What if you're wrong?

That is mixed bag of rights and wrongs.  People can see the flatness of the earth with their own eyes, as well.  Intelligent people do discern the shape of the earth from the available data so you are correct there. Others do defer problems to Zetetic scholars. 

I have never seen the flatness of the earth with my own eyes.  One can barely see a but a portion of the earth at anyone time.  And each portion I have never seen it flat.  And in truth - one just has to look to the heavens.

Berny
Even the ocean.

The point Beorn is trying to make is about how many people believe what.

No. See here:

Quote from: markjo on April 14, 2011, 10:33:24 AM

"Spaceships from the stars" are not documented on live television the way that space missions are.

You never seen men in black?

Markjo is implying that television 'documentaries' are believable in their own right, i.e. when the TV presenter says the show is 'real' then it must be. Beorn is wisely pointing out that such claims are arbitrary and farcical: on what basis can you judge the moon landing to be more real than Men in Black?

(Essentially it's the same argument that's repeated to every noob who posts a 'photo' of the round Earth.)

Markjo is implying that television 'documentaries' are believable in their own right, i.e. when the TV presenter says the show is 'real' then it must be. Beorn is wisely pointing out that such claims are arbitrary and farcical: on what basis can you judge the moon landing to be more real than Men in Black?

For one thing, Men In Black is presented as fiction.  Unless every news agency in the world is in on the conspiracy, I would propose that the space missions broadcast on live TV are more likely to be legitimate than the alien hunting of MIB.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on April 15, 2011, 12:24:27 PM

Markjo is implying that television 'documentaries' are believable in their own right, i.e. when the TV presenter says the show is 'real' then it must be. Beorn is wisely pointing out that such claims are arbitrary and farcical: on what basis can you judge the moon landing to be more real than Men in Black?

For one thing, Men In Black is presented as fiction.  Unless every news agency in the world is in on the conspiracy, I would propose that the space missions broadcast on live TV are more likely to be legitimate than the alien hunting of MIB.

Wat? I don't recall every news agency in the world travelling to the moon to record Neil Armstrong's first steps. They simply relayed the dramatised footage sent to them.

As for the difference in presentation: again, irrelevant. For all we know, The Conspiracy produced Men In Black in order to disguise real events as scenes created by a movie production team.

Quote from: markjo on April 15, 2011, 12:34:31 PM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on April 15, 2011, 12:24:27 PM

Markjo is implying that television 'documentaries' are believable in their own right, i.e. when the TV presenter says the show is 'real' then it must be. Beorn is wisely pointing out that such claims are arbitrary and farcical: on what basis can you judge the moon landing to be more real than Men in Black?

For one thing, Men In Black is presented as fiction.  Unless every news agency in the world is in on the conspiracy, I would propose that the space missions broadcast on live TV are more likely to be legitimate than the alien hunting of MIB.

Wat? I don't recall every news agency in the world travelling to the moon to record Neil Armstrong's first steps. They simply relayed the dramatised footage sent to them.

As for the difference in presentation: again, irrelevant. For all we know, The Conspiracy produced Men In Black in order to disguise real events as scenes created by a movie production team.

Personally, I think you should be citing the original radio broadcast of H.G. Wells "The War of the World", since even though that was later identified as a work of fiction, at the time of the broadcast, it was presented with such realism that it fooled many of the public at the time that we were in fact being invaded by aliens at that time.  I just feel it would have been a much better example than MIB (IMHO).

The difference between the accounts of ppl who have gone into space and ppl who say they have been abducted by aliens/seen UFOs is that when someone goes into space there are independent observers watching them do it. There are other people in space with them. There is evidence that suggests they are where they say they are. Whereas alien abductions always seem to take place in the Arizona desert at night on a dusty dirt road miles from anywhere with no witnesses apart from Roky Crickenson or Lord Kimbote.

I've witness pizza planted being abducted by aliens.

It's possible, but seems so incredibly counter-intuitive that I find it impossible to believe without some dramatic evidence to the contrary.

How is it counter-intuitive?

I mean there are millions of people testifying that UFOs exist.

It is certain that some flying objects which people cannot identify at the time exist. What is your point?

That just because millions of people have testified about flying saucers and abductions does not make it true.

Is there any relevance in being Wrong? Like I'm gonna get some giant fix-it ticket after I die?

When asked to specify, I usually take the position that in my view the Earth is probably flat. Absolute certainty is the one thing that is never possible.

 
To me, FE is relative.. Like when you "tap" that ass, there's not actually any tapping going on.. but, the ass is still real..

Crackpipe larry makes a lot of sense.

Quote from: Ski on April 14, 2011, 10:15:22 AM

If I had to pick a fantasy to bet on, I would pick "spaceships from the stars" over "globularism".

If you subscribe to the FE model that holds that the stars are just burning motes of dust, then I'd say a spaceship from them is a very far-fetched fantasy.

Exactly how long are these motes of dust able to burn in a vacuum? Given that the constellations have been seemingly set in their patterns since the CHinese and Egyptians first started charting them, so we're looking around 8,000 years ago, they must be impressively flammable.

Perhaps if it were dramatic and compelling... Most photographs from high altitude (and even space) show such a small sample of the horizon, it is difficult to see the "globe" everyone seems to demand I see.

if you go up in a regular passenger jet you can clearly see the curve of the earth. and if that's counter intuitive to you, how to you explain the FE position that the other planets are globes? what special power acted so differently upon them than our earth. sensible answers only please, make no part of your argument rest on scientifically unproven facts

Quote from: Ski on April 13, 2011, 03:34:51 PM

Perhaps if it were dramatic and compelling... Most photographs from high altitude (and even space) show such a small sample of the horizon, it is difficult to see the "globe" everyone seems to demand I see.

if you go up in a regular passenger jet you can clearly see the curve of the earth. and if that's counter intuitive to you, how to you explain the FE position that the other planets are globes? what special power acted so differently upon them than our earth. sensible answers only please, make no part of your argument rest on scientifically unproven facts

First, you must keep in mind that the scientific method employs hypothesis testing so "scientifically unproven facts" would not be applicable in your claim.  You would have to prove your statement about being in a passenger jet and looking out the window. The earth is special so you are on the right track there.

why do I have to prove I was on the plane when I was there and know it to be a fact, I saw the curve with my own eyes? and don't be deluded FE theory is the only one that rests so heavily on 'theory', the rest of the scientific community have got plenty of 'facts' to show you.

and I like how you dodged any actual answer, which isn't surprising since you could only use scientifically proven facts in the reply, something that FE'ers seem to be in very short supply off...I wonder why

another one though; explain how ships appear to rise up out of the ocean as they get closer?

and one more; why can't I see any further than 6 miles in any direction from sea level? surely a flat earth would have boundless panoramic vistas on which to feast our eyes and dispel any doubts? instead it behaves like a round object, funny than, eh?

why do I have to prove I was on the plane when I was there and know it to be a fact, I saw the curve with my own eyes? and don't be deluded FE theory is the only one that rests so heavily on 'theory', the rest of the scientific community have got plenty of 'facts' to show you.

I have been on many planes.  This is why I say prove it.  Do not misconstrue facts with theory.   

and I like how you dodged any actual answer, which isn't surprising since you could only use scientifically proven facts in the reply, something that FE'ers seem to be in very short supply off...I wonder why

No dodging here. Do not confuse facts with theory.

another one though; explain how ships appear to rise up out of the ocean as they get closer?

I live near the ocean. Read Earth Not a Globe. Are you speaking from experience?

and one more; why can't I see any further than 6 miles in any direction from sea level? surely a flat earth would have boundless panoramic vistas on which to feast our eyes and dispel any doubts? instead it behaves like a round object, funny than, eh?

ENaG

oh dear, a multi quote failathon..

1. you make no sense whatsoever, what you say is gibberish and incoherent

2. you still haven't answered the question, even in this post, so, again, you are dodging answering because you can't, but I will ask you again anyway; "how to you explain the FE position that the other planets are globes? what special power acted so differently upon them than our earth", no dodging now, you seem to misconstrue facts with theory an awful lot, so concentrate on this fact; YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION, just so you're clear on the actual fact of the situation.

3. Earth Not a Globe is a crock full of shit, and yes, having grown up on the coast of Ireland and travelled to most of the coastal European countries, by ship (not dinosaur design btw), I, and sailors of hundreds of years ago have noticed how the distant ships, land, any mass tbh, seemingly rises form the water as you draw near. If you have never witnessed this, then I say you're either blind, or simply not intelligent enough to comprehend what you are indeed seeing. this is a provable, and well documented phenomenon.

4. ENaG means feck all squared to me, elaborate and refrain from text speak please, you have a full QWERTY keyboard in front of you

oh dear, a multi quote failathon..

1. you make no sense whatsoever, what you say is gibberish and incoherent

This will help you.

www.rif.org

2. you still haven't answered the question, even in this post, so, again, you are dodging answering because you can't, but I will ask you again anyway; "how to you explain the FE position that the other planets are globes? what special power acted so differently upon them than our earth", no dodging now, you seem to misconstrue facts with theory an awful lot, so concentrate on this fact; YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION, just so you're clear on the actual fact of the situation.

The earth is special.  Have you read the FAQ by chance?

3. Earth Not a Globe is a crock full of shit, and yes, having grown up on the coast of Ireland and travelled to most of the coastal European countries, by ship (not dinosaur design btw), I, and sailors of hundreds of years ago have noticed how the distant ships, land, any mass tbh, seemingly rises form the water as you draw near. If you have never witnessed this, then I say you're either blind, or simply not intelligent enough to comprehend what you are indeed seeing. this is a provable, and well documented phenomenon.

My sight is quite good. Thank you for asking.  Have you observed and taken note of the earth that is in front of your own eyes?
You are in need of more study about dinosaurs.  Use the search function within the site.

4. ENaG means feck all squared to me, elaborate and refrain from text speak please, you have a full QWERTY keyboard in front of you

Earth Not a Globe = ENaG.  See #1 if you have any questions.

you have dodged the question again (with another multiquote failathon) and every time you do so, you look weaker and ever more incapable of answering a simple question.

just because it says 'earth is speshal' in the Q&A section of a forum does not make it true, how can you keep misconstruing facts with theory? it doesn't expalin anywhere why or how earth is special, it just states it, nothing more. why don't you answer these questions yourself?

you're trying to brush aside the obvious truth of the horizon and ships and land masses appearing seemingly out from it, again, because you cannot offer any other explanation, you know it to be true, and so can't reply, instead you try an avoidance tactic of moving to dinosaurs, which isn't working btw.

so, again, I will ask you a simple question, please try to answer it, thsi is your last chance to save face and prove me wrong, if you can; "how to you explain the FE position that the other planets are globes? what special power acted so differently upon them than our earth"

If we're wrong we're wrong.

good answer, unfortunately though, death won't bring you answers because you'll be dead and know nothing, but I hope that you will one day see it for yourself, maybe look out the window of an aircraft that's a mile or so up in the air, then the world will be below you in all its globey goodness

I have led you to the well of knowledge.  If you don't have the will or capacity to dip in and get to the answers then why would you expect me to take the time and effort to explain it to you?  Your lack of motivation does seem to be showing a bit.   

good answer, unfortunately though, death won't bring you answers because you'll be dead and know nothing, but I hope that you will one day see it for yourself, maybe look out the window of an aircraft that's a mile or so up in the air, then the world will be below you in all its globey goodness

Have you seen the curvature of the Earth from an aircraft a mile high?

yes I have, it's not difficult to detect at that altitude, it can even be observed from a high enough mountain, the Pyrenees will do as an example. even bridges spanning rivers, if big enough require specific distance adjustments at their top spans to account for this curve. it's no secret, unlike your theory

I have led you to the well of knowledge.  If you don't have the will or capacity to dip in and get to the answers then why would you expect me to take the time and effort to explain it to you?  Your lack of motivation does seem to be showing a bit.   

sorry, but you've led me nowhere, stop pontificating like a wise old wizard who's lead his apprentice to the font of magic powers, you're no different in your lack of direct engagement, preferring instead to avoid answers by implying you've delivered some sacred truth, which you haven't btw

yes I have, it's not difficult to detect at that altitude, it can even be observed from a high enough mountain, the Pyrenees will do as an example. even bridges spanning rivers, if big enough require specific distance adjustments at their top spans to account for this curve. it's no secret, unlike your theory

Actually, you're wrong.  Even actual RE scientists agree that the curvature of the Earth cannot be seen from the height of a commercial aircraft.

yes I have, it's not difficult to detect at that altitude, it can even be observed from a high enough mountain, the Pyrenees will do as an example. even bridges spanning rivers, if big enough require specific distance adjustments at their top spans to account for this curve. it's no secret, unlike your theory

Funny, because most people claim that the curvature of the Earth cannot be detected by the naked eye until you reach around 50-60,000 feet. A mile is less than 5,000 feet. There are several pilots who regularly visit this forum, and none claim to have seen the curvature of the Earth.


So my guess is that you saw what you wanted to see.

60,000 is the Goldilocks position to see a perfectly clear curve, but it is easily detectable from 20k upwards, do your research more thoroughly before refuting facts.

and whilst we're on the topic, you claim the earth is flat, yet quote me heights at which the curve can be seen...interesting

60,000 is the Goldilocks position to see a perfectly clear curve, but it is easily detectable from 20k upwards, do your research more thoroughly before refuting facts.

Sorry, but since when is a mile 20,000 feet? You claimed to have seen curvature "out the window of an aircraft that's a mile or so up in the air". A mile is not 20,000 feet.


Moreover, I contend that you are wrong to claim curvature can be observed from such heights. I and many others have been on commercial aircraft without being able to observe the curvature of the Earth. Even if we assume that the Earth is a sphere, mathematically the degree of curvature at such an altitude would be extremely difficult to detect with the naked eye.

and whilst we're on the topic, you claim the earth is flat, yet quote me heights at which the curve can be seen...interesting

I have done no such thing.


www.rif.org