questions need answering

new joiner - first post

I'm sick of getting conflicting information from places like Facebook and YouTube, flat earthers don't seem to agree with each other's theories

so I'm here for a more detailed debate

I've been looking into the flat earth theory for around 3yrs, in detail for over 12 months, I'm no beginner

I've firstly got a few basic questions just to see how your answers compare with the rest of the internet

then I will move on to my findings

1 - after reading the welcome post I have an observation: if a ball falling back to earth is caused by us moving upwards, smoke should travel downwards
(the usual reply from MOST flat earthers is "we're not travelling upwards", then I ask what causes the ball to fall, then I'm usually attacked, blocked or ignored, it's really difficult sometimes to get a direct answer)

2 - do you guys use angular sun rays as evidence of a localised sun?

3 - I get conflicting answers for a lunar eclipse, what is the current flat earth explanation?

4 - I also get conflicting answers for meteors, again, what is the current flat earth explanation?

I've MANY more points, I just want to get a feel for the people and the extent of the research in this forum

thanks

You will always get conflicting answers and you will always be attacked for even thinking alternate thoughts against mainstream indoctrination. You surely know this.

The mere fact that you are going to get conflicting answers to most, if not all of what you ponder, should tell you that you have to follow your own route in terms of what appears (for the time being) as more logical and then adding mere snippets of info from the thoughts of those who also ponder logical outcomes.

You may never know all the answers to anything, but by doing it in a methodical fashion, starting with the most basic of basic and not allowing over-complication of things to cloud your thoughts, then you have a very realistic chance of at least gaining a more rational insight into what everything is and why.

It's much better than blindly following the nonsense that is told to us as a globe model, plus all the trimmings to go with it.
It appears that you at least dropped that one into the nonsense bin. That's your massive start to nibbling away at the lies, mis-info, dis-info and naivety, to get to some semblance of truth.

Dropping all things magical is a good start. By magical I mean the stuff you're told by skin and bone people like yourself, who have absolutely  no physical proof as to what they put on a plate for the population of gobblers to gobble up and not question why or what was in the feeding of the food for thought.

I don't mean any insult but those FE believers will probably make up some biased stuff like Lunas in the Moon creating light because they are luminescent, Interesting right? oh and they also believe that the planets are all made out of paper foam so NASA can continue the conspiracy.

I'd rather not even argue with them.

I don't mean any insult but those FE believers will probably make up some biased stuff like Lunas in the Moon creating light because they are luminescent, Interesting right? oh and they also believe that the planets are all made out of paper foam so NASA can continue the conspiracy.

I'd rather not even argue with them.

And yet weirdly people are almost bullied into accepting invisible space forces and Earth forces that cater for the nonsense spewed out, yet are impossible to ever prove, other than bullies screaming out that they are proved and you better believe they are or you're going to be ridiculed or placed in a nut house if you don't.

You will always get conflicting answers and you will always be attacked for even thinking alternate thoughts against mainstream indoctrination. You surely know this.

The mere fact that you are going to get conflicting answers to most, if not all of what you ponder, should tell you that you have to follow your own route in terms of what appears (for the time being) as more logical and then adding mere snippets of info from the thoughts of those who also ponder logical outcomes.

You may never know all the answers to anything, but by doing it in a methodical fashion, starting with the most basic of basic and not allowing over-complication of things to cloud your thoughts, then you have a very realistic chance of at least gaining a more rational insight into what everything is and why.

It's much better than blindly following the nonsense that is told to us as a globe model, plus all the trimmings to go with it.
It appears that you at least dropped that one into the nonsense bin. That's your massive start to nibbling away at the lies, mis-info, dis-info and naivety, to get to some semblance of truth.

Dropping all things magical is a good start. By magical I mean the stuff you're told by skin and bone people like yourself, who have absolutely  no physical proof as to what they put on a plate for the population of gobblers to gobble up and not question why or what was in the feeding of the food for thought.

I'm not sure if you missed my point, I said I'm attacked and blocked by flat earthers, not globe earthers

I also would like confirmation of points 2, 3 and 4

thanks

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 26, 2016, 02:30:45 AM

You will always get conflicting answers and you will always be attacked for even thinking alternate thoughts against mainstream indoctrination. You surely know this.

The mere fact that you are going to get conflicting answers to most, if not all of what you ponder, should tell you that you have to follow your own route in terms of what appears (for the time being) as more logical and then adding mere snippets of info from the thoughts of those who also ponder logical outcomes.

You may never know all the answers to anything, but by doing it in a methodical fashion, starting with the most basic of basic and not allowing over-complication of things to cloud your thoughts, then you have a very realistic chance of at least gaining a more rational insight into what everything is and why.

It's much better than blindly following the nonsense that is told to us as a globe model, plus all the trimmings to go with it.
It appears that you at least dropped that one into the nonsense bin. That's your massive start to nibbling away at the lies, mis-info, dis-info and naivety, to get to some semblance of truth.

Dropping all things magical is a good start. By magical I mean the stuff you're told by skin and bone people like yourself, who have absolutely  no physical proof as to what they put on a plate for the population of gobblers to gobble up and not question why or what was in the feeding of the food for thought.

I'm not sure if you missed my point, I said I'm attacked and blocked by flat earthers, not globe earthers

I also would like confirmation of points 2, 3 and 4

thanks

I'm attacked by flat Earther's as well. I have been since I joined. Mind you, I'm not exactly a flat Earther in the same vein as those who run this forum.
They believe (or pretend to) that UA (as you are aware) is responsible for effects on a flat Earth simply shooting up and never reaching or surpassing the so called speed of light.
I do not subscribe to any of that, but I won't knock it because that's their prerogative.
The fact that I don't follow it; nor you, singles you out for digs and ignores from flat Earther theorists and attacked by globalists.

As for your points, I'll leave that to whoever jumps in.

1.: although it is mentioned in the wiki, most FE'ers here do not believe in universal acceleration. It would not cause smoke to move downwards though, as air has a higher density. To put it short: Things under UA would behave exactly like they would under gravity, this is einstein's equivalence principle.

2.: some try, but this gets debunked quite quickly

3.: sandokhan (among others, I don't know who else) claim the existence of a "shadow object" which moves in front of the sun or the moon and blocks the light out. There has not been any evidence for this object, though.

4.: Some claim they are a conspiracy. Most FE'ers seem to avoid this topic.

Hope I could help.

1.: although it is mentioned in the wiki, most FE'ers here do not believe in universal acceleration. It would not cause smoke to move downwards though, as air has a higher density. To put it short: Things under UA would behave exactly like they would under gravity, this is einstein's equivalence principle.

2.: some try, but this gets debunked quite quickly

3.: sandokhan (among others, I don't know who else) claim the existence of a "shadow object" which moves in front of the sun or the moon and blocks the light out. There has not been any evidence for this object, though.

4.: Some claim they are a conspiracy. Most FE'ers seem to avoid this topic.

Hope I could help.

yes thanks, point 1 was just an off the cuff observation anyway

2. I see a lot of people claiming that crespicular sun rays are evidence of a localised sun, a LOT of people.. but like you said, it's very easily explained and anyone can do it within a few minutes

3. ahh, the slightly transparent moon that blocks out the light of the moon slightly.. simple answer, that extra, slightly transparent celestial body would block out other stars, it NEVER does, therefore it doesn't exist (plus its not on the flat earth model)

4. yeah meteors seem to be a swear word, ive had 3 answers, I'm not giving anything away though, I'd like to hear it from someone

thanks for taking the time to answer respectfully, appreciated

scepti you make it sound like only RE's attack people for their beliefs.

I can suggest a little experiment you can do.

Go to a physics,engineering and FE forums forum and tell people you want evidence the Earth is a sphere or flat.  You will get some name calling and also answers.  Depending on the site and moderators your topic may be locked for being deemed ridiculous.

I think what you will find is the blocking, deleting,locking, and name calling will be about the same.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=67336.0

The above is what I see typically on other forums dedicated to science.  Someone asks a question relating to FE and there are a few responses with at least one response being condescending.

People are people.  As a group they behave pretty much the same the world over.

does anyone else have any input?

does anyone else have any input?

Questions like yours have been asked a lot, have thread about it in the first couple of pages, or covered by the wiki. I would not be surprised if some FE's are just tired of answering these questions.

1. universal acceleration(UA) is not believed by every FE.  If the Earth was accelerating upwards it would be hard to tell the difference between that a gravity.  Stuff would behave the same.

2. A lot of people do.

3. Shadow object is the best explanation I have seen.

Not here, but I have seen it explained that the moon is hollow with a opaque and transparent surface that rotates.

Weather patterns have also been mentioned.

Bioluminescent life is another thing I have seen mentioned.

4. They are faked

They are pieces of the dome that fell off.

Quote from: Johnorbital on June 26, 2016, 03:55:44 AM

does anyone else have any input?

Questions like yours have been asked a lot, have thread about it in the first couple of pages, or covered by the wiki. I would not be surprised if some FE's are just tired of answering these questions.

1. universal acceleration(UA) is not believed by every FE.  If the Earth was accelerating upwards it would be hard to tell the difference between that a gravity.  Stuff would behave the same.

2. A lot of people do.

3. Shadow object is the best explanation I have seen.

Not here, but I have seen it explained that the moon is hollow with a opaque and transparent surface that rotates.

Weather patterns have also been mentioned.

Bioluminescent life is another thing I have seen mentioned.

4. They are faked

They are pieces of the dome that fell off.

they can't be tired of answering those questions, they're irrefutably disproven

1. I don't normally discuss gravity but the travelling upwards theory doesn't work due to it having enough force to put a ball back down but not enough to move smoke, smoke is lighter than a ball, therefore WOULD be affected also

2. angular sun rays you can disprove yourself, go to a beach, see the sun shining on the sea, get on a boat, try to reach the shine
OR
get a friend on a boat, you stay on the beach, you watch him sail past the shine YOU see, then ask him to point a camera towards shore and take a picture, the shine YOU see BETWEEN you and him will NOT be visible on the photo, this is simply because from HIS perspective, it will be behind him
OR
at the beach, travel 10mins up the coast, the sun will seem to follow you, travel back the other way, it will still follow you, it's not localised, the above methods ALL prove it without question

3. the shadow object would without question dim the lights of other stars, but it doesn't, so the dark object theory simply doesn't work, again, it's also not part of the flat earth model

4. they exist, you can see them with your own eyes, if it was part of a GLASS dome, they wouldn't land as rock.. meteors disprove the dome

like I said, I've looked into this for a long time, flat earthers don't agree with each other, depending on how you present evidence, meteors are usually described as man-made, I've only ever heard 3 people use the "god made" firmament breaking off theory, it's quite a new one, demeaning the work of god, as is saying the universe doesn't exist

please note, I'm not offensive, I'm not abusive, I've researched this for around 3yrs, I'm just challenging the proofs flat earthers use as they don't stand up to testing

thanks

Your questions have baffled many FEers, but not me. For a very long time, it has been impossible for FEers to answer these questions, due to flaws in the standard FE model. Luckily, I have created a model which I call the Celestial Ocean Theory, which perfectly explains these anomalies in a Flat Earth universe.

1. Smoke does not travel downwards on the Flat Earth because the atmosphere is also accelerating with the smoke.
If you place a candle on a rocket moving upwards, the smoke will go downwards due to air resistance - however, when the candle is still, it is accelerating at the exact same speed as the atmosphere around it.

2. Crepuscular rays are evidence that the Earth is indeed flat. As of yet, the Round Earthers have no explanation for how crepuscular rays work - I do. Crepuscular rays exist because the Sun is only a few thousand miles above the Earth, which causes a visible differences in the angle of sunlight.

3. The Shadow Object causes both Lunar and Solar eclipses. This Shadow object is translucent, but its particles are arranged in oscillate in a way which does allow light of a particular oscillation (i.e Sunlight and Moonlight) to penetrate it. The existence of this object can be proven by looking at declassified and leaked NASA documents, as the government has for a very long time attempted to hide the object's existence.

4. Meteors are simply clouds of space debris that are kept in orbit by aether currents, in oscillating orbits. The oscillation of the orbits of these meteors sometime cause them to draw nearer the Sun, and the heat from the Sun disturbs the aether currents (Heated air rises faster than cold air - the same principles apply to aether.) As a result, the meteors are flung off course. Sometimes, they are flung towards the plane of the Earth, and when the enter the atmoplane they burn up due to friction.

Your questions have baffled many FEers, but not me. For a very long time, it has been impossible for FEers to answer these questions, due to flaws in the standard FE model. Luckily, I have created a model which I call the Celestial Ocean Theory, which perfectly explains these anomalies in a Flat Earth universe.

1. Smoke does not travel downwards on the Flat Earth because the atmosphere is also accelerating with the smoke.
If you place a candle on a rocket moving upwards, the smoke will go downwards due to air resistance - however, when the candle is still, it is accelerating at the exact same speed as the atmosphere around it.

2. Crepuscular rays are evidence that the Earth is indeed flat. As of yet, the Round Earthers have no explanation for how crepuscular rays work - I do. Crepuscular rays exist because the Sun is only a few thousand miles above the Earth, which causes a visible differences in the angle of sunlight.

3. The Shadow Object causes both Lunar and Solar eclipses. This Shadow object is translucent, but its particles are arranged in oscillate in a way which does allow light of a particular oscillation (i.e Sunlight and Moonlight) to penetrate it. The existence of this object can be proven by looking at declassified and leaked NASA documents, as the government has for a very long time attempted to hide the object's existence.

4. Meteors are simply clouds of space debris that are kept in orbit by aether currents, in oscillating orbits. The oscillation of the orbits of these meteors sometime cause them to draw nearer the Sun, and the heat from the Sun disturbs the aether currents (Heated air rises faster than cold air - the same principles apply to aether.) As a result, the meteors are flung off course. Sometimes, they are flung towards the plane of the Earth, and when the enter the atmoplane they burn up due to friction.

even your created model doesn't work

1. explain how it doesn't affect the smoke but does affect a ball

2. I've thoroughly explained the sun rays, they ONLY work on a globe model (see my explanation above your post)

3. the shadow object WOULD dim lights of other stars as it passes in front of them (stars are suns remember), end of story

4. I'll leave your meteor theory alone as you admit you created it to fit

I would prefer evidence with claims, I never just guess, I don't appreciate people doing the same

thanks for your reply, but as you see, under practical and visual testing, most of the flat earth proofs simply don't work

thanks

Your questions have baffled many FEers, but not me. For a very long time, it has been impossible for FEers to answer these questions, due to flaws in the standard FE model. Luckily, I have created a model which I call the Celestial Ocean Theory, which perfectly explains these anomalies in a Flat Earth universe.

2. Crepuscular rays are evidence that the Earth is indeed flat. As of yet, the Round Earthers have no explanation for how crepuscular rays work - I do. Crepuscular rays exist because the Sun is only a few thousand miles above the Earth, which causes a visible differences in the angle of sunlight.

Crepuscular rays are neither evidence for round nor for flat earth. They prove nothing and have been explained several times. Round Earthers do indeed have explanation for these.

3. The Shadow Object causes both Lunar and Solar eclipses. This Shadow object is translucent, but its particles are arranged in oscillate in a way which does allow light of a particular oscillation (i.e Sunlight and Moonlight) to penetrate it. The existence of this object can be proven by looking at declassified and leaked NASA documents, as the government has for a very long time attempted to hide the object's existence.

A link to these documents would help your cause, right now it is just thin air.

Quote from: FLAT_IS_TRUTH on June 26, 2016, 06:53:51 AM

Your questions have baffled many FEers, but not me. For a very long time, it has been impossible for FEers to answer these questions, due to flaws in the standard FE model. Luckily, I have created a model which I call the Celestial Ocean Theory, which perfectly explains these anomalies in a Flat Earth universe.

2. Crepuscular rays are evidence that the Earth is indeed flat. As of yet, the Round Earthers have no explanation for how crepuscular rays work - I do. Crepuscular rays exist because the Sun is only a few thousand miles above the Earth, which causes a visible differences in the angle of sunlight.

Crepuscular rays are neither evidence for round nor for flat earth. They prove nothing and have been explained several times. Round Earthers do indeed have explanation for these.

Quote

3. The Shadow Object causes both Lunar and Solar eclipses. This Shadow object is translucent, but its particles are arranged in oscillate in a way which does allow light of a particular oscillation (i.e Sunlight and Moonlight) to penetrate it. The existence of this object can be proven by looking at declassified and leaked NASA documents, as the government has for a very long time attempted to hide the object's existence.

A link to these documents would help your cause, right now it is just thin air.

correct, the sun's position does not prove either shape, but my explanation proves it's nowhere near where the FE's claim it is

the lunar eclipse proves our shape

they can't be tired of answering those questions, they're irrefutably disproven

1. I don't normally discuss gravity but the travelling upwards theory doesn't work due to it having enough force to put a ball back down but not enough to move smoke, smoke is lighter than a ball, therefore WOULD be affected also

2. angular sun rays you can disprove yourself, go to a beach, see the sun shining on the sea, get on a boat, try to reach the shine
OR
get a friend on a boat, you stay on the beach, you watch him sail past the shine YOU see, then ask him to point a camera towards shore and take a picture, the shine YOU see BETWEEN you and him will NOT be visible on the photo, this is simply because from HIS perspective, it will be behind him
OR
at the beach, travel 10mins up the coast, the sun will seem to follow you, travel back the other way, it will still follow you, it's not localised, the above methods ALL prove it without question

3. the shadow object would without question dim the lights of other stars, but it doesn't, so the dark object theory simply doesn't work, again, it's also not part of the flat earth model

4. they exist, you can see them with your own eyes, if it was part of a GLASS dome, they wouldn't land as rock.. meteors disprove the dome

like I said, I've looked into this for a long time, flat earthers don't agree with each other, depending on how you present evidence, meteors are usually described as man-made, I've only ever heard 3 people use the "god made" firmament breaking off theory, it's quite a new one, demeaning the work of god, as is saying the universe doesn't exist

please note, I'm not offensive, I'm not abusive, I've researched this for around 3yrs, I'm just challenging the proofs flat earthers use as they don't stand up to testing

thanks

1: You are going backwards on this point. As was already explained, smoke and bowling balls would all behave exactly the same on an accelerating Earth. Your smoke example doesn't disprove UA. There are much better arguments for why UA is not a viable replacement for gravity, like the difference in gravity experienced at different points on the Earth. Smoke, though? That won't cut the mustard.

2: A few people on this forum are trying to defend using crepuscular rays as a way of showing the sun is positioned just slightly above the clouds. For a group that champions using "perspective effects" as an explanation for a great number of things (light striking the bottom of clouds near sunrise/sunset, for example), ignoring perspective effects when discussing crepuscular rays would be a pretty dishonest starting position, so I don't think it is a mainstream argument.

3: Other than shadow object and moonshramp, I'm really not sure how eclipses are to be explained. Not that either of those arguments seems to merit being taken seriously. I'm just saying, I haven't heard a good explanation and those 2 seem to be the ones that are mentioned the most.

4: I've sure I have seen someone suggest that they are literally shooting stars. I wish I could quote it here for reference but I can't remember who said it now. Maybe someone else will have a better memory than me and help out.




You seem to think that you have all the answers, though, unless I'm misreading your posts. So I'm curious why you are baiting other people to post wrong answers? Why not just share your thoughts for discussion?

Quote from: Johnorbital on June 26, 2016, 06:53:06 AM

they can't be tired of answering those questions, they're irrefutably disproven

1. I don't normally discuss gravity but the travelling upwards theory doesn't work due to it having enough force to put a ball back down but not enough to move smoke, smoke is lighter than a ball, therefore WOULD be affected also

2. angular sun rays you can disprove yourself, go to a beach, see the sun shining on the sea, get on a boat, try to reach the shine
OR
get a friend on a boat, you stay on the beach, you watch him sail past the shine YOU see, then ask him to point a camera towards shore and take a picture, the shine YOU see BETWEEN you and him will NOT be visible on the photo, this is simply because from HIS perspective, it will be behind him
OR
at the beach, travel 10mins up the coast, the sun will seem to follow you, travel back the other way, it will still follow you, it's not localised, the above methods ALL prove it without question

3. the shadow object would without question dim the lights of other stars, but it doesn't, so the dark object theory simply doesn't work, again, it's also not part of the flat earth model

4. they exist, you can see them with your own eyes, if it was part of a GLASS dome, they wouldn't land as rock.. meteors disprove the dome

like I said, I've looked into this for a long time, flat earthers don't agree with each other, depending on how you present evidence, meteors are usually described as man-made, I've only ever heard 3 people use the "god made" firmament breaking off theory, it's quite a new one, demeaning the work of god, as is saying the universe doesn't exist

please note, I'm not offensive, I'm not abusive, I've researched this for around 3yrs, I'm just challenging the proofs flat earthers use as they don't stand up to testing

thanks

1: You are going backwards on this point. As was already explained, smoke and bowling balls would all behave exactly the same on an accelerating Earth. Your smoke example doesn't disprove UA. There are much better arguments for why UA is not a viable replacement for gravity, like the difference in gravity experienced at different points on the Earth. Smoke, though? That won't cut the mustard.

2: A few people on this forum are trying to defend using crepuscular rays as a way of showing the sun is positioned just slightly above the clouds. For a group that champions using "perspective effects" as an explanation for a great number of things (light striking the bottom of clouds near sunrise/sunset, for example), ignoring perspective effects when discussing crepuscular rays would be a pretty dishonest starting position, so I don't think it is a mainstream argument.

3: Other than shadow object and moonshramp, I'm really not sure how eclipses are to be explained. Not that either of those arguments seems to merit being taken seriously. I'm just saying, I haven't heard a good explanation and those 2 seem to be the ones that are mentioned the most.

4: I've sure I have seen someone suggest that they are literally shooting stars. I wish I could quote it here for reference but I can't remember who said it now. Maybe someone else will have a better memory than me and help out.




You seem to think that you have all the answers, though, unless I'm misreading your posts. So I'm curious why you are baiting other people to post wrong answers? Why not just share your thoughts for discussion?

I'll tell you why, because if you throw loads of info at once, the main points are ignored, it's very hard to get a direct answer from FE's so this is how I've learned to question them

I don't use YouTube, I don't post links or use photos as they're unnecessary

I've done my research for a long time, so yes, I do have MOST of the answers, that's what research does, that's what experiments do, they give you answers

it seems to me that a lot of FE's are in this for ulterior motives.. when I was starting out and someone showed me a picture of the angular sun rays, admittedly I was intrigued, yes, it geometrically looks directly above the clouds, so I tested it, and it failed
BUT
when I explain this to FE's, I'm normally accused of being brainwashed and closed minded, I'm then usually blocked so I can no longer reply

so yes, I'll ask a question, await an answer (as they vary so much), then explain thoroughly my evidences

I'm the first to admit when I don't know something or if I'm wrong

to be honest, with the information I've got, I don't expect to be allowed on here for long, cognitive dissonance is very high amongst flat earthers.. you never see globe guys blocking people or refusing to answer

as far as I can see, the flat earth model has been proven wrong without question, I'm unsure as to why the highest up have not informed their "followers" of the evidence contradicting the whole theory, I'd also like to know who decides on accepted theories and why they're not cross examining evidence

thanks

Shalom and welcome to the trenches OP.

Shalom and welcome to the trenches OP.

thank you very kindly

to be honest, with the information I've got, I don't expect to be allowed on here for long, cognitive dissonance is very high amongst flat earthers.. you never see globe guys blocking people or refusing to answer

as far as I can see, the flat earth model has been proven wrong without question, I'm unsure as to why the highest up have not informed their "followers" of the evidence contradicting the whole theory, I'd also like to know who decides on accepted theories and why they're not cross examining evidence

thanks

Dude, there's very little that will get you kicked off this forum for more than a day or two. Srsly, just read the fucking rules.  You may think you are the first person to arrive here with all the answers, but you are sadly mistaken.

The Flat Earth Society is a society of free thinkers. Even if our fearless leader logged onto the forum and told us to give it up, we wouldn't be expected to obey. There's no central FE govt deciding which theories are accepted, this is not the way of zeteticism.

Quote from: Johnorbital on June 26, 2016, 07:44:31 AM

to be honest, with the information I've got, I don't expect to be allowed on here for long, cognitive dissonance is very high amongst flat earthers.. you never see globe guys blocking people or refusing to answer

as far as I can see, the flat earth model has been proven wrong without question, I'm unsure as to why the highest up have not informed their "followers" of the evidence contradicting the whole theory, I'd also like to know who decides on accepted theories and why they're not cross examining evidence

thanks

Dude, there's very little that will get you kicked off this forum for more than a day or two. Srsly, just read the fucking rules.  You may think you are the first person to arrive here with all the answers, but you are sadly mistaken.

The Flat Earth Society is a society of free thinkers. Even if our fearless leader logged onto the forum and told us to give it up, we wouldn't be expected to obey. There's no central FE govt deciding which theories are accepted, this is not the way of zeteticism.

so if I'm not the first with the answers then why do people still believe it?

the evidence has been given, I don't understand

I'm most definitely a free thinker, I was told about the flat earth theory so I did my research, research brings answers, evidence cannot just be ignored

The Flat Earth Society is a society of free thinkers.

Well, you're not free to think the earth is a globe.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 26, 2016, 01:10:53 PM

The Flat Earth Society is a society of free thinkers.

Well, you're not free to think the earth is a globe.

You are, though! No one has kicked you off the forum for being a crabby round earther.

A variant of Godwin's Law states that as an internet discussion increases in length, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler approaches 1.

Now feels like a good time to do so.

Round Earthers like to stifle free speech like Hitler did.

A variant of Godwin's Law states that as an internet discussion increases in length, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler approaches 1.

Now feels like a good time to do so.

Round Earthers like to stifle free speech like Hitler did.

not that it's of any relevance to my op, but in what way?

I've never witnessed anything like that

any input on my post?

I'm sick of getting conflicting information from places like Facebook and YouTube

How did they respond to your complaints?

Hitler already? Why? Just because? I think most of the REers on this forum are happy to exercise free speech and happy with FEers exercise free speech in return. There are definitely some ass hats, but they are mostly trolls and don't really deserve much attention.

Quote from: Johnorbital on June 26, 2016, 02:01:26 AM

I'm sick of getting conflicting information from places like Facebook and YouTube

How did they respond to your complaints?

If what I've seen from YouTube comments in the past is any indication, I would have to assume they responded with great patience and understanding.

No model of Flat Earth can be experimentally proven to be anywhere near as accurate as the Spherical model.  Most of Flat Earth claims are rather fanciful and rely on you thinking there is some large worldwide conspiracy that has the power to hide all the evidence of Flat Earth.  They have the power to make you think the stars look like they are moving a certain way across the sky, just to hide their "agenda".  They have the power to fake video evidence so well and at a speed unfathomable to any mere mortal could, not even the best CGI facilities in the world could create at the pace that the evil NASA people put out.  See how silly that seems.  No?  Well if you can stomach the all powerful conspiracy masters, by all means drink the koolaid.
If it is not able to be experimentally proven or disproven, then it is not worth debating.