What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?The points claimed are:
There are several readily apparent proofs of the planets flatness. The horizon always rises to meet eye level - which is impossible on a ball earth. The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case. There is no visible curvature to the horizon even from airplanes. We don't even have a full shot of the Earth rotating from space! One almost has to ask - is there any real evidence the Earth is a Globe?
Our Library also has a great selection of books that further detail proof of the planar Earth.
Lets see you debunk #2.
No, just go ahead and launch into your tirade.I said "my tuppence worth" but I fail to see any evidence from you.
Lets see you debunk #2.Something is certainly hiding that farther ship:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pf2vbx9jx9pgext/Flat%20Earth%20Conference%20Debunked%20-%C2%A0Ship%20behind%20horizon%20%231.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6lrrty8ttngd96/Flat%20Earth%20Conference%20Debunked%20-%C2%A0Ship%20behind%20horizon%20%232.jpg?dl=1) |
The worthless lying sacks of shit try to equate level with flat.Lets see you debunk #2.
Not so much of a debunk, more of a clarification. Mostly with the second sentence:
"2. The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case."
Why? If the earth is a spinning globe and obeys the laws of gravity, then most everything is held in place, water as well. Not a mystery and quite well explained by the RE model.
No, just go ahead and launch into your tirade.You twisted my arm.
In a recent thread I asked what evidence the FES has that the earth is flat and was told to look in the FAQ, OK:There is plenty of evidence that the horizon falls below "eye-level" (meaning the local horizontal) as the altitude of the observer increases.
The FAQ at FAQ:: The Flat Earth Society (https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society/faq) answers it this way:Quote from: The Flat Earth Society FAQWhat Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?The points claimed are:
There are several readily apparent proofs of the planets flatness. The horizon always rises to meet eye level - which is impossible on a ball earth. The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case. There is no visible curvature to the horizon even from airplanes. We don't even have a full shot of the Earth rotating from space! One almost has to ask - is there any real evidence the Earth is a Globe?
Our Library also has a great selection of books that further detail proof of the planar Earth.
1) The horizon always rises to meet eye level - which is impossible on a ball earth.
Flat Earth vs Globe - Sunset and Full Moon Rise both below eye level at 45,000 ft. Wolfie6020 | The Moon is below eye level when at 49,000 ft. Wolfie6020 | Flat Earth vs Globe; Another Ocean Sunrise - more evidence of Horizon Drop Wolfie6020 |
2) The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case.This statement shows a lack of understanding of the meaning of "level" nevertheless the linked post,
3) There is no visible curvature to the horizon even from airplanes.The earth is so large that even at 40,000 ft there is little curve to the horizon and from that altitude the horizon is quite blurred.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/m2yefoccbw58u7w/THE%20CURVE%21%20Two%20Flat%20Earth%20Claims%20Easily%20Shot%20down%20-%20Ground%20Level.jpg?dl=1) THE CURVE! Two Flat Earth Claims Easily Shot down - Ground Level | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/d8y8bznet8nqg7x/THE%20CURVE%21%20Two%20Flat%20Earth%20Claims%20Easily%20Shot%20down%20-%20Horizon%20Drop%20and%20Slight%20Curve%20%20at%20almost%2037%2C000%20ft.jpg?dl=1) THE CURVE! Two Flat Earth Claims Easily Shot down - Horizon Drop and Slight Curve at almost 37,000 ft |
4) We don't even have a full shot of the Earth rotating from space!That might have been true when that FAQ was written, though even then there were many full hemisphere photos, with the most well-known being:
Then adds, "One almost has to ask - is there any real evidence the Earth is a Globe?"Yes, there is plenty of "real evidence the Earth is a Globe" and unless photos from space are all "part of the conspiracy ::)" there is direct photographic evidence of the Globe rotation.
"One almost has to ask - is there any real evidence the Earth is a Globe?"
I didn't read the whole thread yet, but I can say that I've seen the horizon break with a land bridge connecting to a "higher" up horizon with an apparent mirror (the lower horizon) separating the two. Short answer, i'm personnaly not convinced, but i believe the mainstream answer comes across as acceptable in the right circumstances.Weird things can hapen near the horizon, especially but not always over water, can be caused by air temperature variations near the surface.
There is unlimited evidence of "ships disappearing" but there are many complicating factors from viewing height and waves to refraction, looming (more extreme refraction), mirages (reflection often with inversion) and Fata Morgana (multiple reflections) etc.And try this for a weird sunrise:
Refraction, looming, mirages and Fata Morgana all are real and all do occur from time to time.On the left two the "reflection line" is marked and I'm not at all sure where the "true horizon" might be.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/qm4wxv0ebm3lj71/Red%20Ship%20with%20Mirage.jpg?dl=1)
Red Ship with Mirage (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0oeff7hm5vflht9/Boats%20disappear%20over%20horizon%20proof%20of%20curvature%20-%20DEBUNKED%2C%20DEBUNKED.jpg?dl=1)
Boats disappear over horizon proof of curvature - DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED (http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/floating-Ghost-Boat-580x319.png)
And how do you like a :o "flying boat"? :o
One real problem is that people tend to photograph unusual events, like the above mirages and ignore the mundane.
Though numerous people have seen and photographed similar things, often with a telescopic lens.
Flat Earth or Globe - Time-lapse of a ship departing Perth Australia
Wolfie6020
the Earth is round Mila Zinkova
Globular fools! Deceived FE researchers! Do not be misled! Gravity is real! Samuel Rowbotham himself has attested to that reality. Have none of ye read Zetetic Astronomy? Page 64, beneath Figure 22. He explicitly references "the force of gravity[!!!]" in one of his many proofs of the flatness of the Earth. If Rowbotham could figure this out in 1865, then how is it that we still argue the point today? How dare ye contradict the father of our movement himself‽ Denpressure is a strawman invented by NASA to make Flat Earth look like a joke. But we are not a joke, and we understand how gravity truly works. Just read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe! for yerselves. Honestly, if more people did, we wouldn't all be here. I pray that Dr. Tyson doesn't catch on and burn it.
Ow contrere, my spherical friend. That's just what NASA wants us to think. A Flat Earth and the Universal Law of Gravitation are in fact fully compatible for the fields we observe. If we approximate the Earth as an infinite slab of rock, then taking the density of rock as about 2.5×103 kg⋅m-3 and the Gravitational Constant as 6.67×10-11 kg-1⋅m3⋅s-2, a quick application of Gauss's Law for gravity shows that g = 2πGρ/D = 1.0×10-6 s-2. Plug in 9.81 m⋅s-2 and you'll find that a slab 107 m or 10 000 km (half the radius of the known world) describes observations quite nicely, with some variations here or there probably due to imperfections in the density of the slab, not dissimilar to the deviations from precise expectations of the gravitational field of an ellipsoid in Round Earth Theory.
The logical question, then, is what happens at the edges. It's impossible to say; the edges could be held in equilibrium by some supermassive rotating ring, they could go on forever, they could be crumbling as we speak, tearing toward our world at an unknown pace, or physics could just be different near the edge. Our observations of the area in which we live, though, hold up quite nicely, as long as we assume that there is a sufficient amount of rock beyond The Great Ice Wall.
Ow contrere, my spherical friend. That's just what NASA wants us to think. A Flat Earth and the Universal Law of Gravitation are in fact fully compatible for the fields we observe. If we approximate the Earth as an infinite slab of rock, then taking the density of rock as about 2.5×103 kg⋅m-3 and the Gravitational Constant as 6.67×10-11 kg-1⋅m3⋅s-2, a quick application of Gauss's Law for gravity shows that g = 2πGρ/D = 1.0×10-6 s-2. Plug in 9.81 m⋅s-2 and you'll find that a slab 107 m or 10 000 km (half the radius of the known world) describes observations quite nicely, with some variations here or there probably due to imperfections in the density of the slab, not dissimilar to the deviations from precise expectations of the gravitational field of an ellipsoid in Round Earth Theory.Au contraire, mon bon ami plat!
The logical question, then, is what happens at the edges. It's impossible to say; the edges could be held in equilibrium by some supermassive rotating ring, they could go on forever, they could be crumbling as we speak, tearing toward our world at an unknown pace, or physics could just be different near the edge. Our observations of the area in which we live, though, hold up quite nicely, as long as we assume that there is a sufficient amount of rock beyond The Great Ice Wall.What "Great Ice Wall"?
(http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/MapSatellite/RadarSatAntarOverlay.jpg) A composite image from the RadarSat satellite. I got this large image file from the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks |
Au contraire, mon bon ami plat!
The strength of the gravitational field does not vary with altitude above you infinite plane earth.
You do, however, presumably postulate that the the sun, moon, planets and stars all circle above the earth.
What holds them up there in this gravitational field? Why would the sun not crash down onto the earth in a few minutes?
What "Great Ice Wall"?Mayhaps "Ice Wall" is pedantically incorrect. Few doubt the existence of the landmass commonly known as Antarctica, which is certainly above sea level—high enough to keep the oceans in. It's merely a question of whether it is concave or convex, and on the same note, how big it is. Few claim to have successfully crossed it, and a great many have died in the crossing. Whether this is due to Government interference or mere environmental hazards is near impossible to say. Those who have successfully crossed it likely either were mistaken in their navigation, were paid off by the World Government, or were captured transported and mind-wiped. In any case, no one has ever claimed to have found anything beyond Antarctica, nor any edge that has not turned out to be North-facing.
The one that isn't in the photos in: Flat Earth Debate / Re: My complaints about the ice wall « Message by rabinoz on October 17, 2018, 03:12:21 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78074.msg2109341;topicseen#msg2109341).
Maybe you could show just where this "Great Ice Wall" is on this image of Antarctica created from radar data?
As to the logical question of what happens at the edges, I suppose no one knows. However, humanity's observations have shown that there is no "edge". Now if you have evidence that there is an edge, I'm willing to be wrong. But in the mean time all evidence/observations to date show no edge. Quite simply, I can fly, as many people do on a daily basis, due west from LA to Hong Kong and never encounter an edge. Just one example.
That's never stopped you flat-Earthers in the past.Au contraire, mon bon ami plat!
The strength of the gravitational field does not vary with altitude above you infinite plane earth.
You do, however, presumably postulate that the the sun, moon, planets and stars all circle above the earth.
What holds them up there in this gravitational field? Why would the sun not crash down onto the earth in a few minutes?
Indeed, it does not! It does on a spherical Earth, but such variations are far too slight and distant to be observed directly by most, and those who claim to have been so high are few and wealthy enough that anything they say is suspect.
As to the sun, moon, planets and stars, obviously we can't say for certain, but they're probably fixed on a solid object, such as the oft-postulated Dome. They must have some mechanical connection to each other in order to drive the careful precision with which the seasons run. I have the beginnings of a plausible gear configuration, but considering the bad practice of publishing theories before the maths are worked out, I'll spare you the grisly details.
Surely your not seriously claiming that when there are so many "adventurers", many amateurs, that have crossed Antarctica from coast to coast by land (well ice and snow) in vehicles and even with dog-sled and by air.What "Great Ice Wall"?Mayhaps "Ice Wall" is pedantically incorrect. Few doubt the existence of the landmass commonly known as Antarctica, which is certainly above sea level—high enough to keep the oceans in. It's merely a question of whether it is concave or convex, and on the same note, how big it is. Few claim to have successfully crossed it, and a great many have died in the crossing.
The one that isn't in the photos in: Flat Earth Debate / Re: My complaints about the ice wall « Message by rabinoz on October 17, 2018, 03:12:21 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78074.msg2109341;topicseen#msg2109341).
Maybe you could show just where this "Great Ice Wall" is on this image of Antarctica created from radar data?
Whether this is due to Government interference or mere environmental hazards is near impossible to say. Those who have successfully crossed it likely either were mistaken in their navigation, were paid off by the World Government, or were captured transported and mind-wiped. In any case, no one has ever claimed to have found anything beyond Antarctica, nor any edge that has not turned out to be North-facing.Stop claiming pure conjecture as evidence! I though that you objected to publishing hypotheses before you had evidence but here you go posting pure unsupported imagination.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5110wqptw5dnq1s/Flat%20Earth%20Bi-polar%20map%20-%201272.png?dl=1) FE Bipolar Map Promoted by Tom Bishop | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5x9b1gq3l18h1u9/Azimuthal%20Map%20Northern%20Hemiplane.png?dl=1) DET Map Northern Hemiplane Promoted by | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ys43mw3xhg6xgor/Azimuthal%20Map%20Southern%20Hemiplane.png?dl=1) JRoweskepticDET Map Southern Hemiplane | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/pyviizp8ta99mui/Sandokhan%27s%20True%20Flat%20Earth%20Map.png?dl=1) Sandokhan's "True" Flat Earth Map |
That's never stopped you flat-Earthers in the past.
It didn't even stop Rowbotham's assumption that the the earth is a disc centred on the North Pole when he had only the vaguest idea about anything outside England, let alone the Southern Hemisphere.
If you want a blatant example of this read his MOTION OF STARS NORTH AND SOUTH. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm). I know first hand that his basic premise is totally incorrect.
Not only that but his ideas about circumpolar stars is simply wrong.
Surely your not seriously claiming that when there are so many "adventurers", many amateurs, that have crossed Antarctica from coast to coast by land (well ice and snow) in vehicles and even with dog-sled and by air.You don't understand it yet, do you? Those so-called Flat Earthers are all agents of the Reptilluminati, paid or coerced into spouting such nonsense. There is no question about it. Antarctica is concave. And it's HUGE!
I won't bother with the evidence here but plenty has been given, some in the thread Is Antarctica a ring around the earth or an island continent?
Stop claiming pure conjecture as evidence! I though that you objected to publishing hypotheses before you had evidence but here you go posting pure unsupported imagination.
Next you'll be claiming that Admiral Richard Byrd's seeing all this land "past the South Pole" as evidence.
Quite a number of flat earthers, including, at least, Tom Bishop and Sandokhan on this site recognise Antarctica as an island continent.
They realise that there is abundant evidence for a South Pole as a single point and for a South Celestial Pole about which the stars appear to rotate clockwise. I can see that by looking due south on any clear night.
And an erstwhile member, JRoweskeptic, saw the earth as laid out as two planes:
So many of you Northern-Hemisphericans are so totally ignorant of things things south f the equator. Go back to school!
You don't understand it yet, do you? Those so-called Flat Earthers are all agents of the Reptilluminati, paid or coerced into spouting such nonsense. There is no question about it. Antarctica is concave. And it's HUGE!Incorrect there are plenty of questions about you ;D concave Antarctica ;D and absulutely no evidence for it.
Well you know better then!So many of you Northern-Hemisphericans are so totally ignorant of things things south of the equator. Go back to school!I'll have you know, sir, that I am currently in school. In the Southern Annulus. I'm studying design at the Universidad de Belgrano in Buenos Aires as we speak.
I've seen this so-called Celestial South Pole of which you speak. A hologram, plain and simple. You roundies are far too gullible. I expect nothing less from you extraterrestrial noncorporeal shapeshifting vampiric reptillian-human hybrids.You mean these things?
I know one thing...this is most certainly as real as those really bad....and i mean really bad globe pics rabinoz posts time and time again.....(https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.002/id01502/article0_1064x.jpg)
Northern view. The Northern pole is the center of the circles made by the stars due to the Earth rotation and is located on the horizon. (http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-North-1200x800-cp8.jpg) | Western view. On the Equator line, the stars set vertically to the West (and rise vertically to the East) (http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-West-1200x800-cp8.jpg) | Southern view, Southern pole is the center of the circles made by the stars due to the Earth rotation and is located on the horizon. A bright meteor left its "footprint" on the picture near the Southern pole. (http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-South-1200x800-cp8.jpg) |
You don't understand it yet, do you?
A Flat Earth and the Universal Law of Gravitation are in fact fully compatible for the fields we observe.If that was true at best you get to the point of this one aspect working, assuming FE is infinite.
In a recent thread I asked what evidence the FES has that the earth is flat ...
I was going to post this but thought it might be more entertaining to see if there is any response from the flatardians ;).
So, I'll send you the (unproofread) material I was going to post.
From someone else who finds the ignorance of Saint Samuel of Rowbotham quite entertaining.
PS All it needs to prove the Heliocentric Globe is Newton's Laws and a simple observation of day-and-night.
The post:Globular fools! Deceived FE researchers! Do not be misled! Gravity is real! Samuel Rowbotham himself has attested to that reality. Have none of ye read Zetetic Astronomy? Page 64, beneath Figure 22. He explicitly references "the force of gravity[!!!]" in one of his many proofs of the flatness of the Earth.I have to assume your post is a spoof. Samuel Rowbotham might have "explicitly references 'the force of gravity[!!!]' " but he obviously never had the slightest understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion or of Universal Gravitation.
The figure number I have is
Look at his diagram!QuoteIF a ball is allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship at rest, it will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment is tried with a ship in motion, the same result will follow; because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion; and the other, the force of gravity, the direction of which is at right angles to that of the momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together, will not go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 46.His explanation is wishy-washy but not far off but his claiming that the ball "will take a diagonal course" is quite wrong!(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig46.jpg)p. 63
FIG. 46.
The ball passing from A to C, by the force of gravity, and having, at the moment of its liberation, received a momentum from the moving ship in the direction A, B, will, by the conjoint action of the two forces A, B, and A, C, take the direction A, D, falling at D, just as it would have fallen at C, had the vessel remained at rest.
Then on p. 64:QuoteNow let the experiment shown in fig. 46 be modified in the following way:--
Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. . . . . . . Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig47.jpg)because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, H; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; but during its fall towards H, the ship will have passed on to the position S, leaving the ball at H, a given distance behind it.
fig. 47
And here Rowbotham shows his total ignorance in the "Laws of Motion" by saying "the two forces will have been expended".
No forces have "been expended ::)".
Sure, gravity has reduced the vertical component to zero but the horizontal component is essentially unchanged and the ball would follow a parabolic path and land back at the bottom of the just as it would were the ship stationary.
Air resistance would affect the result very slightly.Quote from: thereisnogravityIf Rowbotham could figure this out in 1865, then how is it that we still argue the point today?Possibly because Rowbotham here and in many other places proves his total ignorance in such matters.Quote from: thereisnogravityHow dare ye contradict the father of our movement himself‽Probably because few flat-earthers have any idea of what their great prophet wrote.Quote from: thereisnogravityDenpressure is a strawman invented by NASA to make Flat Earth look like a joke.No, Denpressure is a ridiculous substitute for gravity a lots of other things invented by Sceptimatic, on our moreinfamous members. See:Denpressure...this is my new word to describe happenings from your so called INERTIA.I don't know understand how he connects gravity and INERTIA but nobody understands how Sceppy's mind works :D.
What is it?
It's a name to describe what happens to any dense object in an atmospheric pressured environment.
Ok, over to you. Pick holes in it.Quote from: thereisnogravityBut we are not a joke ;D, and we understand how gravity truly works. Just read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe! for yerselves. Honestly, if more people did, we wouldn't all be here. I pray that Dr. Tyson doesn't catch on and burn it.I think if Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe! he'd ROFL ;D!
Note: NSFFEers ;)
Just as a way of closing this part of the thread,
before there were any replies to thereisnogravity's OP I sent this PM in the belief, with no evidence ;) that it was all a spoof.
Note: NSFFEers ;)
Just as a way of closing this part of the thread,
before there were any replies to thereisnogravity's OP I sent this PM in the belief, with no evidence ;) that it was all a spoof.
I made it all the way to "Reptilluminati" before I figured it out.
But my question is: Who is or was thereisnogravity, Flat Earth Researcher?I made it all the way to "Reptilluminati" before I figured it out.
His "how dare YE.." in his first post. The "ye"ing and "father of our movement". Damn too obvious. Funny AF too.
But my question is: Who is or was thereisnogravity, Flat Earth Researcher?I made it all the way to "Reptilluminati" before I figured it out.
His "how dare YE.." in his first post. The "ye"ing and "father of our movement". Damn too obvious. Funny AF too.
Any suggestions? John Davis, JRoa, AKA Son of Osporu or a couple of others I could suggest.
Certainly not I. I have had one PM from thereisnogravity but had no hint of who he really is/was.But my question is: Who is or was thereisnogravity, Flat Earth Researcher?I made it all the way to "Reptilluminati" before I figured it out.
His "how dare YE.." in his first post. The "ye"ing and "father of our movement". Damn too obvious. Funny AF too.
Any suggestions? John Davis, JRoa, AKA Son of Osporu or a couple of others I could suggest.
I'm going the other way - I think it was someone jabbing at FET by putting every conceivable theory into a couple of posts. Ergo, thereisnogravity is Rabinoz (or maybe Stash).
But are you suggesting that John Davis and JRoa, AKA Son of Osporu are "real FEers" ;)? just a guess but 'nuff said.Hmmm, good point, hadn't thought of this angle.
Wonder no more, my misled ballers. I shall reveal my identity to the public shortly. But first, I am off on the quest of my life: investigating the Great Ice Wall for myself. Ye keep telling us to get our own evidence. If ye don't hear from me, then I have perished at the hands of the Reptillians. Adoo.If you don't meet your demise at "the hands of those Reptillian" perimeter guards those bioengineered penguin storm-troopers will get you for sure!
Wonder no more, my misled ballers. I shall reveal my identity to the public shortly. But first, I am off on the quest of my life: investigating the Great Ice Wall for myself. Ye keep telling us to get our own evidence. If ye don't hear from me, then I have perished at the hands of the Reptillians. Adoo.If you don't meet your demise at "the hands of those Reptillian" perimeter guards those bioengineered penguin storm-troopers will get you for sure!
And we seem to have known you such a short time, though in some curious way it seems like years. Déjà vu all over again I guess.
Au revoir mais pas adieu. I hate farewells.
PS :'( Who do we send the flowers to :'(?
Sure, butdo you know thereisnogravity's next-of-kin? That's assuming he has some ;) and isn't a clone or alt.Wonder no more, my misled ballers. I shall reveal my identity to the public shortly. But first, I am off on the quest of my life: investigating the Great Ice Wall for myself. Ye keep telling us to get our own evidence. If ye don't hear from me, then I have perished at the hands of the Reptillians. Adoo.If you don't meet your demise at "the hands of those Reptillian" perimeter guards those bioengineered penguin storm-troopers will get you for sure!
And we seem to have known you such a short time, though in some curious way it seems like years. Déjà vu all over again I guess.
Au revoir mais pas adieu. I hate farewells.
PS :'( Who do we send the flowers to :'(?
To the person he wants them sent, obviously. ::)