end I could also do. Tom, are you sure the books and everything else in your signature is not the same comical/ironical material?

Did I tell you to look at the 10 minute movie? No. I specifically said to read the books which go into FET with some depth.

Quote

I propose a solution to this argument. Here's how it goes:

Oscar Wilde links to one piece of evidence that disproves RET and that has never been answered. It has to be a conclusive one, where factors like refraction can be quantified.

Lots of proofs in the literature listed in my signature link.

Quote from: MadDogX on September 22, 2008, 12:32:07 AM

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on September 22, 2008, 12:22:28 AM

The evidence is all here. You can use the search function if you need to. It's at the top there.

Even with the help of the search function, sifting through the immense piles of rubbish on this forum to find something seems like a pretty pointless endeavor. Surely, if there were any kind of irrefutable evidence pro FE or contra RE, it would have been compiled and presented as evidence by now.

A pointless endeavor? Finding out the truth is a pointless endeavor? I can see that you came here with an open mind and a desire to learn.

Quote from: MadDogX on September 22, 2008, 12:32:07 AM

The FAQ is, with all due respect, nothing but drivel.

I'll admit that it is outdated, but it's still better than anything RE has come up with.

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on September 22, 2008, 12:39:00 AM

Quote from: MadDogX on September 22, 2008, 12:32:07 AM

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on September 22, 2008, 12:22:28 AM

The evidence is all here. You can use the search function if you need to. It's at the top there.

Even with the help of the search function, sifting through the immense piles of rubbish on this forum to find something seems like a pretty pointless endeavor. Surely, if there were any kind of irrefutable evidence pro FE or contra RE, it would have been compiled and presented as evidence by now.

A pointless endeavor? Finding out the truth is a pointless endeavor? I can see that you came here with an open mind and a desire to learn.

Quote from: MadDogX on September 22, 2008, 12:32:07 AM

The FAQ is, with all due respect, nothing but drivel.

I'll admit that it is outdated, but it's still better than anything RE has come up with.

RE has sent satellites into orbit and taken pictures of the round earth.  There's plenty of evidence that RE has presented, but it doesn't matter because anybody can just point and say that something is faked or there is a conspiracy.  It's the perfect argument to be honest because one, you don't need any evidence to prove a conspiracy, and two, no matter how much evidence against a conspiracy the opposition offers, you cannot disprove it.

IMO RE has more credibility with their evidence because they don't rely on a conspiracy to refute the evidence of the opposition.