The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Shaydawg on June 10, 2008, 09:46:48 AM
-
FE'rs have done a good job of trying to point out holes in physics and scientific findings I will give you that. I will even concede that your argument is well thought out on many many levels and is not as quirky and crazy as most are going to think upon first hearing about it.
It is just the absurdity of not having any proof of something and saying "it's a conspiracy" which makes any solid research you have found look invalid.
Sorry but "it's a conspiracy" is not an answer that holds any weight in any reasonable or intelligible argument.
If you put any thought as to how lame it is to use such an argument you would agree. If it was a valid argument then no one would ever go to jail (in America) for a crime. You could present all the evidence in the world against someones claim of innocence and they would just have to say that it is a set up and conspiracy to convict them. Any argument or proof that you throw at them in a court of law could be disputed with a "conspiracy". But it isnt.
So answers such as these dont hold water and should be dropped from your defense of FE.
Government
Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"
A: A Conspiracy among world Governments claiming to have space programs has disseminated the lie to the other governments of the world, as well as to the media and the general public.
Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"
A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.
Q: "Why has no-one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"
A: The government prevents people from getting close enough to the Ice Wall to take a picture.
Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"
A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead
I can prove anything I want to prove if I use "conspiracy" as an argument. For instance, I can tell you that the entire world revolves around me. My entire exisitence is a game I must win. "God" put me here to win the game of life and everyone outside of myself is in on it but cant tell me they know. Prove me wrong. You cant say "well, Im not part of the conspiracy" to me because I will just say that you are part of it and are programmed not to tell me you are. Sounds lame doesnt it?
So, go about your arguments from physics, math, and science but please take out the ridiculousness that is a "conspiracy". I dont mind reading and listening to the debates on the grounds of scientific or physical proof, but every time I see a RE making good solid points I see another FE using the "conspiracy" argument to try and prove themselves correct. Sorry, again, you have proved nothing if you are using that as your basis of proof. It is speculation.
-
It is quite simple really.
[1] Observational data imply the Earth is Flat;
[2] Space agancies get money for projects that can only work if the Earth is round
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence:
[3] Space agencies are not telling the truth, i.e. they are lying.
From The Free dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy)
con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
- 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
- 2. A group of conspirators.
- 3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
- 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
-
It is quite simple really.
[1] Observational data imply the Earth is Flat;
[2] Space agancies get money for projects that can only work if the Earth is round
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence:
[3] Space agencies are not telling the truth, i.e. they are lying.
From The Free dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy)
con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
- 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
- 2. A group of conspirators.
- 3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
- 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
Wrong
You would have to have valid evidence to prove this. You cant just call something you dont have any proof of a "conspiracy".
If you had actual proof of the government conspiring against the human population then it would be best to list these "proofs" in the FAQ instead of just claiming it to be conspiracy.
Again, prove to me that the world does not revolve around me and that I was not put here to win a game. My answer will be a simple "its a conspiracy" and you will think I am an idiot because I dont have any factual or provable evidence to back up my claim. Again, it holds no water.
NASA has evidence of space exploration. It is up to you to disprove that evidence with actual facts. Not to just claim it to be a conspiracy.
-
What's the simplest explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that they really can't do all of that stuff and it's all just a lie?
So you see, since you claim that NASA can do all of these wonderful, miraculous, unthinkable things which come straight from a science fiction novella, the burden of proof is on you to prove it to us.
-
To ellaborate:
- Observational evidence points to the conclusion of a flat earth.
- There are instances when there is "evidence" of a round earth that contradict a flat earth (e.g. photos).
- This "evidence" that contradicts what one observes is obviously fraudulent.
From there you just have to look at how rampant this "evidence" is (e.g. photos etc.) and it becomes more likely that there is a collaborative effort (rather than independent hoaxes for example), as this collaborative effort is secretive (unless you can provide evidence of the collaboration for us) then this by its very nature is a conspiracy.
-
What's the simplest explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that they really can't do all of that stuff and it's all just a Conspiracy?
So you see, since you claim that NASA can do all of these wonderful, miraculous, unthinkable things which come straight from a science fiction book, the burden of proof is on you to prove it to us.
Wrong again.
They claim they have done it yes. We have eye witness testimony that says they have. They have scientific evidence and physical evidence that says they have.
The burden still remains on you to prove they did not do it. Sorry, again "it's a conspiracy" is not proof of anything.
Just as if someone said they saw me commit a murder with their own eyes and even presented the bloody knife I used to commit the crime and yet all I said was "its a conspiracy" against me, I did not do it. They are lying and the knife was not mine. I have to PROVE that I really did not do it. Just saying it is conspiracy holds no weight.
I am not arguing that you may find flaws in NASA's claims. I am not arguing the earth is flat or round. I am arguing that saying "it is a conspiracy" is not factual proof or evidence of anything.
The burden lies on you to prove the conspiracy, not just claim it.
Show me your detractors that have validified your claim. Give me documentation of such a claim. Anything is better then a "conspiracy" answer.
-
More like:
- There are heaps of evidence that support a Round Earth and go against a Flat Earth (e.g. photos).
- There is a small amount of observational evidence pointing to the conclusion of a flat earth.
- This "evidence" that contradicts what one observes is wrong, probably because of bias/incompetence in the observers.
-
The burden still remains on you to prove they did not do it.
Nope.
I'm not the one claiming that NASA can blast off into space in rocket ships and travel between worlds here. You are.
The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim. So where is your proof that NASA can do all of these ground-breaking things?
-
What's the simplest explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch
Actually, the entire apollo program from start to finish cost a grant total of 19 billion dollars, not trillion.
to send massive payloads into space,
Why not? Independently made simulators can verify that NASA's rockets are fully capable of putting massive payloads into orbit. There's nothing inconsistent about their side of the story.
and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis,
Actually, the above shows it to be entirely possible (given a RE, but of course, that's your probelm with it).
win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars;
While they may have "wowed" the nation during your generation, I'm afraid to say that the current youtube/myspace generation generally doesn't care.
or that they really can't do all of that stuff and it's all just a Conspiracy?
Let's see how hard the latter option is:
Nearly half a million people worked on the apollo program. If it was a conspiracy that's half a million conspirators, and not a single leak, even from disgruntled fired employees nor are there any deathbed confessions 30 years later. Couple that with the insurmountable difficulty of creating the illusion of weightlessness on video for long periods of time and you have an even less likely option than the actual moon landing.
-
To ellaborate:
- Observational evidence points to the conclusion of a flat earth.
- There are instances when there is "evidence" of a round earth that contradict a flat earth (e.g. photos).
- This "evidence" that contradicts what one observes is obviously fraudulent.
From there you just have to look at how rampant this "evidence" is (e.g. photos etc.) and it becomes more likely that there is a collaborative effort (rather than independent hoaxes for example), as this collaborative effort is secretive (unless you can provide evidence of the collaboration for us) then this by its very nature is a conspiracy.
Nope. You have to prove to me that with actual evidence there is a collaboration.
Again, I am not arguing whether or not the earth is round. I am aruging that you do not have proof of such an elloborate conspiracy. The observational evidence I have has been shown to me by NASA whom I trust is not conspiring to deceive me. I trust that the photo's they have shown me are correct. You have no factual evidence to prove your claim. You cant prove to me the pictures are fake or at least you havent.
The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.
-
The burden still remains on you to prove they did not do it.
Nope.
I'm not the one claiming that NASA can blast off into space in rocket ships and travel between worlds here. You are.
The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim. So where is your proof that NASA can do all of these ground-breaking things?
I know I've shown you photos of the space station and space shuttle in orbit, tracked by a telescope that finds them exactly where and when they should appear in the sky according to their orbit (and I'm hoping to get another photo tonight if the weather is good, which it probably won't be >:(), but you refuse to accept the proof. Why bother to prove it to you if your dogma prevents you from having an open mind about it?
-
The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.
You're the one claiming ridiculous things here. You're claiming that NASA can build space ships and send space men beyond the earth to explore the great unknown mysteries of the universe. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.
-
The burden still remains on you to prove they did not do it.
Nope.
I'm not the one claiming that NASA can blast off into space in rocket ships and travel between worlds here. You are.
The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim. So where is your proof that NASA can do all of these ground-breaking things?
NASA claimed they have done all those things, not me. They have people that work there or that claim it to be true. I actually know people who have worked there, doctors in physics, who vouch for the validity of space exploration and the science that backs up their claims.
The burden lies upon you to prove to the rest of us that they are collaborating and conspiring against the human population.
Again, I claim the earth revolves around me and that everyone on earth is conspiring against me because that is what I have observed with my own eyes. It is not up to you to prove me wrong. It is up to me to prove myself correct. Which I cant do with evidence but I can sure do it with a simple conspiracy theory.
And you would think I was insane.
Please list the detractors you have on record claiming they worked for the government and or NASA who say they are tricking us all into believing the earth is flat. I just need a list with credentials is all.
-
NASA claimed they have done all those things, not me. They have people that work there or that claim it to be true. I actually know people who have worked there, doctors in physics, who vouch for the validity of space exploration and the science that backs up their claims.
An appeal to authority is a fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
-
The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.
Sorry but you are wrong.
We measure the Earth and find it to be flat. We assume a conspiracy is a likely explanation for certain social phenomena (people claiming the Earth is round). This has nothing to do with our evidence about the Earth being flat. It is a result of our claim, not supporting our claim.
You do not measure the Earth, and try to use certain social phenomena as evidence. In other words, you are using the lack of conspiracy as evidence to support your claim of a round earth. We deny that evidence, so the burden is entirely on you to either (a) provide evidence that said conspiracy cannot exist, or (b) talk about the shape of the Earth directly, instead of drawing conclusions based on authority figures.
-
From the link
"This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject....
.....this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context"
You're going to have to provide some evidence that NASA is not a legitimate authority.
-
NASA claimed they have done all those things, not me. They have people that work there or that claim it to be true. I actually know people who have worked there, doctors in physics, who vouch for the validity of space exploration and the science that backs up their claims.
An appeal to authority is a fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
That is completely out of context of what I am saying.
That would mean that every time you, which I see it all the time reading your posts, refer to the forefathers of FET and refer people to a book which backs up your claim is a fallacy as well.
Sorry but refering to the scientific research of others is not a fallacy. Relying on experts in a field of study to gather information is not a fallacy.
If it was then they would not allow "expert" analysis in a court of law. We would never be able to prove anything unless we did the research ourselves.
-
The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.
Sorry but you are wrong.
We measure the Earth and find it to be flat. We assume a conspiracy is a likely explanation for certain social phenomena (people claiming the Earth is round). This has nothing to do with our evidence about the Earth being flat. It is a result of our claim, not supporting our claim.
You do not measure the Earth, and try to use certain social phenomena as evidence. In other words, you are using the lack of conspiracy as evidence to support your claim of a round earth. We deny that evidence, so the burden is entirely on you to either (a) provide evidence that said conspiracy cannot exist, or (b) talk about the shape of the Earth directly, instead of drawing conclusions based on authority figures.
You need to learn to read and comprehend. I specifically said that I was not arguing for or against the earth being flat. I am just arguing that the claim of "conspiracy" is not a valid point and should be taken out of the FAQ section.
If you have actual proof of such a conspiracy then replace that evidence with the "it's a conspiracy" garbage.
-
You don't get it Shaydawg. For the Earth to be flat there simply must be a conspiracy. If you don't like it then there's nothing anyone can do.
-
An appeal to authority is a fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
So why do you keep citing "Earth not a Globe"?
-
The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.
Sorry but you are wrong.
We measure the Earth and find it to be flat. We assume a conspiracy is a likely explanation for certain social phenomena (people claiming the Earth is round). This has nothing to do with our evidence about the Earth being flat. It is a result of our claim, not supporting our claim.
You do not measure the Earth, and try to use certain social phenomena as evidence. In other words, you are using the lack of conspiracy as evidence to support your claim of a round earth. We deny that evidence, so the burden is entirely on you to either (a) provide evidence that said conspiracy cannot exist, or (b) talk about the shape of the Earth directly, instead of drawing conclusions based on authority figures.
You need to learn to read and comprehend. I specifically said that I was not arguing for or against the earth being flat. I am just arguing that the claim of "conspiracy" is not a valid point and should be taken out of the FAQ section.
If you have actual proof of such a conspiracy then replace that evidence with the "it's a conspiracy" garbage.
Oh, well in that case you need to learn to stop being a douche.
The answers to the questions in the FAQ are exactly as I have stated- corollaries resulting from our claim the Earth is flat. They are responses to questions from people who, as I stated, are trying to use social phenomena as evidence the Earth is round.
If you are not one of those people, then STFU about the conspiracy answers. If you are one of those people, then read what I've written above.
-
Nope. You have to prove to me that with actual evidence there is a collaboration.
Again, I am not arguing whether or not the earth is round. I am aruging that you do not have proof of such an elloborate conspiracy. The observational evidence I have has been shown to me by NASA whom I trust is not conspiring to deceive me. I trust that the photo's they have shown me are correct. You have no factual evidence to prove your claim. You cant prove to me the pictures are fake or at least you havent.
The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.
Again, I'm not suggesting such a collaboration exists, merely that it is more likely than a bunch of independent hoaxes.
You see the problem you're coming to here is that you think conspiracy is being used as evidence - it's not. It's a theory used to explain all of the faked evidence (e.g. NASA photos) that cannot be correct if the earth is flat.
The conspiracy is not evidence for a flat earth, nor is it used as such. The evidence for the conspiracy is the fact that the earth is flat.
Take a step back for a moment and delve into hypothetical land, you go to the edge of the earth, look over the Ice Wall and see that the earth is indeed flat (and while you are there you might like to try bunjee jumping). Now that you know the earth is flat how would explain things such as NASA? As I said, the conspiracy grows from Flat Earth Theory, not the other way around.
[/thread]
-
The answers to the questions in the FAQ are exactly as I have stated- corollaries resulting from our claim the Earth is flat. They are responses to questions from people who, as I stated, are trying to use social phenomena as evidence the Earth is round.
Surveyors simplifying their calculations by assuming a flat earth when measuring (and ignoring the use of geodesy to correct for the earth's curvature later) is using social phenomena as evidence, manned spaceflight in action is not a "social phenomenon," it's scientific evidence. As you admitted, you started with the assumption that the earth is flat and tried to use that to discredit all spaceflight without actually disproving the evidence spaceflights presented, let alone evidence presented supporting the existence of spaceflight. On the contrary, evidence from (and of) spaceflights contradicts any evidence pointing to a flat earth, and it generates questions over the validity of the "flat earth measurements."
-
The answers to the questions in the FAQ are exactly as I have stated- corollaries resulting from our claim the Earth is flat. They are responses to questions from people who, as I stated, are trying to use social phenomena as evidence the Earth is round.
Surveyors simplifying their calculations by assuming a flat earth when measuring (and ignoring the use of geodesy to correct for the earth's curvature later) is using social phenomena as evidence, manned spaceflight in action is not a "social phenomenon," it's scientific evidence. As you admitted, you started with the assumption that the earth is flat and tried to use that to discredit all spaceflight without actually disproving the evidence spaceflights presented, let alone evidence presented supporting the existence of spaceflight. On the contrary, evidence from (and of) spaceflights contradicts any evidence pointing to a flat earth, and it generates questions over the validity of the "flat earth measurements."
How do you not understand this?
Read what Garhartra wrote. If you looked over the edge of the Earth, and walked right around its rim, and knew it to be flat, what would you conclude about NASA? We conclude this based on our measurements of the Earth, not the other way around. I fail to see how one cannot grasp that.
-
Nope. You have to prove to me that with actual evidence there is a collaboration.
Again, I am not arguing whether or not the earth is round. I am aruging that you do not have proof of such an elloborate conspiracy. The observational evidence I have has been shown to me by NASA whom I trust is not conspiring to deceive me. I trust that the photo's they have shown me are correct. You have no factual evidence to prove your claim. You cant prove to me the pictures are fake or at least you havent.
The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.
Again, I'm not suggesting such a collaboration exists, merely that it is more likely than a bunch of independent hoaxes.
Considering that NASA contracts out the construction of its spacecraft, if there is "no conspiracy" then NASA is not lying because NASA is not a single self-contained entity operating independently.
-
The answers to the questions in the FAQ are exactly as I have stated- corollaries resulting from our claim the Earth is flat. They are responses to questions from people who, as I stated, are trying to use social phenomena as evidence the Earth is round.
Surveyors simplifying their calculations by assuming a flat earth when measuring (and ignoring the use of geodesy to correct for the earth's curvature later) is using social phenomena as evidence, manned spaceflight in action is not a "social phenomenon," it's scientific evidence. As you admitted, you started with the assumption that the earth is flat and tried to use that to discredit all spaceflight without actually disproving the evidence spaceflights presented, let alone evidence presented supporting the existence of spaceflight. On the contrary, evidence from (and of) spaceflights contradicts any evidence pointing to a flat earth, and it generates questions over the validity of the "flat earth measurements."
How do you not understand this?
Read what Garhartra wrote. If you looked over the edge of the Earth, and walked right around its rim, and knew it to be flat, what would you conclude about NASA?
Too bad you have absolutely jack for evidence of anyone doing this. Your hypothetical doesn't apply to reality because you have no direct evidence of a "flat earth."
We conclude this based on our measurements of the Earth, not the other way around. I fail to see how one cannot grasp that.
So you're infering the shape of the earth on what could be faulty measurements that fail repetition. How is that a stronger standard of evidence than direct observations of spaceflight in progress? They're both inferences to the shape of the earth. One is repeatable, the other is not. I fail to see how one cannot grasp that.
-
Nope. You have to prove to me that with actual evidence there is a collaboration.
Again, I am not arguing whether or not the earth is round. I am aruging that you do not have proof of such an elloborate conspiracy. The observational evidence I have has been shown to me by NASA whom I trust is not conspiring to deceive me. I trust that the photo's they have shown me are correct. You have no factual evidence to prove your claim. You cant prove to me the pictures are fake or at least you havent.
The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.
Again, I'm not suggesting such a collaboration exists, merely that it is more likely than a bunch of independent hoaxes.
Considering that NASA contracts out the construction of its spacecraft, if there is "no conspiracy" then NASA is not lying because NASA is not a single self-contained entity operating independently.
Therefore if NASA is lying...?
-
Nope. You have to prove to me that with actual evidence there is a collaboration.
Again, I am not arguing whether or not the earth is round. I am aruging that you do not have proof of such an elloborate conspiracy. The observational evidence I have has been shown to me by NASA whom I trust is not conspiring to deceive me. I trust that the photo's they have shown me are correct. You have no factual evidence to prove your claim. You cant prove to me the pictures are fake or at least you havent.
The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.
Again, I'm not suggesting such a collaboration exists, merely that it is more likely than a bunch of independent hoaxes.
Considering that NASA contracts out the construction of its spacecraft, if there is "no conspiracy" then NASA is not lying because NASA is not a single self-contained entity operating independently.
Therefore if NASA is lying...?
Then you have a conspiracy to prove. Don't bother though, I've personally witnessed NASA spacecraft in orbit, so there is no lie.
-
Your hypothetical doesn't apply to reality because you have no direct evidence of a "flat earth."
It's a hypothetical, not an analogy.
Again, how would you explain all the contradicting "evidence" if you knew for certain that the earth was flat?
-
Then you have a conspiracy to prove. Don't bother though, I've personally witnessed NASA spacecraft in orbit, so there is no lie.
Right, and by proving a flat earth the conspiracy is also proved because if the earth is flat then NASA has to be lying.
-
Your hypothetical doesn't apply to reality because you have no direct evidence of a "flat earth."
It's a hypothetical, not an analogy.
Again, how would you explain all the contradicting "evidence" if you knew for certain that the earth was flat?
In your hypothetical, contradicting evidence would not exist. I would not be able to predict sightings of spacecraft based on their orbital velocity and location. If FE is true, I should not be able to observe these things, yet I do, so FE is not true. It's a simple null hypothesis.
-
Then you have a conspiracy to prove. Don't bother though, I've personally witnessed NASA spacecraft in orbit, so there is no lie.
Right, and by proving a flat earth the conspiracy is also proved because if the earth is flat then NASA has to be lying.
I would have to be lying too. I know I am not lying so I know that FE is not true.
-
In your hypothetical, contradicting evidence would not exist.
In my hypothetical contradicting evidence does exist. Could you explain it without a conspiracy?
-
In your hypothetical, contradicting evidence would not exist.
In my hypothetical contradicting evidence does exist. Could you explain it without a conspiracy?
If contradicting evidence exists your hypothetical is not possible. In an FE world, it should not be possible to predict and observe the appearance of orbiting satellites and spacecraft only based on raw orbital information. If we observe satellites in orbit then we know we can refute the FE hypothesis. You don't seem capable of grasping the concept of a null hypothesis.
-
In your hypothetical, contradicting evidence would not exist.
In my hypothetical contradicting evidence does exist. Could you explain it without a conspiracy?
If contradicting evidence exists your hypothetical is not possible. In an FE world, it should not be possible to predict and observe the appearance of orbiting satellites and spacecraft only based on raw orbital information. If we observe satellites in orbit then we know we can refute the FE hypothesis. You don't seem capable of grasping the concept of a null hypothesis.
You are an idiot. A very stubborn idiot.
-
If contradicting evidence exists your hypothetical is not possible. In an FE world, it should not be possible to predict and observe the appearance of orbiting satellites and spacecraft only based on raw orbital information. If we observe satellites in orbit then we know we can refute the FE hypothesis. You don't seem capable of grasping the concept of a null hypothesis.
That's excellent evidence for RE. Don't think I've seen it before Messier. Trekky or someone could have brought it up ages ago, though.
See lived, the way that science works is that you have a theory and you deduce a prediction from that theory and than you test that prediction. If the observation matches your prediction, than you have evidence for your theory. That's all that Messier is doing.
-
In your hypothetical, contradicting evidence would not exist.
In my hypothetical contradicting evidence does exist. Could you explain it without a conspiracy?
If contradicting evidence exists your hypothetical is not possible. In an FE world, it should not be possible to predict and observe the appearance of orbiting satellites and spacecraft only based on raw orbital information. If we observe satellites in orbit then we know we can refute the FE hypothesis. You don't seem capable of grasping the concept of a null hypothesis.
You are an idiot. A very stubborn idiot.
Actually it is you who is the idiot. He is the reason I started this thread because I kept reading intelligent provable data he was using and all you and your stubborn "conspiracy" buddies had nothing intelligent to offer him in return other then "its a lie".
You see there are thousands of employee's of NASA who have observed first hand the information he has provided you. They are called eye witnesses which in a court of law is the most damning evidence you can have against an individual. Their observations not only conclude and prove the earth is indeed round but they back it up with scientific evidence. You are calling them liars and saying it is all a cover up by NASA and the government, therefore all you have to do is prove this conspiracy to be true with real evidence. It should be way easier to do then just speculate on a FET.
Surely there has to be many many people who are dying to get this government deception out in the open to clear their collective consciences. Surely someone has the documentation to prove not only that NASA has been deceiving us for financial gain for the past 50 years but also that the earth is indeed flat. OH NO, ITS FLAT!!!!!!!
I just ask that you provide me with this evidence you have so I can erase my own personal deceptions.
Conspiracy is still an invalid argument and pure speculation but FErs continue to use it as some sort of defense. It holds no water.
-
You see there are thousands of employee's of NASA who have observed first hand the information he has provided you. They are called eye witnesses which in a court of law is the most damning evidence you can have against an individual. Their observations not only conclude and prove the earth is indeed round but they back it up with scientific evidence. You are calling them liars and saying it is all a cover up by NASA and the government, therefore all you have to do is prove this conspiracy to be true with real evidence. It should be way easier to do then just speculate on a FET.
An appeal to authority is a fallacy.
You must personally prove your claim of space travel. Asking us to take NASA's word for it isn't "proof"
-
You see there are thousands of employee's of NASA who have observed first hand the information he has provided you. They are called eye witnesses which in a court of law is the most damning evidence you can have against an individual. Their observations not only conclude and prove the earth is indeed round but they back it up with scientific evidence. You are calling them liars and saying it is all a cover up by NASA and the government, therefore all you have to do is prove this conspiracy to be true with real evidence. It should be way easier to do then just speculate on a FET.
An appeal to an authority is a fallacy. You must personally prove your claim of space travel without taking NASA's word for it.
As I told you before. You must prove that they are lying and prove FE without referencing the books you have read on FE. I see you do it all the time.
Must be a double standard that allows you to quote other "scholars" who are proponents of FE but I am not allowed to use NASA's teams of scientists to prove my point.
I am still waiting for you to post all your evidence of this conspiracy. In other words, instead of answering questions with "it's a conspiracy" I would like factual proof of your claims. Show me the list of detractors with their written or oral statements.
-
In your hypothetical, contradicting evidence would not exist.
In my hypothetical contradicting evidence does exist. Could you explain it without a conspiracy?
If contradicting evidence exists your hypothetical is not possible. In an FE world, it should not be possible to predict and observe the appearance of orbiting satellites and spacecraft only based on raw orbital information. If we observe satellites in orbit then we know we can refute the FE hypothesis. You don't seem capable of grasping the concept of a null hypothesis.
You are an idiot. A very stubborn idiot.
You have yet to prove me wrong, so what does that make you?
-
In your hypothetical, contradicting evidence would not exist.
In my hypothetical contradicting evidence does exist. Could you explain it without a conspiracy?
If contradicting evidence exists your hypothetical is not possible. In an FE world, it should not be possible to predict and observe the appearance of orbiting satellites and spacecraft only based on raw orbital information. If we observe satellites in orbit then we know we can refute the FE hypothesis. You don't seem capable of grasping the concept of a null hypothesis.
You are an idiot. A very stubborn idiot.
You have yet to prove me wrong, so what does that make you?
QFT
But he does that to everyone that I have seen. He knows he is out matched so he appeals to name calling.
-
Nice thread Shaydawg.
So, let's us all do a little thought experment here.
Suppose that you're on teh interwebs and you find this account of a guy w/ no formal training has done some experiments that he thinks disprove General Relativity.
Now, would, you think it reasonable to suppose that he is 100% correct & General Relativity is totally false & all the evidence of General Relativity was faked by a conspiracy (which you have no evidence for)?
-
great point ^^
We also need to throw away all books and research that has been done in the past 300+ years because we cant appeal to them for evidence or it is a fallacy.
In order for something to be true you have to do the study yourself or it is not valid.
-
As I told you before. You must prove that they are lying and prove FE without referencing the books you have read on FE. I see you do it all the time.
Must be a double standard that allows you to quote other "scholars" who are proponents of FE but I am not allowed to use NASA's teams of scientists to prove my point.
I am still waiting for you to post all your evidence of this conspiracy. In other words, instead of answering questions with "it's a conspiracy" I would like factual proof of your claims. Show me the list of detractors with their written or oral statements.
Wrong. You came here and sought us out with your ridiculous claims of space men traveling to the moon and rocket ships blasting off into space. We did not seek you out. You came here and made a claim. Since the burden of proof is on he who makes the claim, you must prove that NASA does all of this stuff.
-
Tom, you're making the claim that it's all faked.
-
Wrong. You came here and sought us out with your ridiculous claims of space men traveling to the moon and rocket ships blasting off into space.
Seriously, Tom, you need to look up the definition of the word "ridiculous".
-
Yeah, what's so ridiculous about rocket ships anway?
-
Tom, you're making the claim that it's all faked.
I'm simply holding the bare reasonable notion that such breakthrough technologies are outside of human experience. Since you believe something outside the norm of every day existence the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's true.
If a religious man claims that God exists, is the burden of proof on his opponents to prove that God does not exist or is the burden of proof on the religious man to prove that God does exist?
If a man claims that he invented a machine that can tunnel into the core of the earth where he talks to natives living within its hollow shell, is the burden of proof on his opponents to prove that the machine does not exist and his tales are untrue, or is the burden of proof on the man to prove his claims?
Just the same, when you whackos come on our site and claim that technologies exist which allow space men to travel through the cosmos, walk on the moon, and blast off in sci-fi space ships, the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.
See: Russel's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)
-
You have yet to prove me wrong, so what does that make you?
Correction. You have yet to prove me wrong. But my claim is about the Earth being flat (based on measurements) not about the conspiracy.
The subject of this thread is the use of conspiracy as an argument. You have yet to prove that anyone is doing that.
Regarding the conspiracy, it is not an argument for our position. It is a consequence of our position. Accept that, and move on.
-
Since you believe something outside the norm of every day existence the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's true.
Seems to me like a massive conspircy is outside the norm of every day existence.
No lived, the conspiracy is not just a consequence. It is crucial to your position. Without it, your position totally falls apart.
Also,
So, let's us all do a little thought experment here.
Suppose that you're on teh interwebs and you find this account of a guy w/ no formal training has done some experiments that he thinks disprove General Relativity.
Now, would, you think it reasonable to suppose that he is 100% correct & General Relativity is totally false & all the evidence of General Relativity was faked by a conspiracy (which you have no evidence for)?
-
Seems to me like a massive conspircy is outside the norm of every day existence.
Lies and deception are not outside of human experience.
In fact, it's pretty common.
-
Seems to me like a massive conspircy is outside the norm of every day existence.
Lies and deception are not outside of human experience.
In fact, it's pretty common.
Not that sort of deception.
Also,
So, let's us all do a little thought experment here.
Suppose that you're on teh interwebs and you find this account of a guy w/ no formal training has done some experiments that he thinks disprove General Relativity.
Now, would, you think it reasonable to suppose that he is 100% correct & General Relativity is totally false & all the evidence of General Relativity was faked by a conspiracy (which you have no evidence for)?
-
No lived, the conspiracy is not just a consequence. It is crucial to your position. Without it, your position totally falls apart.
No, it's actually a crucial consequence. It must exist for FET to be true, but it's never used in an effort to prove that the earth is flat. FET is grounded in other evidence that FEers perceive proves the earth to be flat. The evidence on which the theory is based has nothing to do with the conspiracy. Since the earth is proven to be flat, any images or claims that contradict it must be part of an effort to conceal it. But it's not something that's ever used as evidence that the earth is flat; rather, the fact that the earth is flat is evidence of a conspiracy. The reverse is never claimed.
lived's right, it's time to move on.
-
Suppose that you're on teh interwebs and you find this account of a guy w/ no formal training has done some experiments that he thinks disprove General Relativity.
Now, would, you think it reasonable to suppose that he is 100% correct & General Relativity is totally false & all the evidence of General Relativity was faked by a conspiracy (which you have no evidence for)?
The burden of proof is on the man to prove his claims.
He is a liar by default.
-
So, let's us all do a little thought experment here.
Suppose that you're on teh interwebs and you find this account of a guy w/ no formal training has done some experiments that he thinks disprove General Relativity.
Now, would, you think it reasonable to suppose that he is 100% correct & General Relativity is totally false & all the evidence of General Relativity was faked by a conspiracy (which you have no evidence for)?
Well if I was on teh interwebs and I found some guy who had some formal training and had some experiments that he thinks prove that energy is misdefined (http://nov55.com/) and I could email him I wouldn't bother. Why would you?
Secondly would a conspiracy be necessary in a world where general relativity walse false? Genuine question.
I'm no lawyer I'm not trying to prove anything. I am merely trying to explain the universe as best I can so that it fits with the observable evidence. One of these is that the earth is flat (I have seen it when I went bunjee jumping over the Ice Wall), from there trying to explain the rest of the universe is quite an enjoyable challenge. A deep rooted conspiracy does fit nicely into it.
As I said, if you don't like the experiments that demonstrate that the earth is flat (such as looking out your window or bunjee jumping off the Ice Wall) then that's fine with me. I don't even mind you staying and asking questions, they help flesh out my understanding of the universe. But if you think for one second I give two shits whether you end up leaving here believing the earth is flat or round you've got a severely over-inflated ego.
-
Suppose that you're on teh interwebs and you find this account of a guy w/ no formal training has done some experiments that he thinks disprove General Relativity.
Now, would, you think it reasonable to suppose that he is 100% correct & General Relativity is totally false & all the evidence of General Relativity was faked by a conspiracy (which you have no evidence for)?
The burden of proof is on the man to prove his claims.
He is a liar by default.
??? Wow!! You are bold, aren't you.
Tom, you keep talking about the burden of proof being our responsibility. Well, what about your responsibility to at least consider the evidence posed with an open mind? Just because someone provides evidence that contradicts your beliefs, that does not automatically mean that they are lying.
-
Tom, you're making the claim that it's all faked.
I'm simply holding the bare reasonable notion that such breakthrough technologies are outside of human experience. Since you believe something outside the norm of every day existence the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's true.
If a religious man claims that God exists, is the burden of proof on his opponents to prove that God does not exist or is the burden of proof on the religious man to prove that God does exist?
If a man claims that he invented a machine that can tunnel into the core of the earth where he talks to natives living within its hollow shell, is the burden of proof on his opponents to prove that the machine does not exist and his tales are untrue, or is the burden of proof on the man to prove his claims?
Just the same, when you whackos come on our site and claim that technologies exist which allow space men to travel through the cosmos, walk on the moon, and blast off in sci-fi space ships, the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.
See: Russel's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)
Tom, humans have been to space. There is plenty of evidence. Look at the Internet itself. Somthing like that would have seemed god like 100 years ago. Now everyone looks at the Internet as a simple piece of technology. It's the same for space rockets.
-
I'm simply holding the bare reasonable notion that such breakthrough technologies are outside of human experience.
This is the basic premise of your argument: that space travel is so difficult that a worlwide conspiracy is the more logical answer.
This is nonsense. Humanity was building pyramids 4000 years ago. The Nazis made a rocket that travelled almost to space in 1942. Since then we've made integrated circuits, Concorde, the Channel Tunnel, the internet, nanotechnology, supercomputers, the Burj Dubai, nuclear power, the LHC etc. etc. etc. Compared to these, space travel really isn't that difficult.
I argue that fooling the entire world (which was smart enough to make all of the above) would be far more difficult.
-
I argue that fooling the entire world (which was smart enough to make all of the above) would be far more difficult.
Absolutely... but how else would you account for NASA photos etc. when the world is flat?
-
The problem with that is that it is not flat, and NASA didn't really even have good photoshop stuff in 1969.
-
The problem with that is that it is not flat, and NASA didn't really even have good photoshop stuff in 1969.
How do you know what kind of technology NASA had access to in 1969?
-
This is the basic premise of your argument: that space travel is so difficult that a worlwide conspiracy is the more logical answer.
This is nonsense. Humanity was building pyramids 4000 years ago. The Nazis made a rocket that travelled almost to space in 1942. Since then we've made integrated circuits, Concorde, the Channel Tunnel, the internet, nanotechnology, supercomputers, the Burj Dubai, nuclear power, the LHC etc. etc. etc. Compared to these, space travel really isn't that difficult.
Nope. Comparing existing technologies to your fictitious technologies is not an argument. If it were, the man who claims to have a time machine could claim that because that Egyptians built pyramids in 3,000 B.C. and because IBM builds computers, he can build a time machine and travel through time.
It's a faulty argument.
Tom, you keep talking about the burden of proof being our responsibility. Well, what about your responsibility to at least consider the evidence posed with an open mind? Just because someone provides evidence that contradicts your beliefs, that does not automatically mean that they are lying.
I don't see any reason why we should open our minds to your fantasies. It's your job to prove your fantasy claims of "space exploration" to us. We're the skeptics here. You're the one preaching ludicrous claims.
-
Tom, you keep talking about the burden of proof being our responsibility. Well, what about your responsibility to at least consider the evidence posed with an open mind? Just because someone provides evidence that contradicts your beliefs, that does not automatically mean that they are lying.
I don't see any reason why we should open our minds to your fantasies. It's your job to prove your fantasy claims of "space exploration" to us.
Open mind, insert idea.
How can we prove our "fantasy claims" when you refuse to even consider the evidence?
-
Open mind, insert idea.
How can we prove our "fantasy claims" when you refuse to even consider the evidence?
We'll open our minds when you actually have evidence for us. A blind appeal to authority isn't evidence. It's a fallacy.
When you can personally prove that man has stepped on the moon or has traveled through space we'll be willing to consider the evidence.
-
Open mind, insert idea.
How can we prove our "fantasy claims" when you refuse to even consider the evidence?
We'll open our minds when you actually have evidence for us. A blind appeal to authority isn't evidence. It's a fallacy.
When you can personally prove that man has stepped on the moon or has traveled through space we'll be willing to consider the evidence.
Are you saying that you would believe me if I said that I had personally traveled in space? Or would you believe me if I told you that I had personally seen real live astronauts talking about their experiences in space (including one of the Mercury 7)?
-
fictitious technologies
fantasy claims
It seems you have already made up your mind that space travel doesn't happen. Any evidence to the contrary (videos, photos, amateur astronomy sightings, personal testimonies, moon samples, reams and reams of scientific data etc. etc.) you dismiss as conspiracy.
-
Open mind, insert idea.
How can we prove our "fantasy claims" when you refuse to even consider the evidence?
We'll open our minds when you actually have evidence for us. A blind appeal to authority isn't evidence. It's a fallacy.
When you can personally prove that man has stepped on the moon or has traveled through space we'll be willing to consider the evidence.
Idiotic statement.
We have evidence, pictures, and eye witness accounts.
The burden lies with you to prove that it is all a conspiracy.
And your argument earlier about a religious man not having to prove that God exists is wrong. Every atheist will tell you that the burden lies on the religious man to prove his claim. Not that it matters, but the burden lies on both people to prove their claim.
Also, dont give us this bs about us coming here and arguing. This board would have hardly any members if it were not for the discussion it generates. All you FErs would be circle jerking each other talking about your next mission to the ice wall and how you are going to defeat the guards.
Speaking of guards, did it ever occur to you how big the ice wall would have to be and how hard it would be to guard it? Or how easy it would be to go there and produce pictures? The US cant even guard its own border against illegal aliens flooding in the country what makes you think they could guard the enormous ice wall? lame
Burden of proof is still on you to provide evidence of a conspiracy. If you have no evidence then the claim of such a conspiracy is false.
-
If you have no evidence then the claim of such a conspiracy is false.
That's terrible logic, by the way.
-
If you have no evidence then the claim of such a conspiracy is false.
That's terrible logic, by the way.
From the stand point of saying it has to be false with no evidence in a pure logic discussion yes it is bad.
But it is not any worse then claiming something is a conspiracy because you dont have an answer.
And there is still no proof of a conspiracy.
-
He isn't claiming a conspiracy because he doesn't have an answer. Under his belief that the Earth is flat, a conspiracy has to exist. It is no more simple than that.
And yes, there is no evidence of a conspiracy.
-
And yes, there is no evidence of a conspiracy.
QFT
-
I understand, but proving that there is a conspiracy is needed. Just saying there is one with no burden of proof is not good enough and not worthy of a response when you are making such claims.
The entire idea of there even being a conspiracy and the effort it would take to cover one up is more unbelievable then the claim of a flat earth.
Again, "it's a conspiracy" is not a valid answer or argument.
-
I try to avoid conspiracy talk because there are too many unknowns. If there really was a conspiracy, logical estimates can be made to answer questions, but it'd be to an extreme point of speculation.
Answers to such questions that involve the conspiracy are made, as least for me personally, with the attempt to showcase the possibility of it. Or even possibly filling a hole in the ignorant statement or assumption of the person. Whether or not the people receiving the answers have the capacity to understand those very answers is a completely different story.
The entire idea of there even being a conspiracy and the effort it would take to cover one up is more unbelievable then the claim of a flat earth.
This is usually echoed by newcomers, although, I have seen nothing to suggest that it would be unbelievable.
-
I understand, but proving that there is a conspiracy is needed. Just saying there is one with no burden of proof is not good enough and not worthy of a response when you are making such claims.
The entire idea of there even being a conspiracy and the effort it would take to cover one up is more unbelievable then the claim of a flat earth.
Again, "it's a conspiracy" is not a valid answer or argument.
Again, conspiracy is a hypothesis to explain phenomena (such as NASA photographs, voyages to the "South Pole"). While it is a weak hypothesis as there is no solid evidence it doesn't nullify the hypothesis (indeed, you'd expect a conspiracy to cover its tracks). It's sort of like Dark Matter and Dark Energy, they're speculations without solid evidence - the only evidence (that I'm aware of) is that they're necessary.
Repeated ad nauseum: The conspiracy is not proof of a flat earth, it is a resultant hypothesis from the earth being flat. If you assume a flat earth can you think of a better hypothesis to explain said phenomena?
Now what you're probably going to do is quote only that last point and highlight assume. Feel free to do so but then realise we're not discussing the conspiracy anymore we're back to talking about the shape of the earth. One more time: the conspiracy is not an argument for a flat earth, it is the result of a flat earth.
-
You have yet to prove me wrong, so what does that make you?
Correction. You have yet to prove me wrong. But my claim is about the Earth being flat (based on measurements) not about the conspiracy.
If I can observe satellites based on their orbital elements, then flat earth theory is invalidated. You have yet to prove my data wrong.
The subject of this thread is the use of conspiracy as an argument. You have yet to prove that anyone is doing that.
No valid reason has yet been given to explain my data. The only reason given is that "it's a conspiracy."
Regarding the conspiracy, it is not an argument for our position. It is a consequence of our position. Accept that, and move on.
It's only a "consequence" until someone comes along and challenges it with contradicting data. Using it after that point against said data without further proof or reason is using "conspiracy as an argument."
-
the conspiracy is not an argument for a flat earth, it is the result of a flat earth.
Not really. The conspiracy is a result of a flat earth theory -- it's needed to explain away the mountain of evidence that points to a RE (e.g. space travel, worlwide acceptance of RET, lack of evidence for the ice wall etc.).
The conspiracy is not an argument for a flat Earth, but the lack of a conspiracy is evidence for a round earth, hence the importance of debating it.
-
When you can personally prove that man has stepped on the moon or has traveled through space we'll be willing to consider the evidence.
I can prove it, and indeed I've offered to prove it person. You've refused to accept the evidence so far. You claim you'd be willing to accept the evidence, yet you never give the evidence a chance to be irrefutably presented in person. What does that say about your honesty in the matter?
-
Not really. The conspiracy is a result of a flat earth theory -- it's needed to explain away the mountain of evidence that points to a RE (e.g. space travel, worlwide acceptance of RET, lack of evidence for the ice wall etc.).
Worldwide acceptance of RE is not evidence, and the Ice Wall (depending on your beliefs) has photos.
the lack of a conspiracy is evidence for a round earth, hence the importance of debating it.
Lack of evidence isn't really evidence. It just changes the odds.
-
the lack of a conspiracy is evidence for a round earth, hence the importance of debating it.
Lack of evidence isn't really evidence. It just changes the odds.
If it was proved that there was almost certainly not a conspiracy, that would be evidence against FET (or rather, it would mean photos from space etc. were better evidence).
-
If you were to say that more evidence arrived that made the already extremely unlikely theory even more unlikely, I don't think you'd be able to change much. Things around here would still operate the same, because all that changed are the odds.
-
Things around here would still operate the same, because all that changed are the odds.
That's because so few people around here think rationally.
-
Says the fallacy invoker? Please.
-
Says the fallacy invoker? Please.
Me!? I'm outraged >:(
-
Me too.
-
Me three.
-
Can anyone tell me what efforts have been made by FEr's to expose the conspiracy? What research has been done?
-
Currently I am in the slow process of drafting a letter that I will send to NASA confronting them about the conspiracy.
-
Currently I am in the slow process of drafting a letter that I will send to NASA confronting them about the conspiracy.
I am sure they are eagerly awaiting your letter.
What is the preferred method of delivery?
-
Carrier pigeon. Or the postal service like a normal person...
-
Not really. The conspiracy is a result of a flat earth theory -- it's needed to explain away the mountain of evidence that points to a RE (e.g. space travel, worlwide acceptance of RET, lack of evidence for the ice wall etc.).
The conspiracy is not an argument for a flat Earth, but the lack of a conspiracy is evidence for a round earth, hence the importance of debating it.
It's not needed to explain anything. It is an explanation that does explain a lot of things but it's certainly not needed. The simple retort could just be, "I don't yet know how that is possible." But for you to then go and say that because we can't explain something like NASA photos then the only explanation is that they are real and accurate representations of a round earth is like saying that just because something's evolution can't be shown exactly step by step for every mutation that came along then intelligent design must be true. Alternative explanations of NASA photos could be an optical illusion or something else, I just happen to believe that a conspiracy fits best. Repeated yet again: the conspiracy theory comes from the idea that the earth is flat. Debunking the conspiracy would do nothing to prove a round earth, it would just mean that new hypothesis would be needed to explain various phenomena. Now you could point out that a round earth theory explains the phenomena quite succinctly and I would completely agree with you, I would also understand if you held on to your round earth beliefs. However, I happen to know that the earth is flat and am trying to explain phenomena based on that knowledge. I'm not trying to prove anything to you and I don't really care what beliefs you come away with (flat or round), you're more than entitled to them. I hope you stick around and keep asking questions because occasionally REers come on here with something that hasn't been thought of yet that needs an explanation (though I doubt that's you).
I think you're biggest mistake is you believe people here give a shit about what you think and are trying to prove the flat earth model to you. Trust me we don't and we're not.
-
Can anyone tell me what efforts have been made by FEr's to expose the conspiracy? What research has been done?
Well I've looked into various times in history when it could've been started (I'm thinking Pythagorus's secret society could've been the foundation) and possible motivation other than money. As for exposing the conspiracy, I don't really care about it - I'm happy for most of you to live in ignorance.
-
But for you to then go and say that because we can't explain something like NASA photos then the only explanation is that they are real and accurate representations of a round earth is like saying that just because something's evolution can't be shown exactly step by step for every mutation that came along then intelligent design must be true.
But for you to then go and say that because we can't explain something like the few observations that point to the Earth being flat then the only explanation is that they are real and accurate representations of a flat earth is like saying that just because something's evolution can't be shown exactly step by step for every mutation that came along than intelligent design must be true.
It works just as well this way.
Except that we pretty much can explain those few, lonely, experiments.
-
But for you to then go and say that because we can't explain something like the few observations that point to the Earth being flat then the only explanation is that they are real and accurate representations of a flat earth is like saying that just because something's evolution can't be shown exactly step by step for every mutation that came along than intelligent design must be true.
It works just as well this way.
Except that we pretty much can explain those few, lonely, experiments.
Wow, now there's a complicated sentence to wade through.
But good point though. The only evidence FE'ers have ever presented are experiments done a long time ago that have never been replicated. There are theories (such as superior mirages) that can probably expain these isolated examples. Meanwhile, there is a huge body of evidence for RET.
So maybe one or two freak occurences suggest the earth is flat. That's no reason to go believing it.
-
Not really. The conspiracy is a result of a flat earth theory -- it's needed to explain away the mountain of evidence that points to a RE (e.g. space travel, worlwide acceptance of RET, lack of evidence for the ice wall etc.).
The conspiracy is not an argument for a flat Earth, but the lack of a conspiracy is evidence for a round earth, hence the importance of debating it.
It's not needed to explain anything. It is an explanation that does explain a lot of things but it's certainly not needed. The simple retort could just be, "I don't yet know how that is possible." But for you to then go and say that because we can't explain something like NASA photos then the only explanation is that they are real and accurate representations of a round earth is like saying that just because something's evolution can't be shown exactly step by step for every mutation that came along then intelligent design must be true. Alternative explanations of NASA photos could be an optical illusion or something else, I just happen to believe that a conspiracy fits best. Repeated yet again: the conspiracy theory comes from the idea that the earth is flat. Debunking the conspiracy would do nothing to prove a round earth, it would just mean that new hypothesis would be needed to explain various phenomena. Now you could point out that a round earth theory explains the phenomena quite succinctly and I would completely agree with you, I would also understand if you held on to your round earth beliefs. However, I happen to know that the earth is flat and am trying to explain phenomena based on that knowledge. I'm not trying to prove anything to you and I don't really care what beliefs you come away with (flat or round), you're more than entitled to them. I hope you stick around and keep asking questions because occasionally REers come on here with something that hasn't been thought of yet that needs an explanation (though I doubt that's you).
I think you're biggest mistake is you believe people here give a shit about what you think and are trying to prove the flat earth model to you. Trust me we don't and we're not.
Fair enough. Like I said though, I am not trying to prove RE or FE in this particular thread. I just want to know more about this conspiracy because if it were to be true and it were to be exposed it would be right up there with someone finding and proving they have the remains of Jesus Christ. It would turn the world upside down.
So for anyone to believe in this conspiracy I think is a big deal. And if there is proof of it then it needs to be exposed. I feel it would be our duty as humanitarians to do everything in our power to let the world know of such a conspiracy. Not only that we would become very rich and famous.
I tell you what, if you dont feel comfortable with the limelight then just email me the proof of this conspiracy and I will call Oprah and let the world know of my findings. Heck, I may even send you a little something something for your efforts.
-
But good point though. The only evidence FE'ers have ever presented are experiments done a long time ago that have never been replicated. There are theories (such as superior mirages) that can probably expain these isolated examples. Meanwhile, there is a huge body of evidence for RET.
So maybe one or two freak occurences suggest the earth is flat. That's no reason to go believing it.
And the thing is that the Fe's will go to any lengths to get semi-plausible FE explanations of observations that point to a Round Earth by tacking on all sort of extra hypotheses.
But what they don't seem to realize is that you can explain all the observations that point to a flat earth in the Round Earth model in the same way, except that your explanations are more plausible and you don't need as many extra hypotheses.
-
And the thing is that the Fe's will go to any lengths to get semi-plausible FE explanations of observations that point to a Round Earth by tacking on all sort of extra hypotheses.
But what they don't seem to realize is that you can explain all the observations that point to a flat earth in the Round Earth model in the same way, except that your explanations are more plausible and you don't need as many extra hypotheses.
No. Wrong. You guys are making the hypothesis. You guys are claiming that stellar communication exists, that ion drives exist, that specially designed heat shields exist, that NASA has created all of these hundreds of never before seen technologies and alloys necessary for them to do these amazing and unthinkable things in space. You are making many claims. You are claiming all of these things beyond human experience which only a select few have access to.
The simplest explanation is that it's a lie. Therefore the burden of proof is solely on you to prove that these things exist.
And your argument earlier about a religious man not having to prove that God exists is wrong. Every atheist will tell you that the burden lies on the religious man to prove his claim. Not that it matters, but the burden lies on both people to prove their claim.
The burden of proof is on the man to prove his claims that God talks to him in his sleep, that a magical fairy grants him wishes, or that spirits from the afterlife guide him through life. The man must prove his claims. It's not up to others to disprove his claims. The man is a liar by default until he proves his claims.
You are making all of these fantastic claims of space travel. Therefore you must prove that these unverifiable claims are true. The burden is not on others to prove that they are false. It's impossible to prove a negative. Look up Russel's Teapot.
The burden is always on he who makes the claim. You are the one coming here and making a claim. If you cannot back up your claim, you are wrong.
-
Let's get this straight Tom.
1) The technology developed by NASA, the RSA and others is not as outlandish as you claim. It's based on physics you can learn at University and just involves a bit of clever engineering. It's impressive, yes, but the human brain is an impressive tool.
2) You are the one making the claim. Let me explain:
We made a claim: we said that people travelled into space. As evidence, we cited the testimonies of astronaut's and eye-witnesses, ground based observers, the scientific data produced, amateur astronomer's, the ability to see artificial satellites, videos of space travel, photos from space, photos from Hubble, NASA and ESA documents, moon rocks, samples of comet trails, GPS, satellite phones, television, news coverage of missions etc. This is a lot of evidence.
Next, you claim that this is all a conspiracy. You offer no evidence. So, the burden of proof is on you.
-
Tom, you are an asshole, always have been, and always will be!
YOU are the one who claims that NASA is lying. they have HUNDREDS OF TONS of proof of THEIR claims!
YOU are the one challanging HUNDREDS OF YEARS of ESTABLISHED FACT!!
the burden of proof is ENTIRELY on YOU, always has been entirely on you, and always will be entirely on you!
your claims are total bullshit, always have been total bullshit, and always will be TOTAL BULLSHIT!!
you say the burden of proof is on them JUST to TRY to divert attention from the FACT that you have NO PROOF, never have had ANY PROOF, and never will be able to produce ANY PROOF!!
you can't even produce ONE picture of the beach across the bay that you CLAIM to be able to see! NOT ONE PICTURE!!
the FACT that you are INCAPABLE of producing such a picture al absolute proof that you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG, always have been ABSOLUTELY WRONG, and always will be ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!
-
It's based on physics you can learn at University and just involves a bit of clever engineering. It's impressive, yes, but the human brain is an impressive tool.
Many theories of physics tell us that time travel is possible. Should we go around believing anyone who claims to travel through time?
We made a claim: we said that people travelled into space. As evidence, we cited the testimonies of astronaut's and eye-witnesses, ground based observers, the scientific data produced, amateur astronomer's, the ability to see artificial satellites, videos of space travel, photos from space, photos from Hubble, NASA and ESA documents, moon rocks, samples of comet trails, GPS, satellite phones, television, news coverage of missions etc. This is a lot of evidence.
All of that is third hand evidence which originates from the same source. An appeal to an authority. It's not evidence. It's a fallacy.
You must provide real direct evidence that the claims of space grandeur are true.
Next, you claim that this is all a conspiracy. You offer no evidence.
There is actually a lot of evidence and testimonials suggesting that NASA is deceptive. But there is no reason to offer it to you. I don't need to.
It's not my responsibility to prove that NASA is lying. It's your and only your responsibility to prove that they are telling the truth. By default NASA's unverifiable and never-peer-reviewed claims are false. You must PROVE to us that these claims of space mechamania are true. I don't need to prove that they are false. I don't need to prove that God doesn't talk to a man in his sleep. I don't need to prove that a man cannot travel to time. All of the former must be PROVEN.
The burden is on he who makes the claim. You are making the claim. Not me. You.
-
Tom, you are an asshole, always have been, and always will be!
YOU are the one who claims that NASA is lying. they have HUNDREDS OF TONS of proof of THEIR claims!
YOU are the one challanging HUNDREDS OF YEARS of ESTABLISHED FACT!!
the burden of proof is ENTIRELY on YOU, always has been entirely on you, and always will be entirely on you!
your claims are total bullshit, always have been total bullshit, and always will be TOTAL BULLSHIT!!
you say the burden of proof is on them JUST to TRY to divert attention from the FACT that you have NO PROOF, never have had ANY PROOF, and never will be able to produce ANY PROOF!!
you can't even produce ONE picture of the beach across the bay that you CLAIM to be able to see! NOT ONE PICTURE!!
the FACT that you are INCAPABLE of producing such a picture al absolute proof that you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG, always have been ABSOLUTELY WRONG, and always will be ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!
We will never stop loving you Eric, no matter what
-
And the thing is that the Fe's will go to any lengths to get semi-plausible FE explanations of observations that point to a Round Earth by tacking on all sort of extra hypotheses.
But what they don't seem to realize is that you can explain all the observations that point to a flat earth in the Round Earth model in the same way, except that your explanations are more plausible and you don't need as many extra hypotheses.
No. Wrong. You guys are making the hypothesis. You guys are claiming that stellar communication exists, that ion drives exist, that specially designed heat shields exist, that NASA has created all of these hundreds of never before seen technologies and alloys necessary for them to do these amazing and unthinkable things in space. You are making many claims. You are claiming all of these things beyond human experience which only a select few have access to.
The simplest explanation is that it's a lie. Therefore the burden of proof is solely on you to prove that these things exist.
Once again, what is unthinkable about what NASA does in space? Take a look at the computer you're using, the technology in it is more advanced than probably anything they used on the Apollo Mission.
I'm sure Messier would be glad to explain that these things are not beyond human experience, as he has some rather nice photos of the ISS & the Space Shuttle.
And anyway, you don't need NASA for RE. If it was somehow shown that all space exploration is a hoax, than the case for a round earth would not fall. We got oceanography, geography, studies of seismic waves, Metrology, basic astronomy, gravimetry, surveys, etc...
People knew that the earth was round before the sixties, you know.
Appeal to authority? Tom your entire case for Fe is based off of appeal to authority.
-
I don't need to prove that a man cannot travel to time. All of the former must be PROVEN.
The burden is on he who makes the claim. You are making the claim. Not me. You.
No it doesn't need to be proven. You can show that the Earth is round w/o/ any NASA.
And you're claiming that the Earth is flat. So if the burden is on he who makes the claim, than the burden is on you.
-
All of that is third hand evidence which originates from the same source. An appeal to an authority. It's not evidence. It's a fallacy.
It is not an appeal to authority. It is citing second-hand evidence. If everything had to be proven personally no debate would get anywhere. Also, this evidence comes from a wide variety of sources. NASA and the RSA for two, but also amateur astronomers (and their pictures of the ISS), independent labs that have analysed moon samples and comet trails, and man-made satellites are visible from space.
ISS seen by amateur astronomers:
http://dwarmstr.blogspot.com/2006/10/international-space-station-pass-seen.html
Mirrors left on the moon:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-07/931350588.As.r.html
An appeal to authority would be something like "Einstein thought the world was round" or "Rowbotham thought the world was flat". By your standards, none of the "evidence" you claim would be admitable, becasue it's all testimonies from one or two people.
Our evidence is solid enough to convince a rational person. It is up to you to disprove it.
-
Once again, what is unthinkable about what NASA does in space? Take a look at the computer you're using, the technology in it is more advanced than probably anything they used on the Apollo Mission.
Once again, a fallacious argument.
"IBM builds complicated computers... therefore John Titor can really travel through time."
"The Egyptians built pyramids... therefore Casper Harris really has a machine which can bore through the earth's crust."
"Theoretical Physics says that a higher being is 'possible'... therefore my local preacher is correct when he says that God talks to him in his sleep."
An appeal to authority would be something like "Einstein thought the world was round" or "Rowbotham thought the world was flat". By your standards, none of the "evidence" you claim would be admitable, becasue it's all testimonies from one or two people.
The vast majority of evidence mentioned in this thread comes directly from NASA's PR department. Astronaut testimony isn't evidence for NASA's honesty. Video NASA releases to the public aren't evidence for NASA's honesty. You argument is "my local preacher says that God talks to him on a regular basis... just ask him!!!"
ISS seen by amateur astronomers:
I don't see how a blip in the sky proves NASA's honesty in all matters mentioned. What does looking at a blip float by in the sky tell us about the moon missions, sustained space travel, the technologies NASA has claimed to have invented, whether NASA is a fraudulent entity, or whether their video portrayal of earth and space are untainted?
Mirrors left on the moon:
The mirrors were deliberately left in an attempt to prove to the world that NASA really did go to the moon. NASA works directly with professional astronomers to build the high power military-grade lasers necessary for the moon-bounce.
-
Once again, what is unthinkable about what NASA does in space? Take a look at the computer you're using, the technology in it is more advanced than probably anything they used on the Apollo Mission.
Once again, a fallacious argument.
"IBM builds complicated computers... therefore John Jones can really travel through time."
"The Egyptians built pyramids... therefore Casper Harris really has a machine which can bore through the earth's crust."
"Theoretical Physics says that a higher being is 'possible'... therefore my local preacher is correct when he says that God talks to him in his sleep."
Nope. Time Travel is far beyond IBM computers. Boring through the Earth's crust is way beyond pyrmaids. The technology used on the Apollo Missions is less advanced than a cell phone of a flat screen TV.
And the images of the ISS aren't just blips in the sky, just look at all the shit Messier has posted.
-
Once again, a fallacious argument.
"IBM builds complicated computers... therefore John Jones can really travel through time."
"The Egyptians built pyramids... therefore Casper Harris really has a machine which can bore through the earth's crust."
"Theoretical Physics says that a higher being is 'possible'... therefore my local preacher is correct when he says that God talks to him in his sleep."
I wasn't using that to prove space travel. I was just pointing out that it is not the outlandish claim you imply it is.
I don't see how a blip in the sky proves NASA's honesty in all matters mentioned. What does looking at a blip float by in the sky tell us about the moon missions, sustained space travel, the technologies NASA has claimed to have invented, whether NASA is a fraudulent entity, or whether their video portrayal of earth and space are untainted?
This isn't a blip floating in the sky. This is a clearly and unquestionably a video of an obviously man-made object extremely high up and moving very quickly. This object must be above the bulk of the atmosphere (because of it's unaerodynamic shape). This tells us quite a lot. This tells us that mankind has indeed sent objects into space.
Mirrors left on the moon:
NASA works directly with professional astronomers to build the high power military-grade lasers necessary for the moon-bounce.
Are you claiming they just shine an immensely powerful laser at the moon and measure the scattered light!? This is an outrageous claim.
1) The time delay (which has been measured by independant amateur astronomers) indicates the moon is far more 3000 km away
2) The amount of power required to do this without a laser is laughable. Observe:
Suppose 0.1W of power are needed for detection, and the detector has a collecting surface of 100 m^2. Also assume the moon is 3100 km away. The moon has an albedo of 0.12, which means that 12% of the light that hits it is scattered. So, the amount of power required for the laser is:
P = 0.1*4*Pi*(3.1E6)^2 / 100*0.12 = 1E12 W, which is 1 Terrawatt, a preposterous amount.
For comparison, a power station outputs a few hundred megawatts. My Dad, who builds industrial lasers, has never worked with one more powerful than a few kilowatts. These are a few thousand and a few million times too feeble, repectively.
-
But for you to then go and say that because we can't explain something like the few observations that point to the Earth being flat then the only explanation is that they are real and accurate representations of a flat earth is like saying that just because something's evolution can't be shown exactly step by step for every mutation that came along than intelligent design must be true.
It works just as well this way.
Except that we pretty much can explain those few, lonely, experiments.
Spot on! I absolutely agree with you 100%. It's up to you do decide what evidence will determine your beliefs and go from there. Personally, I am convinced that the earth is flat as I have travelled on the Potent Voyager and seen it with my own eyes. I did consider that maybe I was insane but then I went and got my eyes checked and my head examined and the leprechauns told me I was a-okay.
I think this basically comes back to the REers trying to prove things and attempting to "win". At the end of the day you can put forth the best argument you have and make it extremely tight (who knows it may even be true) but that still won't mean the other will change their beliefs so what have you proven or "won"?
-
Fair enough. Like I said though, I am not trying to prove RE or FE in this particular thread. I just want to know more about this conspiracy because if it were to be true and it were to be exposed it would be right up there with someone finding and proving they have the remains of Jesus Christ. It would turn the world upside down.
So for anyone to believe in this conspiracy I think is a big deal. And if there is proof of it then it needs to be exposed. I feel it would be our duty as humanitarians to do everything in our power to let the world know of such a conspiracy. Not only that we would become very rich and famous.
I tell you what, if you dont feel comfortable with the limelight then just email me the proof of this conspiracy and I will call Oprah and let the world know of my findings. Heck, I may even send you a little something something for your efforts.
Well I'm not too sure about being a humanitarian but I certainly like the idea of being rich.
As of yet, there is no evidence to support it. It's merely a hypothesis that attempts to explain phenomena, so it's on pretty similar footing to dark matter or the Higgs boson.
I will definitely try and find some direct evidence for a conspiracy though if you think it would go a long way to validating Flat Earth Theory.
-
time for some sillyness:
Tom Bishop is a vampire. i have no proof that he is, THEREFORE IT MUST BE TRUE!!
that's how absurd FEr's "conspiracy" babbling is.
oh, i remember reading about the laser bouncing off the moon: it was focussed into a VERY narrow beam, which bounced off a MIRROR that the Apollo crews left on the moon. you wouldn't need a REALLY powerful laser for that, just an accurate aiming system!
-
Please get back on your Olanzapine tablets, Eric.
-
oh, i remember reading about the laser bouncing off the moon: it was focussed into a VERY narrow beam, which bounced off a MIRROR that the Apollo crews left on the moon. you wouldn't need a REALLY powerful laser for that, just an accurate aiming system!
My goodness! Why didn't NASA think of that?
-
oh, i remember reading about the laser bouncing off the moon: it was focussed into a VERY narrow beam, which bounced off a MIRROR that the Apollo crews left on the moon. you wouldn't need a REALLY powerful laser for that, just an accurate aiming system!
My goodness! Why didn't NASA think of that?
Because it doesn't work and nobody has bounced a beam off the moon except NASA, and NASA funded/supplied organizations.
-
oh, i remember reading about the laser bouncing off the moon: it was focussed into a VERY narrow beam, which bounced off a MIRROR that the Apollo crews left on the moon. you wouldn't need a REALLY powerful laser for that, just an accurate aiming system!
My goodness! Why didn't NASA think of that?
Because it doesn't work and nobody has bounced a beam off the moon except NASA, and NASA funded/supplied organizations.
Right, so now it's up to you to prove they're lying.
-
I don't recall NASA being the only people collecting data from the laser arrays on the Moon. From what I can tell, the two main places keeping an eye on the Moon are in Texas and France, and don't really have all that much to do with NASA. I don't know why people keep saying that NASA is the only group that has control over the reflectors on the Moon. Anyone with a sufficiently powerful laser and detector could use them. NASA doesn't have a big sheet it puts in front of the Moon to stop people using the stuff on it.
It wouldn't surprise me if in reality, NASA weren't the ones who measured the distance to the Moon in the first place. NASA doesn't have many excessively powerful lasers and sensitive detectors for the relevant wavelengths, so they probably asked some other group to do it for them.
All in all, we know that it takes 2.5 seconds for light to go from the Earth to the Moon and back again. I doubt NASA's going to be able to hide anything about that.
-
I don't recall NASA being the only people collecting data from the laser arrays on the Moon. From what I can tell, the two main places keeping an eye on the Moon are in Texas and France, and don't really have all that much to do with NASA.
You are taking about the McDonald's Observatory and the Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur which were both shown to recieve direction and funding from NASA in a different thread.
-
All in all, we know that it takes 2.5 seconds for light to go from the Earth to the Moon and back again. I doubt NASA's going to be able to hide anything about that.
No we don't. NASA and NASA funded/supplied organizations tell us that.
-
Nope. Time Travel is far beyond IBM computers. Boring through the Earth's crust is way beyond pyrmaids. The technology used on the Apollo Missions is less advanced than a cell phone of a flat screen TV.
Rocket technologies, space suits, heat shields, space alloys, and oxygen recyclers are all entirely different technologies than cell phones and flat screen TV's. You must prove that these space technologies exist as NASA advertises. None the technologies NASA claims exist are within human experience as cell phones and flat screen TV's are.
It's not my responsibility to prove that the technologies do not exist. I don't need to prove that a man can't travel through time, that God doesn't talk to people, or a man can't bore through the earth's crust. The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim.
Claiming that the technologies are "physically possible" and therefore real isn't proof. I don't know what that is. That's just stupid.
Time Travel is also "physically possible" in many theories of physics. Does that mean we should believe John Titor when he claims to have a device which can travel through time?
his isn't a blip floating in the sky. This is a clearly and unquestionably a video of an obviously man-made object extremely high up and moving very quickly. This object must be above the bulk of the atmosphere (because of it's unaerodynamic shape). This tells us quite a lot. This tells us that mankind has indeed sent objects into space.
Plenty of man made devices move through the sky. You must prove:
- That what you see is a space ship.
- That what you see is sitting beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
- That the device is moving at the speeds claimed by NASA.
If you cannot prove any of the above, all we can really say on the matter is that we see a man-made object moving through the sky. The existence of this object says nothing on the honesty of NASA, their videos, their testimonies, their press releases or claims.
-
You are taking about the McDonald's Observatory and the Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur which were both shown to recieve direction and funding from NASA in a different thread.
Yeah, because NASA lies about absolutely everything except who they fund. Apparently, that is the only area where we can trust NASA.
Nope. Time Travel is far beyond IBM computers. Boring through the Earth's crust is way beyond pyrmaids. The technology used on the Apollo Missions is less advanced than a cell phone of a flat screen TV.
Rocket technologies, space suits, heat shields, space alloys, and oxygen recyclers are all entirely different technologies than cell phones and flat screen TV's. You must prove that these space technologies exist as NASA advertises. None the technologies NASA claims exist are within human experience as cell phones and flat screen TV's are.
I wasn't saying that they are the same kind of technology. I was saying that the shit in a cell phone is more advanced than the shit in the Moon Lander. All the technology that NASA used in the Sixties isn't all that advanced compared to, say, the laptop I'm typing on. Of course, the shit they got now is at an entirely different level.
I must prove them? Tom, how do you suggest that I do that, how could I prove them to your satisfaction?
Claiming that the technologies are "physically possible" and therefore real isn't proof. I don't know what that is. That's just stupid.
Time Travel is also "physically possible" in many theories of physics. Does that mean we should believe John Titor when he claims to have a device which can travel through time?
I wasn't trying to show that NASA has those technologies. You where saying that those technologies where insane/far-fetched. I was point out that they aren't.
Plenty of man made devices move through the sky. You must prove:
- That what you see is a space ship.
- That what you see is sitting beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
- That the device is moving at the speeds claimed by NASA.
If you cannot prove any of the above, all we can really say on the matter is that we see a man-made object moving through the sky. The existence of this object says nothing on the honesty of NASA, their videos, their testimonies, their press releases or claims.
Go look at Messier's shit. Better yet, wait 'til he's back on here.
-
Yeah, because NASA lies about absolutely everything except who they fund. Apparently, that is the only area where we can trust NASA.
You're suggesting they do not fund those observatories? It'd be pretty hard to fund them secretly, wouldn't you agree?
I was saying that the shit in a cell phone is more advanced than the shit in the Moon Lander. All the technology that NASA used in the Sixties isn't all that advanced compared to, say, the laptop I'm typing on.
I'll take you seriously when your laptop or cellphone goes to the moon.
-
Yeah, because NASA lies about absolutely everything except who they fund. Apparently, that is the only area where we can trust NASA.
You're suggesting they do not fund those observatories? It'd be pretty hard to fund them secretly, wouldn't you agree?
I'm suggesting that if you're going to say that everything NASA says is a lie, than you can't go around quoting their financial statements as the truth.
I was saying that the shit in a cell phone is more advanced than the shit in the Moon Lander. All the technology that NASA used in the Sixties isn't all that advanced compared to, say, the laptop I'm typing on.
I'll take you seriously when your laptop or cellphone goes to the moon.
My laptop wasn't designed to go to the moon. But it can run computations in a few minutes that would have taken the computers on the Apollo Rocket's a hell of a long time.
-
Nope. Time Travel is far beyond IBM computers. Boring through the Earth's crust is way beyond pyrmaids. The technology used on the Apollo Missions is less advanced than a cell phone of a flat screen TV.
Rocket technologies, space suits, heat shields, space alloys, and oxygen recyclers are all entirely different technologies than cell phones and flat screen TV's. You must prove that these space technologies exist as NASA advertises. None the technologies NASA claims exist are within human experience as cell phones and flat screen TV's are.
It's not my responsibility to prove that the technologies do not exist. I don't need to prove that a man can't travel through time, that God doesn't talk to people, or a man can't bore through the earth's crust. The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim.
Claiming that the technologies are "physically possible" and therefore real isn't proof. I don't know what that is. That's just stupid.
Time Travel is also "physically possible" in many theories of physics. Does that mean we should believe John Titor when he claims to have a device which can travel through time?
his isn't a blip floating in the sky. This is a clearly and unquestionably a video of an obviously man-made object extremely high up and moving very quickly. This object must be above the bulk of the atmosphere (because of it's unaerodynamic shape). This tells us quite a lot. This tells us that mankind has indeed sent objects into space.
Plenty of man made devices move through the sky. You must prove:
- That what you see is a space ship.
- That what you see is sitting beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
- That the device is moving at the speeds claimed by NASA.
If you cannot prove any of the above, all we can really say on the matter is that we see a man-made object moving through the sky. The existence of this object says nothing on the honesty of NASA, their videos, their testimonies, their press releases or claims.
I don't care much about the rest of this thread but there are some points to make here.
Oxygen recyclers
There are a number of ways to do this. I'm not sure which method NASA uses but for underground mining operations, miners are equipped with personal rebreathers. These are essentially an inflatable bag with potassium superoxide in them. You breath out CO2 and it reacts (in presence of moisture i believe) with the superoxide to create a potassium carbonate and oxygen which you then inhale). This is simple chemistry. I've used these for safety inductions, they are real and work.
SCUBA Rebreathers
These scrub out CO2 so you don't poison yourself breathing the same air and add small amounts of O2 to keep levels correct.
This stuff isn't fantasy.
Heat Shields
Ever work with refractory materials in kilns or furnaces? I've touched the outside of a kiln at 1200 celcius and it hasn't cooked my hand. Sure it was warm but it wasn't glowing. This was through ~100mm of wall.
Space suit?
We have pressure suits that allow humans to work in the black depths of the ocean at tremendous pressures. How is this any more difficult than building a suit to protect from a vacuum?
Rocket Technology
What specific rocket tech are you talking about? The principle itself is simple. Combustion producing heat which expands a gas forcing it out a nozzle to produce thrust. The Nazi's with the V-1 managed this half a century ago. Or are you talking something more complicated like the turbo pumps and cryogenic fuels in use on the orbiter?
I don't really know what you mean by space alloys.
-
He's probably talking about superalloys used for their high resistance to deformation under thermal and mechanical stresses, although there is nothing really high tech about those either.
-
Rocket technologies, space suits, heat shields, space alloys, and oxygen recyclers are all entirely different technologies than cell phones and flat screen TV's. You must prove that these space technologies exist as NASA advertises. None the technologies NASA claims exist are within human experience as cell phones and flat screen TV's are.
As I've said, I've provided proof in the form of videos, photos and testimonies among other things. You refuse to accept them, claiming that everyone (not just NASA) is lying. If we allowed this, then none of Rowbotham's evidence would be admittable either, because all we have is his word, and in fact we don't even have photo or video proof.
We have provided evidence. You refuse to accept it. You must now explain why.
Also, dyno has explained that these technologies are not so far beyond common experience as you claim.
Plenty of man made devices move through the sky. You must prove:
- That what you see is a space ship.
- That what you see is sitting beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
- That the device is moving at the speeds claimed by NASA.
This object is clearly moving very fast, because it travels around the world in 90 minutes (visit any satellite tracking website). If we transform the ISS's orbit onto a FE map we get this:
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ghazwozza/ISSorbit.png)
The yellow ellipse is the ISS's orbit.
If we estimate its size, it's roughly a circle 20,000km across, which means it travels 20,000*Pi km in 90mins which gives a speed of about 40 kms/s.
We can clearly see through a telescope that the object is not aerodynamic and it is not glowing due to atmospheric friction. Therefore, it must be above the atmsphere.
-
I don't see how a blip in the sky proves NASA's honesty in all matters mentioned. What does looking at a blip float by in the sky tell us about the moon missions, sustained space travel, the technologies NASA has claimed to have invented, whether NASA is a fraudulent entity, or whether their video portrayal of earth and space are untainted?
I'm sorry but this is not a "blip."
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a314/Messierhunter/issicon2.jpg)
It tells us quite a lot in fact, it tells us whether or not "sustained space travel" (aka orbiting) is possible because the only way to find the blip is by predicting when and where it will show up in the sky based on its orbital information. If it was not in orbit it would not show up in the right place in the sky to amateur observers all over the world.
The mirrors were deliberately left in an attempt to prove to the world that NASA really did go to the moon. NASA works directly with professional astronomers to build the high power military-grade lasers necessary for the moon-bounce.
How dare they try to prove that they really went to the moon lol. So now the story is that the observatories aren't "evil conspirators," it's just that the laser is bouncing off the moon without any help? Why do they have to aim it precisely at the landing site then to get it to work? Honestly Tom, I think you were better off asserting that anyone claiming to have bounced a laser off the moon is lying. If moon bounces are real (yet not being aided by retroreflectors), then that puts the moon much farther away and makes it much larger than FE predicts (based on the >2 second time for the light bounce to occur). But there are other amateurs who have listened to radio signals coming from moon during apollo missions and even picked up the voice transmissions. No longer can you claim that other governments who claimed to have picked up Apollo's signals were just in on the FE conspiracy and lying to the public:
"On December 10, 1972 we picked up our first signals on S-band. The main carrier was 45 dB over noise and the voice subcarrier was 25 dB over noise. Apollo 17 passed. over the lunar disc between 1722 and 1819.10 local time (2222-2319 UT), and we measured a total Doppler frequency shift of 43 kHz. The next day the lunar module landed on the Moon and at 1518 local time we picked up main carrier and telemetry from the surface of the moon some 80 minutes after touchdown. Unfortunately the astronauts soon changed to low power which prevented us from getting voice signals because of the too low signal-to-noise ratio. The lunar module transmitted on 2282.5 MHz, but we decided to shift back to the frequency of the command module in lunar orbit, i.e. 2287.5 MHz. The lone astronaut Evans was not very talkative except when he just appeared in front of the Moon or just before he disappeared behind it. At such times he changed to high power and on December 11 we could pick up our first voice signals from the Moon. At 1722.00 local time (2222 UT) Ron Evans said: "'Standby three zero" and at l722.30, i.e. 30 seconds later, we abruptly lost the signal as the spacecraft swung, around the edge of the Moon.
The following day, December12, we concentrated on the command module and received strong voice signals on several occasions (Here [10 kB, mp3][http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/sounds/AP17SB.mp3 (http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/sounds/AP17SB.mp3)] you can hear Ron Evans say: "The barber pole it is grey", referring to a barber pole-shaped control panel indicator). We also had an opportunity to test different FM detectors. To our great surprise slope detection worked amazingly well. When using this mode the receiver is slightly detuned so that the FM signal is placed on one of the slopes of the a selectivity curve of the receiver. In this way FM is converted to AM which is heard in the loudspeaker. When using slope detection the R-390 was operated with 16 kHz bandwidth to avoid resetting the main tuning too often because of Doppler shift.
On December 14, 1972 I left Gainesville for Sweden. At Kennedy Airport I watched the astronauts leave the moon on a little pay-TV which you could find on many seats in the air terminal. So-the Apollo program was all over. "
-Sven Grahn
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm
He also tracked the radio signals of the Russian lander Luna 20 here:
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/luna20/LUNA20.htm
-
Plenty of man made devices move through the sky. You must prove:
- That what you see is a space ship.
- That what you see is sitting beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
- That the device is moving at the speeds claimed by NASA.
If you cannot prove any of the above, all we can really say on the matter is that we see a man-made object moving through the sky. The existence of this object says nothing on the honesty of NASA, their videos, their testimonies, their press releases or claims.
All of the above can be proven simultaneously. Compute the predicting sightings of a spacecraft for your location, take a computerized telescope and feed it the predicted path the spacecraft will take at precisely the right time (even a tenth of a second can be the difference between success and failure), see if the spacecraft is there (you should be able to see it even before you look through the telescope). If it is and if you can get your telescope to track it properly, then it is moving at the predicted speed and in the predicted place. Since those predictions were derived only from the orbital information of the object and your location, the only way it could appear to you at the right place and time is if it really is at the published velocity and location. The exact place and time it should appear in the sky isn't just determined by the orbital info, which is why they can't fake it; it's equally determined by your location, so knowing exactly where you are to within a few dozen feet is also critical.
-
You must prove:
- That what you see is a space ship.
- That what you see is sitting beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
- That the device is moving at the speeds claimed by NASA.
Here's one more nail in the coffin of FE, don't know why I didn't think of this before now. Amateur observers have witnessed events in space caused by spacecraft. Back in september of '06 the SMART-1 ESA probe was intentionally crashed into the moon at the end of its mission at a pre-determined location on the night side of the moon. An amateur with an LX90 (very similar to my scope) set up for the event and caught the flash of impact on the moon with his webcam:
(http://cosmonut.org/Smart-1.gif)
The moon is most definately outside the atmosphere.
Another thing definately outside the atmosphere are comets. The Deep Impact mission hit comet tempel 1 on July 4th 2005. Amateur telescopes were able to see this impact happen exactly as predicted as well:
Before:
(http://www.morning-twilight.com/dm448/images/Tempel1_Pre.jpg)
After:
(http://www.morning-twilight.com/dm448/images/Tempel1_Post.jpg)
The comet's nucleus has increased in size between images, just as predicted.
This time-lapse movie from another amateur shows the same event:
http://www.oldstarlight.com/All%20page%20content%20consolidation/Deep_Impact_1.5%20hours_5_arc_minute_field.avi (http://www.oldstarlight.com/All%20page%20content%20consolidation/Deep_Impact_1.5%20hours_5_arc_minute_field.avi)
Definately outside the atmosphere and definately impacted by a spaceship.
-
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.
I know that was not the intention of my thread but it was just as satisfying to read.
-
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.
When? ???
-
When didn't he?
-
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.
When? ???
It takes minor comprehension skills.
I really need to come up with my own conspiracy theory so I can draw in all the morons that will believe anything they are told as long as the word conspiracy is tied to it. Just look what it did for the Loose Change idiots. The problem is they both believed their own bullshit and got completely ass raped by Popular Mechanics.
All I know now is that they should have come back with the lame and out of context argument "appeal to authority is a fallacy".
*goes to work on conspiracy
-
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.
When? ???
It takes minor comprehension skills.
Surely you're capable of pointing these instances out then.
-
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.
When? ???
It takes minor comprehension skills.
Surely you're capable of pointing these instances out then.
Try reading his fucking posts. I dont need to quote them so you can read them do I?
Or wait, do you put all people who prove him wrong on ignore?
-
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.
When? ???
It takes minor comprehension skills.
Surely you're capable of pointing these instances out then.
Try reading his fucking posts. I dont need to quote them so you can read them do I?
Hey, plenty of people have made Tom look like a fool, myself included, but I did read messierhunter's posts and saw nothing that made Tom look like a fool.
-
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.
When? ???
It takes minor comprehension skills.
Surely you're capable of pointing these instances out then.
Try reading his fucking posts. I dont need to quote them so you can read them do I?
Hey, plenty of people have made Tom look like a fool, myself included, but I did read messierhunter's posts and saw nothing that made Tom look like a fool.
Besides the fact that the FAQ claims only the top 2-3 people at NASA are in on the conspiracy and yet there are tons of amateur's who have discovered and proven that there are satellite's orbiting our planet.
As I have said since the beginning of this thread, I dont really give a shit if people believe the earth is flat or round. Believing it is flat and claiming that it is in public and especially in intellectual circles does enough damage to ones reputation assuming they had one in the first place.
I just want to talk about the conspiracy because I think people who believe in such outlandish things such as 3 governments and their space programs pulling off something this elaborate when they hate each other is something that they need to be called out on.
Seriously, if your research and studies in life ever come to the conclusion of "it must be a conspiracy" then you may want to go back to the drawing board. There is no doubt that claiming such things draws the curiosity out of people but playing on the weak is not something anyone should be proud of.
I have come to understand that no one on here who believes in a FE is ever going to admit they are wrong at this point because of all the crow they would have to eat. You could take Tom Bishop up in a space shuttle and show him that the earth was round and he would say it was all simulated, he was drugged, and none of it really happened.
Thus why all I ask is for proof of the government lying to us. Proof of the detractors testimonies. Proof of at least one astronaut who could not live with himself. The conscious of every single person who has ever been on a space shuttle and traveled to space would be on the line. Not only that but our government would be guilty of killing those whom we have lost on failed missions. The effort it would take to cover up something of this magnitude is so unbelievable that it alone is a case for a RE. You can scare people into doing many things. You can brainwash many people. But you cant control the delicate conscious of every single person that is involved.
Believe it or not there are good people in this world who, if they knew, would never let this go. Not to mention the money one would make for proving such a conspiracy to be true.
None of it makes sense to those with one ounce of critical thinking skills.
-
Besides the fact that the FAQ claims only the top 2-3 people at NASA are in on the conspiracy
LOL. It says nothing of the sort. ::)
and yet there are tons of amateur's who have discovered and proven that there are satellite's orbiting our planet.
Obviously they're seeing something; it's just not satellites. Tom certainly doesn't claim that all amateur astronomers are in on the conspiracy.
As I have said since the beginning of this thread, I dont really give a shit if people believe the earth is flat or round. Believing it is flat and claiming that it is in public and especially in intellectual circles does enough damage to ones reputation assuming they had one in the first place.
I just want to talk about the conspiracy because I think people who believe in such outlandish things such as 3 governments and their space programs pulling off something this elaborate when they hate each other is something that they need to be called out on.
Okay...
Seriously, if your research and studies in life ever come to the conclusion of "it must be a conspiracy" then you may want to go back to the drawing board. There is no doubt that claiming such things draws the curiosity out of people but playing on the weak is not something anyone should be proud of.
All right...
I have come to understand that no one on here who believes in a FE is ever going to admit they are wrong at this point because of all the crow they would have to eat. You could take Tom Bishop up in a space shuttle and show him that the earth was round and he would say it was all simulated, he was drugged, and none of it really happened.
That's not what he would say, but whatever...
Thus why all I ask is for proof of the government lying to us. Proof of the detractors testimonies. Proof of at least one astronaut who could not live with himself. The conscious of every single person who has ever been on a space shuttle and traveled to space would be on the line. Not only that but our government would be guilty of killing those whom we have lost on failed missions. The effort it would take to cover up something of this magnitude is so unbelievable that it alone is a case for a RE. You can scare people into doing many things. You can brainwash many people. But you cant control the delicate conscious of every single person that is involved.
I think you mean "conscience", but at any rate, do you have anything besides conjecture supporting your position that there is no conspiracy?
Believe it or not there are good people in this world who, if they knew, would never let this go. Not to mention the money one would make for proving such a conspiracy to be true.
None of it makes sense to those with one ounce of critical thinking skills.
It depends on how much power the conspiracy wields. I'd also like to point out the old axiom that power corrupts; this has been demonstrated time and again throughout history. People who start out with the best of intentions often end up committing the worst of atrocities. "People have consciences" is a startlingly weak argument against the conspiracy.
And you forgot to show where messierhunter made Tom look like a fool.
-
You really are a jackass duuuh.
It may not be the FAQ where I read about the top two or three people in NASA but I know for a fact I read it and it was by one of the hardcore FErs on here. I will look for it another time.
The power of the human conscience has been running the planet since the beginning of humanity. But I am not here to get into a philosophical debate on ethics or morals.
So the exact same pictures that NASA has of the space station which look identical to the amateur photo's messierhunter posted dont mean there would have to be a conspiracy there? Ok bro, keep telling yourself stupid shit.
I also read the outlandish claims in the FAQ about how an ice wall could be guarded by a few hundred people and some "equipment". Really? The US has this equipment but cant even guard the US Border from Mexican immigrants? Again, keep telling yourself this ignorant bullshit makes any sense.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely is the axiom but it would not apply if 3 governments were in on it. And dont even say money would bond them. Good job taking it out of context though.
Let me just say this. I have a close friend of mine. I have known him since I was a child and he is one of the smartest men I have ever been around. He was top of his class at Texas A & M in astro physics. He went on to get his masters degree in astro physics from the University of Houston and the University of Texas. His work in the fields of astro physics was noticed by NASA and he went to work for them on special projects while working on his doctorate. He wrote his doctorate thesis on orbital paths to Mars in an attempt to help then find the exact timing it would take to send a human piloted space craft to Mars and have it return within the shortest amount of time.
He then went on to work in the private sector and is now a professor at Georgia Tech. He is a Christian and a man of principle in which I have seen through his actions and words since a child.
Tom Bishop would call him a liar. And he would make Tom Bishop look like an imbecile in any debate on this subject.
But see, you and Tom would just call that an appeal to authority. I dont. It is an appeal to the credibility of someone I have known first hand my entire life.
I have thought about emailing him this website and asking him to give some insight in which I may still do but I have a feeling it would be a waste of his time.
-
The power of the human conscience has been running the planet since the beginning of humanity. But I am not here to get into a philosophical debate on ethics or morals.
No doubt, but wouldn't you say that the quality seems to elude those in power throughout history?
Let me just say this. I have a close friend of mine. I have known him since I was a child and he is one of the smartest men I have ever been around. He was top of his class at Texas A & M in astro physics. He went on to get his masters degree in astro physics from the University of Houston and the University of Texas. His work in the fields of astro physics was noticed by NASA and he went to work for them on special projects while working on his doctorate. He wrote his doctorate thesis on orbital paths to Mars in an attempt to help then find the exact timing it would take to send a human piloted space craft to Mars and have it return within the shortest amount of time.
He then went on to work in the private sector and is now a professor at Georgia Tech. He is a Christian and a man of principle in which I have seen through his actions and words since a child.
Tom Bishop would call him a liar. And he would make Tom Bishop look like an imbecile in any debate on this subject.
Tom might very well say that; I'm not so quick to pass judgment. I think it at least equally likely that your friend has been fooled, just like the rest of us, and unwittingly recruited to spread RE propaganda.
-
The power of the human conscience has been running the planet since the beginning of humanity. But I am not here to get into a philosophical debate on ethics or morals.
Really? And it works flawlessly, there have been zero problems?
So how do you explain religion? They all have solid evidence that whatever god they believe in exists? Maybe you think they all believe, but then how do you explain Peter Popoff and the like?
I also read the outlandish claims in the FAQ about how an ice wall could be guarded by a few hundred people and some "equipment". Really? The US has this equipment but cant even guard the US Border from Mexican immigrants? Again, keep telling yourself this ignorant bullshit makes any sense.
Not even close to the same thing. The problem with borders is letting the legitimate traffic pass.
The Antarctic region is a vast desert. Even without any protection almost nobody can get anywhere without massive effort.
He is a Christian and a man of principle in which I have seen through his actions and words since a child.
Tom Bishop would call him a liar. And he would make Tom Bishop look like an imbecile in any debate on this subject.
I will call him a liar right now. Or can he prove god exists?
-
The power of the human conscience has been running the planet since the beginning of humanity. But I am not here to get into a philosophical debate on ethics or morals.
No doubt, but wouldn't you say that the quality seems to elude those in power throughout history?
Let me just say this. I have a close friend of mine. I have known him since I was a child and he is one of the smartest men I have ever been around. He was top of his class at Texas A & M in astro physics. He went on to get his masters degree in astro physics from the University of Houston and the University of Texas. His work in the fields of astro physics was noticed by NASA and he went to work for them on special projects while working on his doctorate. He wrote his doctorate thesis on orbital paths to Mars in an attempt to help then find the exact timing it would take to send a human piloted space craft to Mars and have it return within the shortest amount of time.
He then went on to work in the private sector and is now a professor at Georgia Tech. He is a Christian and a man of principle in which I have seen through his actions and words since a child.
Tom Bishop would call him a liar. And he would make Tom Bishop look like an imbecile in any debate on this subject.
Tom might very well say that; I'm not so quick to pass judgment. I think it at least equally likely that your friend has been fooled, just like the rest of us, and unwittingly recruited to spread RE propaganda.
No way. If the physics and math were not there he would have found it and he would admit it.
He is more educated than anyone I have ever read on this board. It would actually be quit funny to watch some of you with your limited knowledge debate with someone of his caliber. It would more then likely be like watching myself discuss philosophy with a 6 year old but still fun.
Brief Bio
Prior to coming to Georgia Tech, R.P.R. served as a member of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Section at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and was involved as mission designer and orbit determination analyst for projects such as JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter), Chandra, Spitzer, Ulysses, TPF (Terrestrial Planet Finder), and limited roles on Cassini and Dawn. He also worked on proposals and advanced concepts for space missions to Earth, the Moon, Mars, comets, asteroids, and the moons around Jupiter and Saturn. He further supported internal research on developing technologies such as low-thrust trajectory optimization and science orbit design at planetary moons.
R.P.R. has authored or co-authored dozens of journal, conference, and other technical publications; and has been a recipient of several NASA, JPL, AIAA, AAS, and other awards. He received his undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University and his graduate degrees from the University of Texas at Austin.
I got this from his website at GT. I am not going to post the link without his permission though. I am sure any one with the internet could find it with minimal effort.
-
I really have no idea what you are trying to assert with this. You know smart people? Ooh la la.
Bring him on this site, and either he will laugh at every single post that you ever made, or he is not so smart after all.
-
The power of the human conscience has been running the planet since the beginning of humanity. But I am not here to get into a philosophical debate on ethics or morals.
Really? And it works flawlessly, there have been zero problems?
So how do you explain religion? They all have solid evidence that whatever god they believe in exists? Maybe you think they all believe, but then how do you explain Peter Popoff and the like?
I also read the outlandish claims in the FAQ about how an ice wall could be guarded by a few hundred people and some "equipment". Really? The US has this equipment but cant even guard the US Border from Mexican immigrants? Again, keep telling yourself this ignorant bullshit makes any sense.
Not even close to the same thing. The problem with borders is letting the legitimate traffic pass.
The Antarctic region is a vast desert. Even without any protection almost nobody can get anywhere without massive effort.
He is a Christian and a man of principle in which I have seen through his actions and words since a child.
Tom Bishop would call him a liar. And he would make Tom Bishop look like an imbecile in any debate on this subject.
I will call him a liar right now. Or can he prove god exists?
Call him a liar all you want. I never said he could prove the existence of God. He is not an idiot like you who would even bring up the assertion that one could prove a universal negative.
And you really are a fucking retard if you think the problem with protecting the borders has to do with letting the legit traffic through. 99% of the fucking people who cross illegally do it away from the border control. Fuck you are dumb.
-
I really have no idea what you are trying to assert with this. You know smart people? Ooh la la.
Bring him on this site, and either he will laugh at every single post that you ever made, or he is not so smart after all.
How come every time you post it is full of fucking ignorance. I did not just say I knew a smart person. I know someone who is an expert in the field. Something you are not and have proved with every stroke of your fingers on the keyboard.
Who the fuck do you know who is an expert on any of this? You are just a fucking keyboard warrior with a small pebble brain who believes anything that is told to you as long as it is a "conspiracy".
Sorry that you take your anger and aggression of being beat up in high school out on people who come here. I would just like to once see you act and talk the way you do to people here in real life. You are epitome of what the world calls a coward.
-
Call him a liar all you want. I never said he could prove the existence of God. He is not and idiot like you who would even bring up the assertion that one could prove a universal negative.
Then I guess he is a liar. Since there is no Jebus.
And you really are a fucking retard if you think the problem with protecting the borders has to do with letting the legit traffic through. 99% of the fucking people who cross illegally do it away from the border control. Fuck you are dumb.
Umm... no I think you are the fucking idiot if you think the mexican border is the same as the antarctic.
The problem is legitimate traffic. Most of the people on this side of the border are bogus targets. If you first shot everyone in the US side, and the entire US side was an empty desert wasteland without wildlife, vegetation, or hiding places- no problems protecting the border. You can spot a human being for hundreds of miles.
And as I said, you hardly need to protect it. If you think you can get to the rim and back, be my guest.
-
You can spot a human being for hundreds of miles.
wtf?
-
Call him a liar all you want. I never said he could prove the existence of God. He is not and idiot like you who would even bring up the assertion that one could prove a universal negative.
Then I guess he is a liar. Since there is no Jebus.
And you really are a fucking retard if you think the problem with protecting the borders has to do with letting the legit traffic through. 99% of the fucking people who cross illegally do it away from the border control. Fuck you are dumb.
Umm... no I think you are the fucking idiot if you think the mexican border is the same as the antarctic.
The problem is legitimate traffic. Most of the people on this side of the border are bogey targets. If you first shot everyone in the US side, and the entire US side was an empty desert wasteland without wildlife, vegetation, or hiding places- no problems protecting the border. You can spot a human being for hundreds of miles.
And as I said, you hardly need to protect it. If you think you can get to the rim and back, be my guest.
You know how fucking long the US/Mexico border is? Obviously not.
And I have no desire to set sail for something that does not exist. I am not as much of a douche bag moron as you are. I would love for you to get on a ship and try though. I would love even more for it to be documented. We could stick it in the comedy section at Blockbuster.
Funny that someone could actually call me an idiot and say something as stupid as Jesus did not exist. It is one thing to say he is not God or the son of God but to deny his existence on this planet takes a really mental disability. Thanks for pointing that out to me not that I already had not figured it out.
-
No way. If the physics and math were not there he would have found it and he would admit it.
He is more educated than anyone I have ever read on this board. It would actually be quit funny to watch some of you with your limited knowledge debate with someone of his caliber. It would more then likely be like watching myself discuss philosophy with a 6 year old but still fun.
Brief Bio
Prior to coming to Georgia Tech, R.P.R. served as a member of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Section at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and was involved as mission designer and orbit determination analyst for projects such as JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter), Chandra, Spitzer, Ulysses, TPF (Terrestrial Planet Finder), and limited roles on Cassini and Dawn. He also worked on proposals and advanced concepts for space missions to Earth, the Moon, Mars, comets, asteroids, and the moons around Jupiter and Saturn. He further supported internal research on developing technologies such as low-thrust trajectory optimization and science orbit design at planetary moons.
R.P.R. has authored or co-authored dozens of journal, conference, and other technical publications; and has been a recipient of several NASA, JPL, AIAA, AAS, and other awards. He received his undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University and his graduate degrees from the University of Texas at Austin.
I think the physics and math are there, he's just interpreting it incorrectly, from his RE bias. Do you really think intelligent people can't be gullible? You don't think we're claiming to be more intelligent than well over 99% of the planet, do you? No matter how intelligent someone is, he will still put full faith in the dogma taught by those in authority. Look at the Church for confirmation of this. Many intelligent people put faith in Jesus despite a profound lack of evidence that he was the son of God. Your friend would appear to be one of them.
But if he's that involved in NASA, maybe he is a liar. I don't know.
-
I think the physics and math are there, he's just interpreting it incorrectly, from his RE bias.
That's like saying that if you thought that you had a car in your garage and you looked in your garage and saw a rhino you would think that the rhino was a car because of your car bias. Really.
-
Bring him on this site, and either he will laugh at every single post that you ever made, or he is not so smart after all.
I actually like the idea of having a conspirator onboard. It would give our claims legitimacy. And if he was half honest he would end some of the RE madness...
-
I think the physics and math are there, he's just interpreting it incorrectly, from his RE bias.
That's like saying that if you thought that you had a car in your garage and you looked in your garage and saw a rhino you would think that the rhino was a car because of your car bias. Really.
Not at all. When scientists try to present a physical model for their math, they are taking a lot of abstract concepts and trying to make something concrete out of them. That's why Newton was wrong about gravity, even though (for the problems of the time) the math was perfectly cromulent and matched the phenomena observed. When scientists make something concrete out of subjects about which the shape of the earth has a bearing, they are building off an initial assumption that the earth is round. That doesn't mean that the math itself isn't cromulent as it applies to a flat earth; just that the possibility was never considered.
-
The power of the human conscience has been running the planet since the beginning of humanity. But I am not here to get into a philosophical debate on ethics or morals.
No doubt, but wouldn't you say that the quality seems to elude those in power throughout history?
Let me just say this. I have a close friend of mine. I have known him since I was a child and he is one of the smartest men I have ever been around. He was top of his class at Texas A & M in astro physics. He went on to get his masters degree in astro physics from the University of Houston and the University of Texas. His work in the fields of astro physics was noticed by NASA and he went to work for them on special projects while working on his doctorate. He wrote his doctorate thesis on orbital paths to Mars in an attempt to help then find the exact timing it would take to send a human piloted space craft to Mars and have it return within the shortest amount of time.
He then went on to work in the private sector and is now a professor at Georgia Tech. He is a Christian and a man of principle in which I have seen through his actions and words since a child.
Tom Bishop would call him a liar. And he would make Tom Bishop look like an imbecile in any debate on this subject.
Tom might very well say that; I'm not so quick to pass judgment. I think it at least equally likely that your friend has been fooled, just like the rest of us, and unwittingly recruited to spread RE propaganda.
No way. If the physics and math were not there he would have found it and he would admit it.
He is more educated than anyone I have ever read on this board. It would actually be quit funny to watch some of you with your limited knowledge debate with someone of his caliber. It would more then likely be like watching myself discuss philosophy with a 6 year old but still fun.
Brief Bio
Prior to coming to Georgia Tech, R.P.R. served as a member of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Section at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and was involved as mission designer and orbit determination analyst for projects such as JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter), Chandra, Spitzer, Ulysses, TPF (Terrestrial Planet Finder), and limited roles on Cassini and Dawn. He also worked on proposals and advanced concepts for space missions to Earth, the Moon, Mars, comets, asteroids, and the moons around Jupiter and Saturn. He further supported internal research on developing technologies such as low-thrust trajectory optimization and science orbit design at planetary moons.
R.P.R. has authored or co-authored dozens of journal, conference, and other technical publications; and has been a recipient of several NASA, JPL, AIAA, AAS, and other awards. He received his undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University and his graduate degrees from the University of Texas at Austin.
I think the physics and math are there, he's just interpreting it incorrectly, from his RE bias. Do you really think intelligent people can't be gullible? You don't think we're claiming to be more intelligent than well over 99% of the planet, do you? No matter how intelligent someone is, he will still put full faith in the dogma taught by those in authority. Look at the Church for confirmation of this. Many intelligent people put faith in Jesus despite a profound lack of evidence that he was the son of God.
But if he's that involved in NASA, maybe he is a liar. I don't know.
No, I know him personally and he is probably the least gullible person I have ever met. Besides you are not misinterpreting math and physics. Pretty ignorant statement. Sorry but 1 +1 = 2 and there is no other way to interpret that.
Also, saying there is lack of evidence that Jesus was who he said he was, which was not the son of God but actually God himself is there. I am not here to debate his authenticity with you though. I have plenty of forums I can go to and find intelligent debate on the subject. You may want to look into the amount of prophecies he filled to the exact tee before you say such things. Such a statement in an intellectual debate on the subject would discredit you.
Here is just a partial list of fullfilled prophecies. http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html (http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html)
Again, I am not trying to get you to believe his authenticity, just wanted to show you there is intellectual debate to be had.
Further more saying my friend is deceived is not a valid argument against his claims. You would have to disprove his finding and be knowledgeable enough in Astrophysics to even have a discussion with him of any merit which I doubt you or anyone else on here is capable based solely education and accomplishments. But that is just a guess from seeing what I have seen so far.
-
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.
-
First of all, let's not frikkan turn this into a jesus argument. There are already enuff of those on the internet already.
Secondly,
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.
most Christian's don't use the Bible as a science textbook Ski, you should know that. Really.
-
No, I know him personally and he is probably the least gullible person I have ever met. Besides you are not misinterpreting math and physics. Pretty ignorant statement. Sorry but 1 +1 = 2 and there is no other way to interpret that.
Also, saying there is lack of evidence that Jesus was who he said he was, which was not the son of God but actually God himself is there. I am not here to debate his authenticity with you though. I have plenty of forums I can go to and find intelligent debate on the subject. You may want to look into the amount of prophecies he filled to the exact tee before you say such things. Such a statement in an intellectual debate on the subject would discredit you.
Here is just a partial list of fullfilled prophecies. http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html (http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html)
Again, I am not trying to get you to believe his authenticity, just wanted to show you there is intellectual debate to be had.
Further more saying my friend is deceived is not a valid argument against his claims. You would have to disprove his finding and be knowledgeable enough in Astrophysics to even have a discussion with him of any merit which I doubt you or anyone else on here is capable based solely education and accomplishments. But that is just a guess from seeing what I have seen so far.
First of all, complex physics and mathematics are not the same as 1+1=2. If there was no ambiguity to how math should be interpreted then Newton would have been right about gravity (he wasn't) and quantum theory wouldn't be the mystery it is.
Second, I'm not here to get into a religious debate either, but how do you respond to the fact that many intelligent people are Buddhists, or Jews, or Muslims? The members of all religions but the right one (if such a thing exists) must all be of below average intelligence by your reasoning.
Stupidity != gullibility.
And this is my final word on the subject of religion, but have you looked into all the prophecies that didn't come true, or were altered by the early Church to fit Christian dogma?
-
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.
Really?
lol
I dont think there is one account of a prophet or God saying the bible that the earth is flat. Would love to read it though.
-
No, I know him personally and he is probably the least gullible person I have ever met. Besides you are not misinterpreting math and physics. Pretty ignorant statement. Sorry but 1 +1 = 2 and there is no other way to interpret that.
1 + 1 = 2 is wrong when the math you are using is not in Base 10.
As with the above example, the problem with RE is that the underlying premise is entirely wrong in the first place. You can calculate orbital mechanics and publish it in a scientific journal. You can write a detailed thesis on the physics of a satellite. but none of it matters when it's impossible for any body to orbit the earth in the first place.
I dont think there is one account of a prophet or God saying the bible that the earth is flat. Would love to read it though.
There are many passages in the Christian Bible which imply that the earth is flat.
-
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.
most Christian's don't use the Bible as a science textbook Ski, you should know that. Really.
The ones that don't have reasons. I just asked why. I didn't say, "You must believe the earth is flat if you believe any part of the Bible." And some Christians do use the Bible as a text book.
-
The ones that don't have reasons. I just asked why.
Oh.
Probably because the Earth is Round. And they don't want to religiously believe things that are clearly false.
-
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.
Really?
lol
I dont think there is one account of a prophet or God saying the bible that the earth is flat. Would love to read it though.
http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/science/geocentric.html
-
No, I know him personally and he is probably the least gullible person I have ever met. Besides you are not misinterpreting math and physics. Pretty ignorant statement. Sorry but 1 +1 = 2 and there is no other way to interpret that.
Also, saying there is lack of evidence that Jesus was who he said he was, which was not the son of God but actually God himself is there. I am not here to debate his authenticity with you though. I have plenty of forums I can go to and find intelligent debate on the subject. You may want to look into the amount of prophecies he filled to the exact tee before you say such things. Such a statement in an intellectual debate on the subject would discredit you.
Here is just a partial list of fullfilled prophecies. http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html (http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html)
Again, I am not trying to get you to believe his authenticity, just wanted to show you there is intellectual debate to be had.
Further more saying my friend is deceived is not a valid argument against his claims. You would have to disprove his finding and be knowledgeable enough in Astrophysics to even have a discussion with him of any merit which I doubt you or anyone else on here is capable based solely education and accomplishments. But that is just a guess from seeing what I have seen so far.
First of all, complex physics and mathematics are not the same as 1+1=2. If there was no ambiguity to how math should be interpreted then Newton would have been right about gravity (he wasn't) and quantum theory wouldn't be the mystery it is.
Second, I'm not here to get into a religious debate either, but how do you respond to the fact that many intelligent people are Buddhists, or Jews, or Muslims? The members of all religions but the right one (if such a thing exists) must all be of below average intelligence by your reasoning.
Stupidity != gullibility.
And this is my final word on the subject of religion, but have you looked into all the prophecies that didn't come true, or were altered by the early Church to fit Christian dogma?
I sent you a PM by the way.
People of all those religions dont debate with each other on the validity of a God. It is unprovable by a human hand so it is a moot point. There is plenty of debate between people of those religions you probably just dont care enough about it to look into it. I have been in debates with people of every religion you mentioned as to their authenticity. Doesnt mean they are dumb or gullible. Religion digs a little deeper in the soul for most people then FE vs RE does. The difference is that there is provable evidence when studying the physical universe as opposed to studying the supernatural. Not really the same thing.
And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument. Like I said, I have spent too many hours on forums where these debates are welcome. It is not something I want to get into here because it has no place in the debate about FE and RE.
-
And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument.
What, you mean the ones that were written decades after the events supposedly took place? ???
-
No, I know him personally and he is probably the least gullible person I have ever met. Besides you are not misinterpreting math and physics. Pretty ignorant statement. Sorry but 1 +1 = 2 and there is no other way to interpret that.
1 + 1 = 2 is wrong when the math you are using is not in Base 10.
As with the above example, the problem with RE is that the underlying premise is entirely wrong in the first place. You can calculate orbital mechanics and publish it in a scientific journal. You can write a detailed thesis on the physics of a satellite. but none of it matters when it's impossible for any body to orbit the earth in the first place.
I dont think there is one account of a prophet or God saying the bible that the earth is flat. Would love to read it though.
There are many passages in the Christian Bible which imply that the earth is flat.
I am sure there are plenty considering back when it was written people believed it was. Like I said, there is not one prophecy or one place in the bible where God Himself has said it. Not that I know of. You would have to prove it to me but I wouldnt care anyway, it is not what we are here to debate.
-
And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument.
What, you mean the ones that were written decades after the events supposedly took place? ???
Decades? lol
And the gospels were written by and from the notes of eye witnesses except the book of Mark. Mark was a student of Paul though.
Many of Pauls letters were written well after the fact yes. That proves nothing though because Paul did not write a gospel. Only Mathew Luke and John did.
-
Guys let's not go down this road. Nothing good can come of it.
-
Guys let's not go down this road. Nothing good can come of it.
I am trying to avoid it
It is obvious though that those who stay here or have been here for awhile enjoy debating or we would have left a long time ago.
It is like throwing a fat kid in a candy store and telling him not to eat anything.
-
And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument.
What, you mean the ones that were written decades after the events supposedly took place? ???
Decades? lol
Decades, that's correct. The earliest Gospel (Mark) is dated AD 65-70, about 30-40 years after Jesus' death.
-
And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument.
What, you mean the ones that were written decades after the events supposedly took place? ???
Decades? lol
Decades, that's correct. The earliest Gospel (Mark) is dated AD 65-70, about 30-40 years after Jesus' death.
I understand. For some reason I thought "century" when you wrote decade. I do that sometimes.
Three of them were still written by eye witnesses. If you discredit them then you would have to discredit anyone who has ever written a biography if you think writing something well after it happens means it is not valid.
I hope that is not your argument.
-
And did you get my PM or not Roundy?
Dont know if I sent it correctly since it was my first one on here.
-
And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument.
What, you mean the ones that were written decades after the events supposedly took place? ???
Decades? lol
Decades, that's correct. The earliest Gospel (Mark) is dated AD 65-70, about 30-40 years after Jesus' death.
I understand. For some reason I thought "century" when you wrote decade. I do that sometimes.
Three of them were still written by eye witnesses. If you discredit them then you would have to discredit anyone who has ever written a biography if you think writing something well after it happens means it is not valid.
I hope that is not your argument.
I think most people would discredit such a biography if it included the kinds of fantastic details included in the Gospels, but that's beside the point. It's actually more generally accepted that Mark, Matthew, and Luke did not write the Gospels themselves anymore than John did. In fact, Matthew and Luke are purported to borrow elements from Mark. They are not literally eye-witness accounts, that's just how they were presented (the better to gain legitimacy among the people).
In addition, the Gospels were written as propaganda. Their specific intent was to influence the beliefs of people. Personally, I don't consider propaganda to have the same level of legitimacy that I consider an authentic historical work to have.
-
Personally, I don't consider propaganda to have the same level of legitimacy that I consider an authentic historical work to have.
Whether a written document is propaganda or authentically historical is a subjective opinion. History and fact, in general, are not interchangeable.
-
And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument.
What, you mean the ones that were written decades after the events supposedly took place? ???
Decades? lol
Decades, that's correct. The earliest Gospel (Mark) is dated AD 65-70, about 30-40 years after Jesus' death.
I understand. For some reason I thought "century" when you wrote decade. I do that sometimes.
Three of them were still written by eye witnesses. If you discredit them then you would have to discredit anyone who has ever written a biography if you think writing something well after it happens means it is not valid.
I hope that is not your argument.
I think most people would discredit such a biography if it included the kinds of fantastic details included in the Gospels, but that's beside the point. It's actually more generally accepted that Mark, Matthew, and Luke did not write the Gospels themselves anymore than John did. In fact, Matthew and Luke are purported to borrow elements from Mark. They are not literally eye-witness accounts, that's just how they were presented (the better to gain legitimacy among the people).
In addition, the Gospels were written as propaganda. Their specific intent was to influence the beliefs of people. Personally, I don't consider propaganda to have the same level of legitimacy that I consider an authentic historical work to have.
For one, stop reading Wiki for information.
Two, Mathew Luke and John were disciples. They were eye witnesses.
Propaganda? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Why would anyone write and do the things they did, putting their life on the line, and being under some of serious religious persecution just to spread propaganda? There was no need for another religion. I cant even tell you how dumb of a statement that is. If you had one ounce of knowledge of what the apostles went through you would never have said such a thing. Try reading one chapter in Foxes Book of Martyrs and then we can continue this conversation. Until then Im done.
And thanks for answering my question about the PM. I only asked twice and it was a simple yes or no answer.
-
So, in an attempt to get back on topic:
Also, dyno has explained that these technologies are not so far beyond common experience as you claim.
In this discussion technology is not a valid argument. Nuclear powered submarines were in use in this period of time that employ much of the same technology used in manufacturing space delivery systems, minus the rocket technology of course. All the life support and environmental control systems are similar if not identical in both cases. Also, the use of shielding and superalloys are very similar. The main discussion point, which was not stated or lost somewhere along the way, is that sustained space flight is not possible in FE. Not so much due to current technology, but due to the nature of FET itself.
-
Propaganda? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Why would anyone write and do the things they did, putting their life on the line, and being under some of serious religious persecution just to spread propaganda? There was no need for another religion. I cant even tell you how dumb of a statement that is. If you had one ounce of knowledge of what the apostles went through you would never have said such a thing. Try reading one chapter in Foxes Book of Martyrs and then we can continue this conversation. Until then Im done.
It was propaganda, by definition. And as pointed out, the apostles did not write the Gospels, so I don't see what bearing what they went through has to do with this discussion. To be honest, I also find it somewhat damning that there is no record of what the apostles went through either, until long after the events took place. History is silent about Jesus, and his cult, prior to the writing of the Gospels. And about Herod's atrocities, although it seems to delight in revealing the atrocities committed by the various emperors of the time. Can you point me to a single contemporary reference outside of the Bible that even mentions the Massacre of the Innocents?
You seem to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about; in fact, religion has been an interest of mine for years, and I've read quite a bit on the subject, running the gamut from theological to philosophical to historical. I have yet to encounter anything that has led me to consider the Gospels to be a legitimate historical record.
Fox's Book of Martyrs reads like scripture. Thanks, but I'd rather not. We can be done with this if you like; arguing with fundies gets tiresome because you tend to be so rigid and unyielding in your commitment to dogma. Nothing I say will change your mind anymore than anything you say will change my mind, so it's ultimately pointless. I will point out that what you say about the persecution of Christians can just as easily be said about the early Muslims; does that mean that we should treat the Koran as historical fact?
I did get your PM, by the way. I'm just not sure what you want me to do with it.
-
Everything that we consider today as historical fact from that era is essentially propaganda. The Roman empire destroyed most literature that was considered to be against the government, as did most conquering nations of that time. Historical literature is simply the opinion of the most powerful nation of an era, generally speaking.
-
Tom might very well say that; I'm not so quick to pass judgment. I think it at least equally likely that your friend has been fooled, just like the rest of us, and unwittingly recruited to spread RE propaganda.
You can't even suggest how it's possible to fake satellite observations as described, let alone astronomical phenomenon caused by spacecraft, yet for no reason at all it's not just possible, but "equally likely" that I've been fooled? No bias there, no sir, surely yours are the words of wisdom.
You say that Tom never claimed all amateurs were part of the conspiracy, but I put it to you that unless we are part of the conspiracy then FE theory has already been proven to be wrong by amateur observations.
-
As with the above example, the problem with RE is that the underlying premise is entirely wrong in the first place. You can calculate orbital mechanics and publish it in a scientific journal. You can write a detailed thesis on the physics of a satellite. but none of it matters when it's impossible for any body to orbit the earth in the first place.
According to FE, you're right Tom, space travel SHOULD be impossible. That's why successfully observing satellites repeatedly using only their orbital information and your own location on earth should be equally impossible. It should also be impossible to observe said spacecraft impacting various astronomical bodies, yet all are observed by amateurs all the time. Either amateurs are part of the conspiracy or there is no conspiracy.
-
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.
One question Ski, can you tell me what the ancient hebrew word for "sphere" is? That's all I'm going to say on this subject. It's so far from the point of this thread that I have no real desire to debate it. Just thought I'd throw that out there for Shaydawg's sake.
-
You say that Tom never claimed all amateurs were part of the conspiracy, but I put it to you that unless we are part of the conspiracy then FE theory has already been proven to be wrong by amateur observations.
I guess we'll just have to disagree. *shrug*
-
One question Ski, can you tell me what the ancient hebrew word for "sphere" is?
Your attempt at a trick question is a subjective opinion. The fact that they did not have a word for sphere in the Hebrew language does not mean that they implied a sphere when saying circle.
-
One question Ski, can you tell me what the ancient hebrew word for "sphere" is?
Your attempt at a trick question is a subjective opinion. The fact that they did not have a word for sphere in the Hebrew language does not mean that they implied a sphere when saying circle.
The fact that they did not have a separate word for sphere (in fact they would have used the same word "chuwg" if they meant sphere as if they meant circle) means that you cannot know what 3 dimensional shape they thought the earth was, you can only assume it based on how you want to translate their word for circle or sphere in those instances.
-
You say that Tom never claimed all amateurs were part of the conspiracy, but I put it to you that unless we are part of the conspiracy then FE theory has already been proven to be wrong by amateur observations.
I guess we'll just have to disagree. *shrug*
I guess that means you know how it's possible in FE for amateurs to observe spacecraft impacting celestial bodies then? Let's hear it.
-
amateurs to observe spacecraft impacting celestial bodies
If you don't mind, could you give me a brief specific example of this? Is your point that amateurs can observe lunar landings for example, or am I misunderstanding.
-
You know how fucking long the US/Mexico border is? Obviously not.
Are you seriously insane?
Mexican border:
- Millions of people on both sides (how do you find your target?)
- Communities close to both sides
- Complex landscape
- Plenty of vegetation and wildlife
- Plenty of hiding places
- Signs of humanity everywhere on both sides
Antarctic region:
- 0 people in the area you are protecting
- 0 wildlife, or vegetation
- 360 degree visibility
- No hiding places
- No human tracks except for the ones you are going to shoot
Seriously, your comparison is beyond defense.
-
Here is just a partial list of fullfilled prophecies. http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html (http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html)
Perfect. So since Jebus is the son of god... that means all Buddhists must be gullible or stupid (or the Egyptians, or the Native Americans, or the Australian Aborigines).
And you can't say that god is not the same as FE vs RE. Because for the purposes of our comparison, a god who is not visible does not count. If he does not influence the world, then he does not exist to us.
Millions of these people believe in a god who very much influences the world every day. The Egyptians for example, or the Mayans, might have killed you for saying the existence of god could not be proven. Were they stupid?
Also:
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. -- Psalm 104:5
He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble -- Job 9:6
that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? -- Job 38:13
for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. -- Job 28:24
-
If he does not influence the world, then he does not exist to us.
That depends on your frame of reference. :P
-
Everything that we consider today as historical fact from that era is essentially propaganda. The Roman empire destroyed most literature that was considered to be against the government, as did most conquering nations of that time. Historical literature is simply the opinion of the most powerful nation of an era, generally speaking.
I don't argue that fact, but it does nothing to legitimize Christianity for me. The NT was obviously written with the specific intention of influencing peoples' beliefs.
In fact, I'm not sure that any historical document from the era can be considered fully reliable. From a historical perspective, why should the NT be regarded any differently? As a product of its era I would think it should be expected that it not be an accurate representation of the facts.
-
If he does not influence the world, then he does not exist to us.
That depends on your frame of reference. :P
Very much so. I am stating the special case in which the comparison is valid (belief in a god who does influence the world observably. Such as "god made my breakfast this morning, and I filmed it"). This belief exists.
This invalidates the argument that the RE conspiracy is impossible because "people are not stupid enough to believe that"
-
Everything that we consider today as historical fact from that era is essentially propaganda. The Roman empire destroyed most literature that was considered to be against the government, as did most conquering nations of that time. Historical literature is simply the opinion of the most powerful nation of an era, generally speaking.
I don't argue that fact, but it does nothing to legitimize Christianity for me. The NT was obviously written with the specific intention of influencing peoples' beliefs.
In fact, I'm not sure that any historical document from the era can be considered fully reliable. From a historical perspective, why should the NT be regarded any differently? As a product of its era I would think it should be expected that it not be an accurate representation of the facts.
Right. We can still distinguish between Harry Potter and Bill Clinton's "My Life", although both must be considered somewhat fictional and as direct products of their times.
-
Everything that we consider today as historical fact from that era is essentially propaganda. The Roman empire destroyed most literature that was considered to be against the government, as did most conquering nations of that time. Historical literature is simply the opinion of the most powerful nation of an era, generally speaking.
I don't argue that fact, but it does nothing to legitimize Christianity for me. The NT was obviously written with the specific intention of influencing peoples' beliefs.
In fact, I'm not sure that any historical document from the era can be considered fully reliable. From a historical perspective, why should the NT be regarded any differently? As a product of its era I would think it should be expected that it not be an accurate representation of the facts.
Right. We can still distinguish between Harry Potter and Bill Clinton's "My Life", although both must be considered somewhat fictional and as direct products of their times.
I lol'd. ;D
-
I don't argue that fact, but it does nothing to legitimize Christianity for me. The NT was obviously written with the specific intention of influencing peoples' beliefs.
In fact, I'm not sure that any historical document from the era can be considered fully reliable. From a historical perspective, why should the NT be regarded any differently? As a product of its era I would think it should be expected that it not be an accurate representation of the facts.
I agree. That was meant to back your position, not his.
-
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.
One question Ski, can you tell me what the ancient hebrew word for "sphere" is?
Two words mostly. Duwr and Pehkah are the anglicized words.
-
I don't argue that fact, but it does nothing to legitimize Christianity for me. The NT was obviously written with the specific intention of influencing peoples' beliefs.
In fact, I'm not sure that any historical document from the era can be considered fully reliable. From a historical perspective, why should the NT be regarded any differently? As a product of its era I would think it should be expected that it not be an accurate representation of the facts.
I agree. That was meant to back your position, not his.
Okay, my mistake then. I probably should have realized that.
-
Propaganda? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Why would anyone write and do the things they did, putting their life on the line, and being under some of serious religious persecution just to spread propaganda? There was no need for another religion. I cant even tell you how dumb of a statement that is. If you had one ounce of knowledge of what the apostles went through you would never have said such a thing. Try reading one chapter in Foxes Book of Martyrs and then we can continue this conversation. Until then Im done.
It was propaganda, by definition. And as pointed out, the apostles did not write the Gospels, so I don't see what bearing what they went through has to do with this discussion. To be honest, I also find it somewhat damning that there is no record of what the apostles went through either, until long after the events took place. History is silent about Jesus, and his cult, prior to the writing of the Gospels. And about Herod's atrocities, although it seems to delight in revealing the atrocities committed by the various emperors of the time. Can you point me to a single contemporary reference outside of the Bible that even mentions the Massacre of the Innocents?
You seem to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about; in fact, religion has been an interest of mine for years, and I've read quite a bit on the subject, running the gamut from theological to philosophical to historical. I have yet to encounter anything that has led me to consider the Gospels to be a legitimate historical record.
Fox's Book of Martyrs reads like scripture. Thanks, but I'd rather not. We can be done with this if you like; arguing with fundies gets tiresome because you tend to be so rigid and unyielding in your commitment to dogma. Nothing I say will change your mind anymore than anything you say will change my mind, so it's ultimately pointless. I will point out that what you say about the persecution of Christians can just as easily be said about the early Muslims; does that mean that we should treat the Koran as historical fact?
I did get your PM, by the way. I'm just not sure what you want me to do with it.
For one, three of the apostles DID write the gospels. I dont even know how you could dispute it. Either way though you are not as informed as you think you are.
Here is some evidence for you. There are many things we could debate thus why I have somewhat avoided doing this and will more then likely continue considering it is off topic.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html (http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html)
-
amateurs to observe spacecraft impacting celestial bodies
If you don't mind, could you give me a brief specific example of this? Is your point that amateurs can observe lunar landings for example, or am I misunderstanding.
You must have missed page seven. This thread is rapidly expanding so that's understandable, but I was referring to impacts, which are quite different than landings. I'll quote my previous post below. Impacts are where a spacecraft intentionally slams itself into a celestial body's surface. Althought there is no fire in space, the energy released by impacts, which occur at speeds measured in kilometers per second, can cause a bright flash. In the case of the comet impact, it drastically brightened the comet as it exposed more volatile ice.
Back in september of '06 the SMART-1 ESA probe was intentionally crashed into the moon at the end of its mission at a pre-determined location on the night side of the moon. An amateur with an LX90 (very similar to my scope) set up for the event and caught the flash of impact on the moon with his webcam:
(http://cosmonut.org/Smart-1.gif)
Another thing definately outside the atmosphere are comets. The Deep Impact mission hit comet tempel 1 on July 4th 2005. Amateur telescopes were able to see this impact happen exactly as predicted as well. This time-lapse movie from another amateur with an LX200 shows the event:
http://www.oldstarlight.com/All%20page%20content%20consolidation/Deep_Impact_1.5%20hours_5_arc_minute_field.avi (http://www.oldstarlight.com/All%20page%20content%20consolidation/Deep_Impact_1.5%20hours_5_arc_minute_field.avi)
-
Back in september of '06 the SMART-1 ESA probe was intentionally crashed into the moon at the end of its mission at a pre-determined location on the night side of the moon. An amateur with an LX90 (very similar to my scope) set up for the event and caught the flash of impact on the moon with his webcam:
I don't see how that little flash of light proves that the craft is beyond the atmosphere of the earth. It's debatable whether the atmosphere extends beyond the altitude of the moon or not.
-
Back in september of '06 the SMART-1 ESA probe was intentionally crashed into the moon at the end of its mission at a pre-determined location on the night side of the moon. An amateur with an LX90 (very similar to my scope) set up for the event and caught the flash of impact on the moon with his webcam:
I don't see how that little flash of light proves that the craft is beyond the atmosphere of the earth. It's debatable whether the atmosphere extends beyond the altitude of the moon or not.
So now it is possible to get to the moon in FET?
Because if it isn't, then the only explanation is that because we can get objects to the moon, FET cannot be correct.
Also, if it is possible to get to the moon in FET, then the entire point of the conpiracy is null and void.
FET is self-defeating!
-
Back in september of '06 the SMART-1 ESA probe was intentionally crashed into the moon at the end of its mission at a pre-determined location on the night side of the moon. An amateur with an LX90 (very similar to my scope) set up for the event and caught the flash of impact on the moon with his webcam:
I don't see how that little flash of light proves that the craft is beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
That little flash of light happened on the moon's dark side (not to be confused with the incorrect terminology for the moon's far side) at exactly the time the probe was supposed to crash into exactly that spot on the moon. It proves it happened when and where it was supposed to.
It's debatable whether the atmosphere extends beyond the altitude of the moon or not.
This statement is so far gone from anything rational (even by FE standards and logic) it's truly scary. Even if you assume the moon is much closer than it actually is at 3000 miles distant according to FE, you're still well out of the atmosphere. And how would a moon inside the atmosphere keep moving without being slowed to a stop by atmospheric drag? And according to UA, wouldn't this mean that the moon would be shielded by the earth from the "UA field" and come crashing down to earth? If not, then wouldn't the atmosphere be unshielded from the UA field, separating it from the rest of the atmosphere and causing it to slowly outgas into space?
Lastly, I notice you completely ignored the sighting of Deep Impact's impact on Tempel 1. I guess I can take that as a concession of defeat.
-
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.
One question Ski, can you tell me what the ancient hebrew word for "sphere" is?
Two words mostly. Duwr and Pehkah are the anglicized words.
Can also be translated as either ball or circle. There is no ancient hebrew word that exclusively means sphere.
-
Two words mostly. Duwr and Pehkah are the anglicized words.
Can also be translated as either ball or circle. There is no ancient hebrew word that exclusively means sphere.
duwr: means simply round (sphere, circle, ball, curved)
pehkah: is a ball- or knob- as an adornment
I'm not sure what your point is, unless you really think the Jewish people were RE'ers, which would ignore the overwhelming evidence.
-
Two words mostly. Duwr and Pehkah are the anglicized words.
Can also be translated as either ball or circle. There is no ancient hebrew word that exclusively means sphere.
duwr: means simply round (sphere, circle, ball, curved)
pehkah: is a ball- or knob- as an adornment
I'm not sure what your point is, unless you really think the Jewish people were RE'ers, which would ignore the overwhelming evidence.
My point is that you can't possibly claim to know what shape the jewish people thought the earth was. The word they used was used in descibing both circles and spheres. The "overwhelming evidence" is not conclusive either way.
-
Here is some evidence for you. There are many things we could debate thus why I have somewhat avoided doing this and will more then likely continue considering it is off topic.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html (http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html)
I'm disappointed. I thought there might be actual evidence there for what you're saying. Should've known better. :(
-
Here is some evidence for you. There are many things we could debate thus why I have somewhat avoided doing this and will more then likely continue considering it is off topic.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html (http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html)
I'm disappointed. I thought there might be actual evidence there for what you're saying. Should've known better. :(
Just like your FE theory you are going to not believe anything because your reasoning skills are sub par. And if you spent anytime whatsoever on that site like I have you would know that there is plenty of evidence. I know now that you just looked at it and then clicked out. Pretty ignorant and closed minded but I am talking to a FEr so I am not surprised.
And just so you know I already sent an email to my friend about the debate. But you have failed so far on your end. To be honest I think you are scared to have a real authentic astrophysicist come here because it would ruin your little bullshit FE theory.
-
Talk about ignorant, Roundy isn't an FEer. Well played.
-
Here is some evidence for you. There are many things we could debate thus why I have somewhat avoided doing this and will more then likely continue considering it is off topic.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html (http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html)
I'm disappointed. I thought there might be actual evidence there for what you're saying. Should've known better. :(
Just like your FE theory you are going to not believe anything because your reasoning skills are sub par. And if you spent anytime whatsoever on that site like I have you would know that there is plenty of evidence. I know now that you just looked at it and then clicked out. Pretty ignorant and closed minded but I am talking to a FEr so I am not surprised.
Nothing there convinces me. What, the early church fathers say they're authentic, so they must be authentic? They were written during the apostles' lifetimes, so they must have been written by the apostles? Please.
And just so you know I already sent an email to my friend about the debate. But you have failed so far on your end. To be honest I think you are scared to have a real authentic astrophysicist come here because it would ruin your little bullshit FE theory.
You're right, I'm terrified, please stop sending me PMs.
-
It would be nice to have an astrophysicist on here.
-
Yes, please do. He can laugh at all of shaydawg's posts, and then join is in developing FET.
-
Here is some evidence for you. There are many things we could debate thus why I have somewhat avoided doing this and will more then likely continue considering it is off topic.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html (http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html)
I'm disappointed. I thought there might be actual evidence there for what you're saying. Should've known better. :(
Just like your FE theory you are going to not believe anything because your reasoning skills are sub par. And if you spent anytime whatsoever on that site like I have you would know that there is plenty of evidence. I know now that you just looked at it and then clicked out. Pretty ignorant and closed minded but I am talking to a FEr so I am not surprised.
Nothing there convinces me. What, the early church fathers say they're authentic, so they must be authentic? They were written during the apostles' lifetimes, so they must have been written by the apostles? Please.
And just so you know I already sent an email to my friend about the debate. But you have failed so far on your end. To be honest I think you are scared to have a real authentic astrophysicist come here because it would ruin your little bullshit FE theory.
You're right, I'm terrified, please stop sending me PMs.
I sent you two keyboard warrior. I am sure you are really tough in person by the way. Keep hiding behind the internet and man up.
They were apostles you dumbass. That site , since you did not read it gives references from NON CHRISTIAN sources. But like I said, if you read that you would know but you did not. Just like all the other bullshit claims on here you glance and ignore.
LOL at divito saying you are a REr but you arguing the other way. He is another idiot here anyway from what I have read. Hey Divito, you think you have the knowledge and proof to argue with someone who actually knows what they are talking about? I will happily have my friend debate you on FET. You would be a waste of time though from everything I have read.
Anyone that would like to really challenge their idiot FE beliefs please PM me and I will set it up. Until then keep acting like ignorant fucking douche bags who think it is cool to argue both ways and have absolutely zero knowledge on the subject at hand. At least I am able to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to argue and debate intelligently on the subject with someone who has a doctorate in the field of astrophysics. Unlike Roundy who thinks he knows the issues well enough to even speak on it. Just like he says he studies religion and the authenticity of the scriptures but makes some of the most ignorant statements on the subject I have ever read.
Let me know Roundy if you ever decide to grow a fucking set of balls and man up. If not shut the fuck up.
I know you are terrified just like all the other morons on this site. I know no one here is man enough to take the challenge and I even stated that in my email today. I knew if there was a possibility of it ever happening then the pussies here would back down.
-
Yes, please do. He can laugh at all of shaydawg's posts, and then join is in developing FET.
Maybe you should know what is going on before you comment dipshit. He is one of my close friends.
You really should find somewhere else to go play because everything you say is full of fail.
-
It would be nice to have an astrophysicist on here.
Trust me, they dont really want that. They enjoy living in denial.
Roundy for one has had every opportunity to man up but even pushed it off on TheEngineer because he knew he does not know shit. Just like he does not know shit about religion.
I can forward you the PM he sent me if you like.
-
The bible was written by believers for believers. Simple as that. Personally, I take it more as spiritual and metaphorical truth than literal truth.
-
At least I am able to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to argue and debate intelligently
I'm glad we're agreed. Bring on your friend so that he can laugh with us at your postings.
-
At least I am able to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to argue and debate intelligently
I'm glad we're agreed. Bring on your friend so that he can laugh with us at your postings.
Spoken like a true FEr. Taking a half truth and then posting it for the forum to laugh at your ignorance. I would not expect someone of your integrity to ever post the complete sentence found above.
At least I am able to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to argue and debate intelligently on the subject with someone who has a doctorate in the field of astrophysics
-
I think Shaydog has a crush on me. :-[
-
I think Shaydog has a crush on me. :-[
I do
Cant lie
-
Why are all our trolls so incredibly horny these days? What happened to good old fashioned straight talkin' verbal abuse?
-
Hi Kasroa,
I love your signature! The formation of earth truly is magical! Thanks for all your hard work on these forums!
-
LOL at divito saying you are a REr but you arguing the other way. He is another idiot here anyway from what I have read. Hey Divito, you think you have the knowledge and proof to argue with someone who actually knows what they are talking about? I will happily have my friend debate you on FET. You would be a waste of time though from everything I have read.
If you're into being an ignorant asshat (who thinks he's tough on the internet), who can only invoke fallacies to claim knowledge, than you're just a waste of space and time. Really not surprising.
-
(http://cosmonut.org/Smart-1.gif)
Anyone that thinks faking pictures/video is too difficult can die in a fire. That must've taken a ton of money to create...
-
Hi Kasroa,
I love your signature! The formation of earth truly is magical! Thanks for all your hard work on these forums!
And the formation of you from a dog turd was magical too.
-
LOL at divito saying you are a REr but you arguing the other way. He is another idiot here anyway from what I have read. Hey Divito, you think you have the knowledge and proof to argue with someone who actually knows what they are talking about? I will happily have my friend debate you on FET. You would be a waste of time though from everything I have read.
If you're into being an ignorant asshat (who thinks he's tough on the internet), who can only invoke fallacies to claim knowledge, than you're just a waste of space and time. Really not surprising.
I am actually tough in real life but that is besides the point. I have never invoked one single fallacy that I know of. And I was talking about you debating my friend. I sent Roundy the link and I will PM it to you as well. I already have an email sent to him and a link to this site. More then likely I will try and get the debate set up with TheEngineer or Narc. They seem to understand their positions the best from a physics perspective. I dont want to bore my buddy with dumb bullshit or he wont do it.
My only fear is the people who really think they know their shit on here dont have the educactional background and knowledge to even comprehend what he is explaining. That is speculation though because I dont know who all has their doctorate in Astrophysics on here and who has been a consultant for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory like my friend.
-
I have never invoked one single fallacy that I know of.
I can't imagine that you've avoided appealing to authority. Negative proof fallacy and argument from ignorance are very popular around here. Appeal to ridicule is also one that shows up, as well as wishful thinking. Whether you've invoked any of these can't really be determined from my point of view. Probabilistically though, you've at least invoked one to claim some type of knowledge set you have.
My only fear is the people who really think they know their shit on here dont have the educactional background and knowledge to even comprehend what he is explaining. That is speculation though because I dont know who all has their doctorate in Astrophysics on here and who has been a consultant for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory like my friend.
Well, thinking that educational background translates into intelligence would be somewhat illogical. Personally, my friends and neighbors who haven't done certain schooling or achieved high GPAs, are more intelligent and successful than those who did go to school. I suppose it depends on what type of intelligence and success you're trying to establish though, I digress.
It would be interesting to see any such debate that arises from your friend's involvement though.
-
I have never invoked one single fallacy that I know of.
I can't imagine that you've avoided appealing to authority. Negative proof fallacy and argument from ignorance are very popular around here. Appeal to ridicule is also one that shows up, as well as wishful thinking. Whether you've invoked any of these can't really be determined from my point of view. Probabilistically though, you've at least invoked one to claim some type of knowledge set you have.
My only fear is the people who really think they know their shit on here dont have the educactional background and knowledge to even comprehend what he is explaining. That is speculation though because I dont know who all has their doctorate in Astrophysics on here and who has been a consultant for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory like my friend.
Well, thinking that educational background translates into intelligence would be somewhat illogical. Personally, my friends and neighbors who haven't done certain schooling or achieved high GPAs, are more intelligent and successful than those who did go to school. I suppose it depends on what type of intelligence and success you're trying to establish though, I digress.
It would be interesting to see any such debate that arises from your friend's involvement though.
You guys misplace the appeal to the authority fallacy. I have pointed that out to Tom Bishop in this thread. And if you are not misusing it then you are hypocritical because I have seen FErs do the exact same including Tom who I have seen refer to books by FErs.
Appeal to authority from my understanding is this:
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)
I have watched you guys pull that fallacy out of context way too much on here. NASA is known to be a legitimate authority on the subject of astrophysics. Whether you believe that is a different story because the first rule of logic is belief does not equal truth. So next time you want to use that against someone try keeping it in context.
And as for my friend not being intelligent just because he has an education does not really play here. Sorry, but there is not one person on the planet who could fake their way through a doctorate in Astrophysics without being smart. And NASA and the California Institute of Technology did not seek him out because they thought he might know what he is talking about.
I dont mind PMing you the link to his bio if you want to read up a little bit on him. Like I said earlier in this thread, I have been friends with him since elementary school and to this day I have not met a more intelligent person. He made a great egg drop contest partner in Junior High as well. Of course he wouldnt let me help but I got to watch and still got the A.
-
You guys misplace the appeal to the authority fallacy. I have pointed that out to Tom Bishop in this thread. And if you are not misusing it then you are hypocritical because I have seen FErs do the exact same including Tom who I have seen refer to books by FErs.
Well, even the FAQ says to ignore Tom. He invokes a few fallacies and gets some things wrong.
-
The Conspiracy theory might be the easiest justification for FE beliefs, but there is no evidence for it. This means that you are undermining your valid arguments by stating a thing yo have no proof of.
And have you thought that the world is round and maybe it is a conspiracy to make you think it is flat not round by the admins. <-- I have the same amount of proof of this claim as you do for the 'conspiracy' theory.
-
You guys misplace the appeal to the authority fallacy. I have pointed that out to Tom Bishop in this thread. And if you are not misusing it then you are hypocritical because I have seen FErs do the exact same including Tom who I have seen refer to books by FErs.
Well, even the FAQ says to ignore Tom. He invokes a few fallacies and gets some things wrong.
Still, appealing to NASA is not a fallacy. They are a legitimate authority on the subject of astrophysics and they are not one single person, they are a collective group of experts which is even more legit.
So again, NASA has legitimate claims of space travel, eye witness accounts, and credible photos and videos to back their expert claims. It is not their job to prove to you they are correct, it is your job to prove they are incorrect and are maliciously deceiving the human population. The ball lies in the court of the person claiming conspiracy not the other way around.
-
And as for my friend not being intelligent just because he has an education does not really play here. Sorry, but there is not one person on the planet who could fake their way through a doctorate in Astrophysics without being smart.
What about Ted Kaczynski? You need to hang out with more Phd's if you don't think any of them are downright stupid. Especially when programmers, accountants, managers, investors and almost everyone else makes at least double the salary of the most prestigious researchers
We dangle our three magic letters before the eyes of these predestined victims, and they swarm to us like moths to an electric light.
-
(http://cosmonut.org/Smart-1.gif)
Anyone that thinks faking pictures/video is too difficult can die in a fire. That must've taken a ton of money to create...
So you admit then that you think amateur astronomers are part of the conspiracy? Why would he fake it? Why did a bunch of other astronomers "fake images" of the Tempel 1 impact? Why is there not a single person who recorded the tempel 1 "non-impact" and came forward claiming it didn't happen? I saw the brightening myself, it happened, I only wish I was as well equipped and experienced at deep space astrophotography back then as I am now. By the way, if you're going to make the claim that this spacecraft impact was faked by amateurs for no reason, you need to prove your claim.
http://www.oldstarlight.com/All%20page%20content%20consolidation/Deep_Impact_1.5%20hours_5_arc_minute_field.avi
Incidently narcberry, I should thank you for supporting my notion that if you're going to hold to FE and be consistent about your theory, you have to believe that amateur astronomers are part of the conspiracy. Not everyone here has the intellectual honesty to admit that.
More amateur recordings of the impact:
(http://www.noao.edu/news/images/centered.gif)
(tracking was pretty bad on this one, not everyone's skill at astrophotography is great, mine wasn't even this good in 2005)
(http://www.noao.edu/news/images/blink.gif)
(http://www.astrospringville.org/RoyerOaksObservatory/CometCrashPhotos/TempelDeepImpact.gif)
(http://jthommes.com/MiscAstro/Archives/images/DImpact-Tempel1WF-C_JThommes_03_Jul_2005.gif)
Now Narcberry, can you prove that every single one of these animations was faked by the amateurs who recorded them?
-
And as for my friend not being intelligent just because he has an education does not really play here. Sorry, but there is not one person on the planet who could fake their way through a doctorate in Astrophysics without being smart.
What about Ted Kaczynski? You need to hang out with more Phd's if you don't think any of them are downright stupid. Especially when programmers, accountants, managers, investors and almost everyone else makes at least double the salary of the most prestigious researchers
We dangle our three magic letters before the eyes of these predestined victims, and they swarm to us like moths to an electric light.
Another idiotic saying. For one, the unibomber was intelligent, he was just mentally troubled. Do you even know anything about him? Obviously not.
AGAIN, I have known this guy since I was a child. I have been in classes with him since elementary school. You dont get recruited by NASA to work with them on JP if they dont think you are brilliant. And if he was a phony I am 100% that NASA, the California Institute of Technology, and Georgia Tech would have found him out by now.
I would link you to his bio and accomplishments but you are a fucking douche bag.
-
Hahaha... I know you want to make out with him but seriously. Just bring him on and he can have a good laugh at all the nonsense you spew.
So how much does he make at georgia tech?
If you can make over $200k as a rig pig, or with many other tradesman, how smart could one really be to hole up on campus and spend your days "teaching" undergrads (basically the equivalent of feeding slop to cattle) for about $100k?
Please stop bragging about your friend if you aren't going to bring him on.
-
What about Ted Kaczynski? You need to hang out with more Phd's if you don't think any of them are downright stupid.
Kaczynski was many things. Stupid was not one of them.
If you can make over $200k as a rig pig, or with many other tradesman, how smart could one really be to hole up on campus and spend your days "teaching" undergrads (basically the equivalent of feeding slop to cattle) for about $100k?
Did you know that people can be motivated by things other than money???
Most of the good mathematicians of this century could have made a shit load of money if they had been lawyers or something, but they didn't because they didn't give a crap about the cash.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060106062005/http://www.math.columbia.edu/~lipyan/CrafoordPrize.pdf
-
Here's yet another tempel 1 impact animation taken by Jim Albers with an LX200 and a DSI camera:
(http://k53.pbase.com/v3/75/6975/1/45812920.tb_tc_gray_anim.gif)
Yet another amateur who must be "falsifying evidence for no reason" in order for FE to be true.
-
Hahaha... I know you want to make out with him but seriously. Just bring him on and he can have a good laugh at all the nonsense you spew.
So how much does he make at georgia tech?
If you can make over $200k as a rig pig, or with many other tradesman, how smart could one really be to hole up on campus and spend your days "teaching" undergrads (basically the equivalent of feeding slop to cattle) for about $100k?
Please stop bragging about your friend if you aren't going to bring him on.
Oh, so now money is the driving force for intelligence. The more you have the smarter you are. And here all these years I thought Mike Tyson was an idiot.
You should stop posting because you make yourself look more and more like a douche bag with each post.
-
Oh, so now money is the driving force for intelligence. The more you have the smarter you are.
Exactly. It is an equivalent measure to education. Now do you see how ridiculous it sounds?
I'm sorry to break your perceptions, but a phd is little more than elbow grease. If you work hard enough, you will get one.
Studying astrophysics will make you learn more about astrophysics, which is exactly what you want to do- if you want to know about astrophysics. But it won't make you any smarter.
-
lived, the idiots amoung us don't get phd's in astrophysics.
Have more education does not make you smarter, but only the smart people get that far. When you get a phd you don't suddenly become smarter, but only people of above average intelligence get phd's.
-
And as for my friend not being intelligent just because he has an education does not really play here. Sorry, but there is not one person on the planet who could fake their way through a doctorate in Astrophysics without being smart.
What about Ted Kaczynski? You need to hang out with more Phd's if you don't think any of them are downright stupid. Especially when programmers, accountants, managers, investors and almost everyone else makes at least double the salary of the most prestigious researchers
We dangle our three magic letters before the eyes of these predestined victims, and they swarm to us like moths to an electric light.
There are different types of intelligence and different people have different strengths and weaknesses within those types.
http://www.socyberty.com/Psychology/Nine-Kinds-of-Intelligence.123896
http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/grady/diff_intell.html
http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/mi/dickinson_mi.html
-
lived, the idiots amoung us don't get phd's in astrophysics.
Have more education does not make you smarter, but only the smart people get that far. When you get a phd you don't suddenly become smarter, but only people of above average intelligence get phd's.
Thanks. If I had to respond I may have thrown my keyboard through the wall.
He is a troll
-
lived, the idiots amoung us don't get phd's in astrophysics.
Have more education does not make you smarter, but only the smart people get that far. When you get a phd you don't suddenly become smarter, but only people of above average intelligence get phd's.
Perhaps you wish it to be that way, but its not really true.
How many grad student keg parties have you been to? Remember the guy that always yells at everyone and pukes early? Oh yeah, and the girl who is so eager to impress everyone she will sleep with that guy. And then the guy who just doesn't get anything, so he writes that really long thesis that references every book he has ever come near, in a desperate attempt to gain credibility...
I guarantee you this: You too can have a shiny phd, if you just put in some hard work no matter how little you understand the deeper insights of the subject.
-
Just thought I'd chuck this in here and see what people made of it:
http://www.reddit.com/info/6nd90/comments/
-
It is quite simple really.
[1] Observational data imply the Earth is Flat;
[2] Space agancies get money for projects that can only work if the Earth is round
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence:
[3] Space agencies are not telling the truth, i.e. they are lying.
From The Free dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy)
con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
- 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
- 2. A group of conspirators.
- 3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
- 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
Nice circular logic.
-
No, just zetetic science.
-
That is speculation though because I dont know who all has their doctorate in Astrophysics on here and who has been a consultant for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory like my friend.
I have
-
No, just zetetic science.
No, it's circular. It's dismissing the evidence that the earth is not flat on the grounds that the earth is flat.
-
No, just zetetic science.
No, it's circular. It's dismissing the evidence that the earth is not flat on the grounds that the earth is flat.
No, it's dismissing evidence that the earth is not flat on the grounds of prior evidence that the earth is flat. Nothing circular about it at all.
-
No, just zetetic science.
No, it's circular. It's dismissing the evidence that the earth is not flat on the grounds that the earth is flat.
No, it's dismissing evidence that the earth is not flat on the grounds of prior evidence that the earth is flat. Nothing circular about it at all.
Hum. Actually, it's not really circular, as they aren't using the existence of a conspiracy to argue that the Earth is flat. They're just being fallacious. I think. When forming a judgment you have to weigh all the evidence that you have, you can't just dismiss a huge amount to evidence because it disagrees with other evidence.
-
Hum. Actually, it's not really circular, as they aren't using the existence of a conspiracy to argue that the Earth is flat. They're just being fallacious. I think. When forming a judgment you have to weigh all the evidence that you have, you can't just dismiss a huge amount to evidence because it disagrees with other evidence.
Depends on the justification for dismissing it.
-
True. But the Fe's (at least as far as I can tell) don't seem to have any good reason for dismissing it other than it contradicts the evidence they like.
-
True. But the Fe's (at least as far as I can tell) don't seem to have any good reason for dismissing it other than it contradicts the evidence they like.
Exactly. Direct observational evidence that can be experimentally verified by anybody.
-
True. But the Fe's (at least as far as I can tell) don't seem to have any good reason for dismissing it other than it contradicts the evidence they like.
Exactly. Direct observational evidence that can be experimentally verified by anybody.
Evidence shouldn't be weighted heavier because it is more accessible. And plenty of the RE evidence is accessible (lunar eclipses, star behavior in the Southern Hemisphere).
-
True. But the Fe's (at least as far as I can tell) don't seem to have any good reason for dismissing it other than it contradicts the evidence they like.
Exactly. Direct observational evidence that can be experimentally verified by anybody.
Good thing one can directly observe satellites. Whew, close one.
-
Evidence shouldn't be weighted heavier because it is more accessible.
In that case, I have a ghost in my closet. Don't ask to see it because it is inaccessible to you.
-
Looking directly at you car is the best evidence of its color. This evidence trumps all reflections, videos, photographs, third hand accounts, textbooks, religious proclamations.
Similarly, measuring the shape of the earth directly is the best evidence of its flatness.
-
Looking directly at you car is the best evidence of its color. This evidence trumps all reflections, videos, photographs, third hand accounts, textbooks, religious proclamations.
Similarly, measuring the shape of the earth directly is the best evidence of its flatness.
When you can explain how amateurs (like me) all over the world observe sustained space travel and man-made impacts with celestial bodies, without contradicting FE, then I'll trust your measurements. Incidently, I've seen the earth's curvature first hand when it prevented me from seeing a shore about 10 miles away through my telescope. The trees beyond the shore appeared to rise right of the river from the trunk up. I see no reason to trust your "measurements" over my own and my own first hand observations of spaceflight which proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that the earth is round.
-
When you can explain how amateurs (like me) all over the world observe sustained space travel and man-made impacts with celestial bodies, without contradicting FE, then I'll trust your measurements.
An explanation is not necessary, but of course, I would love to hear more details of your measurements of the flatness of the earth, lived_eht_asan.
Incidently, I've seen the earth's curvature first hand when it prevented me from seeing a shore about 10 miles away through my telescope. The trees beyond the shore appeared to rise right of the river from the trunk up.
Finally, someone has some first-hand experience with observing the convexity of the Earth. The FE-RE debate ultimately boils down to the validity of the experiments which measure the curvature/noncurvature of the Earth. For such an important issue, there is little information to be found about these experiments. I've been waiting for someone, somewhere to detail the performance of said experiments, but no one has.
-
Looking directly at you car is the best evidence of its color. This evidence trumps all reflections, videos, photographs, third hand accounts, textbooks, religious proclamations.
Similarly, measuring the shape of the earth directly is the best evidence of its flatness.
How much of the earth do you need to directly measure in order to determine its flatness?
-
It seems like any amount is sufficient.
-
I've been waiting for someone, somewhere to detail the performance of said experiments, but no one has.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
-
I've been waiting for someone, somewhere to detail the performance of said experiments, but no one has.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
I did and I found the accounts of the experiments lacking in details. What kind of telescopes were used? What were the weather conditions? How were distances measured? What was the orientation of the bodies of water? What did the image in the telescope look like? Pictures?
Besides, a single performance of an experiment is meaningless. The results of an experiment are only valid once they have been repeated by others. This is what I am after. I want a detailed account from someone else who has performed the experiments. After all this site has been through, I'm surprised no one has.
-
I did and I found the accounts of the experiments lacking in details. What kind of telescopes were used? What were the weather conditions? How were distances measured? What was the orientation of the bodies of water? What did the image in the telescope look like? Pictures?
The details of the experiments are sufficiently described in the text, often overly detailed.
I want a detailed account from someone else who has performed the experiments. After all this site has been through, I'm surprised no one has.
If you want corroborating evidence then you should consult one of the fifty other pieces of Flat Earth Literature listed in my signature link. There are detailed performances of convexity experiments.
For example, a woman named Lady Bount (http://www.zetetic.co.uk/zetetic.html) was among the first to provided photographic evidence for a Flat Earth:
"The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."
Further repetitions are described in "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter:
"If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the "light" exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with the "light" and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light will won't vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been traversed, the astronomers' theory of "curvature" demands a difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe."
-
The details of the experiments are sufficiently described in the text, often overly detailed.
Then how come I can't find the answers to the questions I listed?
The examples you listed are not what I am after. These are not controlled, well-detailed experiments. They give no mention of the procedures, conditions, and equipment specifications used in the experiment. These are no more convincing than accounts of sightings of UFOs and Bigfoot.
-
Then how come I can't find the answers to the questions I listed?
The examples you listed are not what I am after. These are not controlled, well-detailed experiments. They give no mention of the procedures, conditions, and equipment specifications used in the experiment. These are no more convincing than accounts of sightings of UFOs and Bigfoot.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the equipment thing. Are you saying that different models of telescopes can see through a hill of water?
As far as terrestrial refraction goes, Rowbotham does take terrestrial refraction into account in his experiments. See Experiment 9 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm), for instance:
...
The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same. Take the last case as an instance. The altitude of the light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet, which, divided by 12, gives 13 feet as the amount to be deducted from 491 feet, making instead 478 feet, as the degree of declination.
Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails. There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.
In may, the author delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics' Institute, and afterwards at the Rotunda, in Dublin, when great interest was manifested by large audiences; and he was challenged to a repetition of some of his experiments--to be carried out in the neighbourhood. Among others, the following was made, across the Bay of Dublin. On the pier, at Kingstown Harbour, a good theodolite was fixed, at a given altitude, and directed to a flag which, earlier in the day, had been fixed at the base of the Hill of Howth, on the northern side of the bay. An observation was made at a given hour, and arrangements had been made for thermometers, barometers, and hygrometers--two of each--which had been previously compared, to be read simultaneously, one at each station. On the persons in charge of the instruments afterwards meeting, and comparing notes, it was found that the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air had been alike at the two points, at the time the observation was made from Kingstown Pier. It had also been found by the observers that the point observed on the Hill of Howth had precisely the same altitude as that of the theodolite on the pier, and that, therefore, there was no curvature or convexity in the water across Dublin Bay. It was, of course, inadmissible that the similarity of altitude at the two places was the result of refraction, because there was no difference in the condition of the atmosphere at the moment of observation.
-
Looking directly at you car is the best evidence of its color. This evidence trumps all reflections, videos, photographs, third hand accounts, textbooks, religious proclamations.
Similarly, measuring the shape of the earth directly is the best evidence of its flatness.
How much of the earth do you need to directly measure in order to determine its flatness?
5 to 10 miles is sufficient. RE would require an object to be 10-20 feet below the horizon at this distance. In my own observations, 5 to 10 miles is observable without curvature.
-
Looking directly at you car is the best evidence of its color. This evidence trumps all reflections, videos, photographs, third hand accounts, textbooks, religious proclamations.
Similarly, measuring the shape of the earth directly is the best evidence of its flatness.
How much of the earth do you need to directly measure in order to determine its flatness?
5 to 10 miles is sufficient. RE would require an object to be 10-20 feet below the horizon at this distance. In my own observations, 5 to 10 miles is observable without curvature.
Please, elaborate.
-
As far as terrestrial refraction goes, Rowbotham does take terrestrial refraction into account in his experiments. See Experiment 9 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm), for instance:
...
Two barometers ... One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment ... Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.
No he did not take refraction into account.
Rowbothem did not know what type of temperature gradient would cause downwards refraction: It is the vertical temperature gradient from the water upwards, not the horizontal gradient between the stations, which would cause a downward refraction of the light rays. In the correction conditions, it would cause light to curve in the direction of the earth's curvature. -This is perfectly possible, given the effects of cold water against warmer air.
-
Then how come I can't find the answers to the questions I listed?
The examples you listed are not what I am after. These are not controlled, well-detailed experiments. They give no mention of the procedures, conditions, and equipment specifications used in the experiment. These are no more convincing than accounts of sightings of UFOs and Bigfoot.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the equipment thing. Are you saying that different models of telescopes can see through a hill of water?
As far as terrestrial refraction goes, Rowbotham does take terrestrial refraction into account in his experiments. See Experiment 9 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm), for instance:
...
The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same. Take the last case as an instance. The altitude of the light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet, which, divided by 12, gives 13 feet as the amount to be deducted from 491 feet, making instead 478 feet, as the degree of declination.
Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails. There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.
In may, the author delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics' Institute, and afterwards at the Rotunda, in Dublin, when great interest was manifested by large audiences; and he was challenged to a repetition of some of his experiments--to be carried out in the neighbourhood. Among others, the following was made, across the Bay of Dublin. On the pier, at Kingstown Harbour, a good theodolite was fixed, at a given altitude, and directed to a flag which, earlier in the day, had been fixed at the base of the Hill of Howth, on the northern side of the bay. An observation was made at a given hour, and arrangements had been made for thermometers, barometers, and hygrometers--two of each--which had been previously compared, to be read simultaneously, one at each station. On the persons in charge of the instruments afterwards meeting, and comparing notes, it was found that the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air had been alike at the two points, at the time the observation was made from Kingstown Pier. It had also been found by the observers that the point observed on the Hill of Howth had precisely the same altitude as that of the theodolite on the pier, and that, therefore, there was no curvature or convexity in the water across Dublin Bay. It was, of course, inadmissible that the similarity of altitude at the two places was the result of refraction, because there was no difference in the condition of the atmosphere at the moment of observation.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy
You have to do your own experiments and tests and show us the results.
See how dumb you sound when you say that Tom?
-
When you can explain how amateurs (like me) all over the world observe sustained space travel and man-made impacts with celestial bodies, without contradicting FE, then I'll trust your measurements.
An explanation is not necessary
Yes, it is since it is direct evidence of a round earth. You fail to explain it, your theory fails.
Incidently, I've seen the earth's curvature first hand when it prevented me from seeing a shore about 10 miles away through my telescope. The trees beyond the shore appeared to rise right of the river from the trunk up.
Finally, someone has some first-hand experience with observing the convexity of the Earth. The FE-RE debate ultimately boils down to the validity of the experiments which measure the curvature/noncurvature of the Earth.
Nonsense, it has many facets, most of which you ignore. There are many, many ways to disprove your theory. All someone has to do is prove that spaceflight is real or that gravitation occurs between any object with mass.
For such an important issue, there is little information to be found about these experiments. I've been waiting for someone, somewhere to detail the performance of said experiments, but no one has.
Frankly, I hate doing what you're suggesting for the simple reason that salt air and blowing sand is death to coatings on precision optics like mine, so the beach is strictly out of the question. I went out to a river just once to use my telescope to observe a shuttle launch and witnessed for myself that the shore on the other side about 5-10 miles away was hidden by the river, only the trees beyond were visible. As for the "importance" of the issue, most people are smart enough to realize a flat earth is made impossible by the observations of spaceflights and other things, making any "measurements" showing the earth being flat untrustworthy.
-
jdoe is an REer...why is it 'his theory' all of a sudden?
-
As for the "importance" of the issue, most people are smart enough to realize a flat earth is made impossible by the observations of spaceflights and other things, making any "measurements" showing the earth being flat untrustworthy.
Nevermind an alternate explanation for observations, empirical measurements must be untrustworthy. That's a laugh and a half. Thanks for that.
-
As for the "importance" of the issue, most people are smart enough to realize a flat earth is made impossible by the observations of spaceflights and other things, making any "measurements" showing the earth being flat untrustworthy.
Nevermind an alternate explanation for observations, empirical measurements must be untrustworthy. That's a laugh and a half. Thanks for that.
You have yet to produce a valid alternative explanation for evidence that would not exist if the "measurements" were trustworthy. I have measured the positions of satellites and found them to be correct. Why should I trust some FE'ers "measurements" conducted on their own terms more than I trust measurements I made myself? Want to talk about a laugh? I'm laughing at your sorry excuse for a handwave.
-
jdoe is an REer...why is it 'his theory' all of a sudden?
I don't care what he is, if you're defending FE by saying you don't need to explain mountains of contrary evidence, the theory you're defending fails.
-
You have yet to produce a valid alternative explanation for evidence that would not exist if the "measurements" were trustworthy. I have measured the positions of satellites and found them to be correct. Why should I trust some FE'ers "measurements" conducted on their own terms more than I trust measurements I made myself? Want to talk about a laugh? I'm laughing at your sorry excuse for a handwave.
For one, I did no such hand-waving, and you're right, I haven't produced an alternate explanation. And two, you said any measurements going against observations' explanations must be untrustworthy. That sounds like much more prevalent hand-waving to me. Why trust empirical fact when you can go off of a relative observation?
I don't care what he is, if you're defending FE by saying you don't need to explain mountains of contrary evidence, the theory you're defending fails.
I've never seen him defend FE, and he always tends to have reasonable points in his posts. Perhaps it's because he disagreed with you, and you couldn't get away with whatever you were talking about.
-
You have yet to produce a valid alternative explanation for evidence that would not exist if the "measurements" were trustworthy. I have measured the positions of satellites and found them to be correct. Why should I trust some FE'ers "measurements" conducted on their own terms more than I trust measurements I made myself? Want to talk about a laugh? I'm laughing at your sorry excuse for a handwave.
For one, I did no such hand-waving,
You're handwaving to the claims of FE'ers without supplying an explanation for contradicting evidence.
and you're right, I haven't produced an alternate explanation. And two, you said any measurements going against observations' explanations must be untrustworthy.
Both measurements can't be right. They're mutually exclusive. You have two sets of measurements going against each other. I've measured the orbits of satellites, two biased FE'ers have claimed to have measured the earth as flat. One of the groups is wrong.
That sounds like much more prevalent hand-waving to me. Why trust empirical fact when you can go off of a relative observation?
I'm not handwaving, I'll gladly supply you an alternative explanation to your "evidence," but that's not what this thread is about, is it? On top of that, I'm supplying evidence from a ton of sources all pointing to the same conclusion, rather than handwave to a much smaller set of measurements from people who set out with the agenda of proving the earth flat, rather than to disprove a null hypothesis. The horde of amateurs who observed the Tempel 1 impact never had any intention of proving the shape of the earth with their observations. That's what gives it so much more weight than the "measurements" cited in support of FE. Others (like Alfred Wallace) who have challenged those measurements found them to be non-repeatable, only to be slandered and sued afterwards.
I've never seen him defend FE, and he always tends to have reasonable points in his posts. Perhaps it's because he disagreed with you, and you couldn't get away with whatever you were talking about.
Oh I "got away" with what I was talking about all right. An explanation is necessary before you can even think about dismissing mountains of contradicting evidence. You have yet to even supply speculation. Honestly, you take all the fun out of debating whackjobs. The best part is when they come back with the most insane alternative explanations, like what Tom often does. That's the best part because it's so easy to knock it down with more proof.
-
Allow me to explain myself, messierhunter.
Of course, FE'ers would have to come up with some sort of explanation for your observations, but the thing is they have an ultra-powerful conspiracy to rely on. We do not know the technological lengths such a conspiracy would go to to fool the world. An explanation would be very hard to come by, but I don't see how it would be impossible, as divito has pointed out. And besides, FE has a lot more unknowns to rely on as well, like mysterious aether eddies which might keep spacecraft aloft.
On the other hand, directly measuring the curvature of the earth is the best way we can confirm RE or FE. There's almost no way the opposing theory could squirm its way out if contradicting evidence was found. As an RE'er, that's why I find the canal experiments so troubling. And naturally, FE'ers feel this is their strongest piece of evidence.
Let's just look at it like this. Let's say you went out to the river and measured out a six mile stretch, put a flag on one end and your telescope on the other. To your surprise, you found you could see the flag perfectly within view with your telescope. Now, wouldn't this piece of evidence very convincingly show you that the earth might be flat? Wouldn't this trump any contrary evidence which might have been put up by a nefarious conspiracy?
-
Allow me to explain myself, messierhunter.
Of course, FE'ers would have to come up with some sort of explanation for your observations, but the thing is they have an ultra-powerful conspiracy to rely on. We do not know the technological lengths such a conspiracy would go to to fool the world. An explanation would be very hard to come by, but I don't see how it would be impossible, as divito has pointed out. And besides, FE has a lot more unknowns to rely on as well, like mysterious aether eddies which might keep spacecraft aloft.
Once again, relying on a slothful induction does not degrade the weight or true reliability of the evidence. The "mysterious aether eddies" might as well be magic - it's not something you can study or prove and it sure doesn't suggest a mechanism that would allow a comet impact mission to be conducted with the precision required. There is no technological explanation one can cite that would allow a fake satellite to appear in the correct location in the sky precisely because location is a key variable of the equation.
On the other hand, directly measuring the curvature of the earth is the best way we can confirm RE or FE. There's almost no way the opposing theory could squirm its way out if contradicting evidence was found. As an RE'er, that's why I find the canal experiments so troubling. And naturally, FE'ers feel this is their strongest piece of evidence.
For an RE'er, you sound suspiciously like an FE'er sock puppet. There's always a way for the opposing theory to squirm out if contradicting direct measurements are made using the bedford technique. Because it never occurs in a vacuum, the opposing side can always claim atmospheric refraction. There's nothing troubling about the claims of FE'ers regarding the canal experiments. I've done a similar test myself and found the earth's curvature to be present. I still give far more weight to my satellite measurements though as it's much easier to repeat many times and unanticipated atmospheric refraction effects would cause me to conclude in favor of FE, not RE.
Let's just look at it like this. Let's say you went out to the river and measured out a six mile stretch, put a flag on one end and your telescope on the other. To your surprise, you found you could see the flag perfectly within view with your telescope. Now, wouldn't this piece of evidence very convincingly show you that the earth might be flat?
Not really, a simple superior mirage could cause the flag to appear. Likewise, an inferior mirage could cause the flag to disappear. By definition, there will always be a time when either observation is possible from just about every location, therefore, neither is proof of anything. The setup you described doesn't even eliminate the possibility of local topography offsetting any effect of curvature. Satellite measurement is a much more demanding and rigorous proof of RE. I've conducted what you basically described over about a 5-10 mile stretch of river and it "proved RE," but I still find it to be far less rigorous by nature.
Wouldn't this trump any contrary evidence which might have been put up by a nefarious conspiracy?
No, because there's no valid method by which the "nefarious conspiracy" could have faked satellite appearances, let alone comet impacts without RE being real. If FE was true then I must have lied about them, as did everyone else ever claiming to have seen or photographed the Tempel 1 impact and/or satellites in orbit where they're supposed to be.
-
I don't understand how going straight to the conspiracy to watch their show is better evidence than direct measurements?
David Copperfield tells me he is going to make the Statue of Liberty disappear. If I want the truth, should I go watch the show on the boat he hired, or go directly to the statue of liberty to see if it is there?
-
I don't understand how going straight to the conspiracy to watch their show is better evidence than direct measurements?
David Copperfield tells me he is going to make the Statue of Liberty disappear. If I want the truth, should I go watch the show on the boat he hired, or go directly to the statue of liberty to see if it is there?
All of the proof that messier has shown has been from amatuer astronomers not from NASA.
You fail
again
-
I don't understand how going straight to the conspiracy to watch their show is better evidence than direct measurements?
David Copperfield tells me he is going to make the Statue of Liberty disappear. If I want the truth, should I go watch the show on the boat he hired, or go directly to the statue of liberty to see if it is there?
All of the proof that messier has shown has been from amatuer astronomers not from NASA.
You fail
again
Nope. The amateur astronomers are the ones who attended the magic show, so to speak. Copperfield says, hey look in the sky, and they looked. Difficult to explain? 100%. The best evidence, trumping any and all direct measurements? Hardly.
-
For an RE'er, you sound suspiciously like an FE'er sock puppet.
Wow. Who knew? Honestly, I'm just trying to get you to think like an FE'er. I think what you have presented on these forums is very valuable and compelling toward the RE case, but it would serve you well to open your mind to others' way of thinking.
I don't understand how going straight to the conspiracy to watch their show is better evidence than direct measurements?
David Copperfield tells me he is going to make the Statue of Liberty disappear. If I want the truth, should I go watch the show on the boat he hired, or go directly to the statue of liberty to see if it is there?
Actually, I think this analogy is quite valid. Direct measurement trumps all other kinds of evidence, hands down. Until a suitable explanation is provided which debunks the FE canal experiments (I think there exist many actually, but you'll have to convince them of that), they have every reason to distrust the validity of observations of spacecraft which conform to the RE model.
-
Direct measurement trumps all other kinds of evidence,
Except when messier is the one doing it. Then his relative observations > empirical measurements.
-
I don't understand how going straight to the conspiracy to watch their show is better evidence than direct measurements?
That's because you don't understand the principles behind observational astronomy and orbital mechanics. I explained it quite simply for you. "Direct measurements" made on the ground of the earth's shape are far more susceptible to unintentional, uncontrollable "deceptive" factors than direct measurements of satellites are to any form of deception.
-
For an RE'er, you sound suspiciously like an FE'er sock puppet.
Wow. Who knew?
I don't know if you're a sock puppet, an FE'er disguised as an RE'er, or just a really crappy RE'er, and frankly it doesn't matter which is true.
Actually, I think this analogy is quite valid. Direct measurement trumps all other kinds of evidence, hands down.
It's valid, but not in the way you two have interpreted it; copperfield is in complete control of the environment he performs his tricks in. He can only fool the audience members sitting in the auditorium under his control. As even nasa devil pointed out, by leaving his audience and going somewhere esle to watch the statue you can disprove the reality of the trick. Being NASA's audience is watching the launches and landings at Kennedy - they control that environment and can put on a show that is somewhat inconclusive to the reality of spaceflight. By observing their spacecraft away from their facilities, in random locations all over the world, you take the "performance" out of the equation. They do not control where or when you observe it from, and there is no way they can fake it for every possible point of view. In fact, any attempt at fakery would be immediately obvious to all but a single small location at most.
Your refusal to accept the very simple reasons why "direct measurements" are less reliable than detecting space travel shows that you're not what you claim to be, or are very poor at being what you claim to be. It's not hard to grasp, temperature inversions can offset the effect of earth's curvature, and the opposite mirage could hypothetically offset the effect of earth's proposed flatness. Direct measurements are therefore inconclusive because of a well-understood phenomenon, not because of mindless speculation which can't even produce a plausible alternative.
Until a suitable explanation is provided which debunks the FE canal experiments (I think there exist many actually, but you'll have to convince them of that),
I just provided you an entirely valid reason to distrust any canal experiment measurements of the earth's surface, regardless of what model the results indicate. Your refusal to see how it makes that experiment less reliable than spacecraft positional measurement is astounding for someone who claims to be an RE'er.
they have every reason to distrust the validity of observations of spacecraft which conform to the RE model.
No, they don't, they don't even have an explanation for the measurements that confirm the orbits of spacecraft, let alone confirmation of comet impacts. The only suitable explanation is that RE is real and their measurements are unreliable for reasons detailed above.
-
By observing their spacecraft away from their facilities, in random locations all over the world, you take the "performance" out of the equation. They do not control where or when you observe it from, and there is no way they can fake it for every possible point of view. In fact, any attempt at fakery would be immediately obvious to all but a single small location at most.
Which is precisely why it's not obvious. Why are you on such a simple and old point?
Your refusal to accept the very simple reasons why "direct measurements" are less reliable than detecting space travel shows that you're not what you claim to be, or are very poor at being what you claim to be. It's not hard to grasp, temperature inversions can offset the effect of earth's curvature, and the opposite mirage could hypothetically offset the effect of earth's proposed flatness. Direct measurements are therefore inconclusive because of a well-understood phenomenon, not because of mindless speculation which can't even produce a plausible alternative.
I'd be curious how many scientists would take your "observation over math" stance.
-
They do not control where or when you observe it from, and there is no way they can fake it for every possible point of view. In fact, any attempt at fakery would be immediately obvious to all but a single small location at most.
What about street magicians? You don't have much skepticism when it comes to magic shows. Which is good, it makes you very gullible. Wanna play 3 card monty? Or come to my place for a round of blackjack or poker.
We do not need to propose a "mechanism" for the trick. Who knows, maybe NASA can project images? The basic rule is don't trust the magician when they are making the show.
Thousands of people have studied the Indian Rope Trick. No satisfactory "mechanism" has been proposed. And that was done by street performers in poverty- what could NASA do with trillions of $$'s? I certainly would be disappointed if I figured the trick out with a few minutes thought...
-
They do not control where or when you observe it from, and there is no way they can fake it for every possible point of view. In fact, any attempt at fakery would be immediately obvious to all but a single small location at most.
What about street magicians?
There is no comparing "street magicians" and direct measurements of satellites.
You don't have much skepticism when it comes to magic shows.
You don't have much insight when it comes to astronomy.
Which is good, it makes you very gullible.
You have yet to present a good reason why I should distrust my own measurements. There's a difference between being skeptical and being unneccessarily dismissive. You are the latter. You have made the claim that it's a trick, the burden of proof is on you to show how.
We do not need to propose a "mechanism" for the trick.
Yes, you do. You've made the claim of a trick, it is up to you to prove it.
Who knows, maybe NASA can project images?
Violates the laws of physics. There's nothing in space to project onto, unless you're saying they're secretly orbiting movie screens. In that case, how did they orbit the secret screen? You're just pushing the question back instead of answering it.
The basic rule is don't trust the magician when they are making the show.
The burden of proof is on you to show that it's a show. They do not control my location, so they do not have control over the show.
Thousands of people have studied the Indian Rope Trick.
Handwaving to unrelated "tricks." The failure of others to properly speculate a method for an admitted trick is not an excuse to throw off your own burden of proof for dismissing evidence you don't like. There'd be nothing to stop you from doing the same damn thing if an RE'er performed the canal observation and came back with proof of RE. You could just as easily propose that the conspirators "projected an image" of the target being hidden by the earth and therefore it does not disprove FE. Incidently, this would be infinitely more plausible than your claim that they're projecting 3d spacecraft images into space that magically reflect off of nothing.
All you're attempting to do is circumvent your burden of proof. If you were halfway decent at being a conspiracy nutjob you'd focus on speculating plausible mechanisms by which the "trick" occurs and sell videos describing it. You aren't even that good at being a nutjob and it's really quite disappointing.
-
By observing their spacecraft away from their facilities, in random locations all over the world, you take the "performance" out of the equation. They do not control where or when you observe it from, and there is no way they can fake it for every possible point of view. In fact, any attempt at fakery would be immediately obvious to all but a single small location at most.
Which is precisely why it's not obvious.
Ok, you haven't demonstrated why it's not obvious here. Oh, and before I forget, it's completely impossible to fake the Tempel 1 impact.
Why are you on such a simple and old point?
Because no one has yet refuted it.
I'd be curious how many scientists would take your "observation over math" stance.
I'd be curious to know why measuring the location of satellites and confirming it against the predicted location doesn't count as math. I'd also be curious to know how the canal experiment doesn't count as observation. Both examples are examples of both.
-
I'd be curious to know why measuring the location of satellites and confirming it against the predicted location doesn't count as math.
Measuring the location is math. But you said observations are more trustworthy than math. Which is it Gulliver?
-
I'd be curious to know why measuring the location of satellites and confirming it against the predicted location doesn't count as math.
Measuring the location is math. But you said observations are more trustworthy than math. Which is it Gulliver?
I didn't say that, I clearly said measuring the location of satellites is much more reliable than attempting to directly measure the earth's curvature.
"a simple superior mirage could cause the flag to appear. Likewise, an inferior mirage could cause the flag to disappear... There's always a way for the opposing theory to squirm out if contradicting direct measurements are made using the bedford technique. Because it never occurs in a vacuum, the opposing side can always claim atmospheric refraction.... I still give far more weight to my satellite measurements though as it's much easier to repeat many times and unanticipated atmospheric refraction effects would cause me to conclude in favor of FE, not RE... The setup you described doesn't even eliminate the possibility of local topography offsetting any effect of curvature. Satellite measurement is a much more demanding and rigorous proof of RE. I've conducted what you basically described over about a 5-10 mile stretch of river and it "proved RE," but I still find it to be far less rigorous by nature.
"
You said observations of objects appearing over a long stretch of water are more trustworthy than math. I'm sure there aren't many scientists who'd agree with your unwavering support of the infallibility of the canal test.
-
How did this epic thread get all the way to the third page?
Not on my watch!!!!!!!!!!!
-
How did this thread get labeled "epic" by a guy that's been here twice?
-
How does this forum exist after the world has already been proven to be round through multiple means?
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a314/Messierhunter/roundearth1.jpg)
Opposite shoreline - where is the shorline above?
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a314/Messierhunter/shoreline.jpg)
-
Could be a swell in the water, and it could also be a faked image.
-
Could be a swell in the water, and it could also be a faked image.
A swell? You've got to be kidding me. A swell? Why wasn't my side of the shore flooded then? In fact, florida's currently in a drought.
Considering I sat there for about 4 freaking hours waiting for a launch and this is what I saw with my own eyes the whole time, I can safely conclude that it was not a momentary "swell." Considering the area was even deeper in drought at the time, it sure wasn't a sustained flood either.
And since I know I didn't fake the image I guess I can know for myself with 100% certainty that the earth is round. If you're going to accuse me of forgery though I'd like to see your evidence that I'm a liar.
-
How far were you from the shore?
-
But all this is based on what you are telling me. Consider:
(http://wandel.ca/africa2005/20050109/20050109-065621_caroline.jpg)
"It's the ice wall. I was there. You calling me a liar? Prove it."
Now lets pretend I didn't just google 'ice wall', go to images and copy/past the link I thought most pleasing to the eye. How would my argument be any different from yours?
-
How far were you from the shore?
Amost 5 miles. Damn this 30 second timer, I can't respond to everyone fast enough.
-
But all this is based on what you are telling me. Consider:
(http://wandel.ca/africa2005/20050109/20050109-065621_caroline.jpg)
"It's the ice wall. I was there. You calling me a liar? Prove it."
Now lets pretend I didn't just google 'ice wall', go to images and copy/past the link I thought most pleasing to the eye. How would my argument be any different from yours?
Broken link? And yeah, considering the url, I'm doubting you took the picture. I can provide the original exif-containing image. Can you?
-
These should explain it.
(http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/03/bridge.bmp)
(http://www.zoneseek.net/images/blog05/lampgame2007.04.30.bmp)
(http://media.wktv.com/images/snow6.bmp)
-
Broken link? And yeah, considering the url, I'm doubting you took the picture. I can provide the original exif-containing image. Can you?
It works for me. And obviously I didn't take it; I said as much. But I'm sure that were I bothered, I could provide as much proof as you can regarding the veracity of a given image. Would you really go that far to prove your point? Would anyone? Of course not. It's the internet.
-
Broken link? And yeah, considering the url, I'm doubting you took the picture. I can provide the original exif-containing image. Can you?
It works for me. And obviously I didn't take it; I said as much. But I'm sure that were I bothered, I could provide as much proof as you can regarding the veracity of a given image. Would you really go that far to prove your point? Would anyone? Of course not. It's the internet.
Well if no one would go that far and I end up going that far to prove its veracity then... where does that leave us? Better yet, I could just as easily show this effect to anyone in person through the telescope. How would that not be incontrovertable proof?
-
But would you? This is all hypothetical. I live in Ireland, and frankly I can't afford to go anywhere to see your original image. Will you come here and show it to me? I'd be glad to take a look.
-
These should explain it.
Dude, in the future would you please use jpgs instead of bmps? That took nearly an eternity to load. And what does a cut up tire, weird game picture, and a broken tree and swingset have to do with anything? Troll overload?
-
But would you? This is all hypothetical. I live in Ireland, and frankly I can't afford to go anywhere to see your original image. Will you come here and show it to me? I'd be glad to take a look.
Next time you're at a shuttle launch look me up and I'll show you.
-
How far were you from the shore?
Amost 5 miles. Damn this 30 second timer, I can't respond to everyone fast enough.
I'm certain five miles would not give you the effect you are trying to represent. This reinforces the fact you are seeing a perspective effect. The fact that there appears to be white caps in the image suggest any rise of the surface level would be due to something other than the earth's presumed curvature.
-
How far were you from the shore?
Amost 5 miles. Damn this 30 second timer, I can't respond to everyone fast enough.
I'm certain five miles would not give you the effect you are trying to represent. This reinforces the fact you are seeing a perspective effect. The fact that there appears to be white caps in the image suggest any rise of the surface level would be due to something other than the earth's presumed curvature.
You're certain are you? Holy shit, the "bedford level" trials were conducted with 6 miles where the target should have been about 11 feet under the water level and yet magically 5 miles would do nothing? You're full of it, no intellectual honesty whatsoever. The "white capped" waves were only a couple inches high a piece, and not enough to completely cover up the opposite shore and ground beneath the trees. For that matter, where's the road? There's a dirt access road over there, and as you can see from the aerial shot, the trees shouldn't completely obscure it as there are gaps at the initial tree line that should permit a view of the road. The water level sure isn't flooding the road and as I said, the state's in a drought right now.
-
But would you? This is all hypothetical. I live in Ireland, and frankly I can't afford to go anywhere to see your original image. Will you come here and show it to me? I'd be glad to take a look.
Next time you're at a shuttle launch look me up and I'll show you.
I don't see Ireland entering the space race anytime soon. Cue joke about going to the sun at night.
Anyway, I must be off; I have some Paul Auster to read.
-
You're certain are you? Holy shit, the "bedford level" trials were conducted with 6 miles where the target should have been about 11 feet under the water level and yet magically 5 miles would do nothing? You're full of it, no intellectual honesty whatsoever. The "white capped" waves were only a couple inches high a piece, and not enough to completely cover up the opposite shore and ground beneath the trees. For that matter, where's the road? There's a dirt access road over there, and as you can see from the aerial shot, the trees shouldn't completely obscure it as there are gaps at the initial tree line that should permit a view of the road. The water level sure isn't flooding the road and as I said, the state's in a drought right now.
I assume the road is elevated off the shore line. I see nothing wrong with my assumption. White caps don't break at a couple inches high. Again the perspective effect is distorting the relative height of the waves and the shoreline.
-
You're certain are you? Holy shit, the "bedford level" trials were conducted with 6 miles where the target should have been about 11 feet under the water level and yet magically 5 miles would do nothing? You're full of it, no intellectual honesty whatsoever. The "white capped" waves were only a couple inches high a piece, and not enough to completely cover up the opposite shore and ground beneath the trees. For that matter, where's the road? There's a dirt access road over there, and as you can see from the aerial shot, the trees shouldn't completely obscure it as there are gaps at the initial tree line that should permit a view of the road. The water level sure isn't flooding the road and as I said, the state's in a drought right now.
I assume the road is elevated off the shore line. I see nothing wrong with my assumption. White caps don't break at a couple inches high. Again the perspective effect is distorting the relative height of the waves and the shoreline.
White caps don't break higher than the road and I sure as hell don't see white caps filling the entire line where the road should be.
-
They don't have to break higher than the road. They just have to be nearer to you. To use an extreme example my thumb is not higher than the treeline five miles away from me, but my thumb easily eclipses my view of the tree at arms length.
-
They don't have to break higher than the road. They just have to be nearer to you. To use an extreme example my thumb is not higher than the treeline five miles away from me, but my thumb easily eclipses my view of the tree at arms length.
In your example you're raising your thumb to the horizon to cover the tree. The closer crests are not at the horizon, not even close, and they are not nearly large enough to reach up to the horizon.
-
Are you obviously missing the point?
-
A question messierhunter,
What was your approximate height above the water when making this observation?
I think I'll make a diagram and that should clear things up.
-
Are you obviously missing the point?
No, but you are. If earth is flat we should see the road right underneath those trees. What's blocking the road isn't just a non-ending series of "white caps," it's the whole river, so therefore we can conclude that the earth is not flat.
-
A question messierhunter,
What was your approximate height above the water when making this observation?
I think I'll make a diagram and that should clear things up.
About 6 feet.
-
A question messierhunter,
What was your approximate height above the water when making this observation?
I think I'll make a diagram and that should clear things up.
About 6 feet.
At least now we know how tall you are. I had been curious. lol
-
Well, here's a crude diagram, but at least it illustrates the principle. Let me know if I have misrepresented anything.
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn291/gary2914458/RF.jpg?t=1214434895)
-
For that you needed to know how tall he is? ??? :P
-
For that you needed to know how tall he is? ??? :P
Hey, don't mock my MS Paint skills! :P
-
For that you needed to know how tall he is? ??? :P
Hey, don't mock my MS Paint skills! :P
It's what I do. 8)
-
It'd be nice to draw it to full scale to demonstrate the effect of even small waves blocking the horizon, but I have no such skill at rendering.
-
It'd be nice to draw it to full scale to demonstrate the effect of even small waves blocking the horizon, but I have no such skill at rendering.
It would be near impossible to get the picture to scale. The angles would be imperceptible.
I'm not sure how much small waves would effect the view on a flat earth. In order to block the road, the waves have to rise above the line which connects the telescope to the opposite shoreline. This line has a slope of 6/(5*5280)=1/4400. So I guess a modest wave of a half a foot or so could potentially block the road if it was located somewhere within 2200 feet from the shore. But, then again we don't know how high the road is above the water, or how high those trees are.
For the round earth prediction, I'll use an Earth radius of 3960 miles. 5 miles subtends 1/792 radians. To calculate angle between the observer and where a line of sight meets the water at a point of tangency, I'll take arcos((3960/(3960+6/5280)) = 1/1320 radians. I'll subtract this from the total angle subtended to obtain 1/792-1/1320 = 1/1980 radians. I'll now take the cosine of this, divide the Earth's radius by it, and subtract an Earth's radius to obtain the total height blocked by the curvature of the earth, 3980/cos(1/1980) - 3960 =.00050505 miles = 2.667 feet = 32 inches.
So according to RE, anything within 32 inches above water on the opposite shore will be blocked from view. That's not much at all. I don't think its enough to block the road by itself, let alone the trees too.
Clearly, there is something else at play here. It could be waves. It could be refraction. But honestly, as much as I hate to say it, I don't think this evidence supports either model. In addition, this shows the subtleties involved with such measurements of the Earth on these scales and perhaps how unreliable they can be.
-
It'd be nice to draw it to full scale to demonstrate the effect of even small waves blocking the horizon, but I have no such skill at rendering.
Considering the closest small waves were well below the angle to the road, there is no need for a "full scale" drawing to demonstrate what was just clearly demonstrated.
-
So according to RE, anything 32 inches above water on the opposite shore will be blocked from view. That's not much at all. I don't think its enough to block the road by itself, let alone the trees too.
Sounds about right to me, little less than 3 feet. Dirt access roads like the one here aren't usually that high above the water level, and certainly the shore is not. Here's an example from one of the roads on a main island next to the one I was shooting towards:
(http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/rau/pics/road.jpg)
-
How far were you from the shore?
Amost 5 miles. Damn this 30 second timer, I can't respond to everyone fast enough.
I'm certain five miles would not give you the effect you are trying to represent. This reinforces the fact you are seeing a perspective effect. The fact that there appears to be white caps in the image suggest any rise of the surface level would be due to something other than the earth's presumed curvature.
such as?