The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Areweonfiya on August 18, 2009, 07:45:22 PM
-
I'm just going to address some things in the FAQ and get some clarification here.
First off it states that NASA is all false and they are not really going into space. They are taking the money from the government to build a fake spaceprogram and take the rest of the money for themselves.
Here's where I come in. Where is the evidence that suggests this is true? (BESIDES the earth being flat, since that's already assuming, let's go for an unbiased pov)
Secondly you state that rocket ships that are blasted into space aren't really going to space, but rather onto remote bunkers in Africa or some Island.
Where is the evidence that suggests this is true? (besides the earth being flat)
As you know, simply just saying something that makes you feel good about yourself doesn't make it true. That's not science, that's a dumbass kid sitting on his computer telling people what he thinks is true because it makes sense in his/her world.
-
The earth is flat. Experiments may easily be performed to show this to be the case.
Now, try explaining how a conspiracy could not exist within the context of reality.
-
There have also been experiments that have proven the Earth to be round.
But let's try to stroll away from the flat earth/round earth. Let's look at evidence about the things I'm talking about. Let's say the Earth really was flat. I would still want proof that Nasa is sending people to africa.
-
There have also been experiments that have proven the Earth to be round.
Source?
-
There have also been experiments that have proven the Earth to be round.
Source?
Turbulent ship wakes: further evidence that the Earth is round (http://www.thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf)
-
Basic query, so moved to Questions & Clarification.
-
k
-
There have also been experiments that have proven the Earth to be round.
Source?
The Bedford Level Experiments, when repeated by everybody except Blount (who was a friend of Rowbotham).
-
The earth is flat. Experiments may easily be performed to show this to be the case.
Now, try explaining how a conspiracy could not exist within the context of reality.
If these experiments are so easy, could you please tell me how I could perform them myself?
-
The Bedford Level Experiments, when repeated by everybody except Blount.
Source?
The earth is flat. Experiments may easily be performed to show this to be the case.
Now, try explaining how a conspiracy could not exist within the context of reality.
If these experiments are so easy, could you please tell me how I could perform them myself?
They are detailed extensively in Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham. I highly recommend the read.
-
The earth is flat. Experiments may easily be performed to show this to be the case.
Now, try explaining how a conspiracy could not exist within the context of reality.
If these experiments are so easy, could you please tell me how I could perform them myself?
It's documented (more or less) here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm
-
The Bedford Level Experiments, when repeated by everybody except Blount.
Source?
Oldham, H. Yule (1901). "The experimental demonstration of the curvature of the Earth's surface". Annual Report (London: British Association for the Advancement of Science): 725?6.
Also the experiment was repeated with greater accuracy prior to this by Alfred Wallace (a trained surveyor), as I believe is covered in other threads. His findings were that the earth was round.
-
The Bedford Level Experiments, when repeated by everybody except Blount.
Source?
Nature magazine, April 7th, 1870. "Rotundity of the Earth" (http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/HistSciTech/HistSciTech-idx?type=article&did=HISTSCITECH.NATURE18700407.I0008&id=HistSciTech.Nature18700407&isize=M)
Although the diagrams of what was seen by the telescopes used at both ends and acknowledged to be correct by Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Hampden show the central signal more then 5 feet above the line of the two extremes, these gentlemen coolly claim the victory, and threaten to bring action against the Editor of the Field (who was appointed umpire by Mr. Hampden himself) for fraudulently deciding against them.
Basically, the results showed that the Earth was round. Even the judge Hampden selecting agreed. So Hampden freaked out and tried unsuccessfully to sue.
-
I still don't have any evidence that NASA is sending people to Africa.
This is all just retarded. When the FE'rs see a problem, they just make up something that could happen and say that it's true because they believe the Earth is flat. Come on, you're never going to convince ANYONE that the Earth is flat at this rate.
-
I still don't have any evidence that NASA is sending people to Africa.
This is all just retarded. When the FE'rs see a problem, they just make up something that could happen and say that it's true because they believe the Earth is flat. Come on, you're never going to convince ANYONE that the Earth is flat at this rate.
As far as I can tell, the basis for their entire assumption of a flat earth is Rowbotham's experiment. NASA's conspiracy, not believing in gravity, claiming the sun and moon are spotlights, the anti-moon and all related ideas are all based off of "We know its true because the earth is flat" (basically), an assumption based entirely off of Rowbotham and Blount.
I mean, I haven't exactly seen any additional evidence for the NASA conspiracy besides: "We already know the Earth is flat, so NASA must be lying."
Not a single incriminating memo, phone conversation, or confession of a former NASA worker.
-
I'm pretty sure this site is a joke anyways. But I did learn a lot. It's good to debate things like this and get the ol' brain working again. So I feel like I've accomplished somthing rather than waste my time with a bunch of idiots and trolls.
-
Nature magazine, April 7th, 1870. "Rotundity of the Earth" (http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/HistSciTech/HistSciTech-idx?type=article&did=HISTSCITECH.NATURE18700407.I0008&id=HistSciTech.Nature18700407&isize=M)
Although the diagrams of what was seen by the telescopes used at both ends and acknowledged to be correct by Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Hampden show the central signal more then 5 feet above the line of the two extremes, these gentlemen coolly claim the victory, and threaten to bring action against the Editor of the Field (who was appointed umpire by Mr. Hampden himself) for fraudulently deciding against them.
Basically, the results showed that the Earth was round. Even the judge Hampden selecting agreed. So Hampden freaked out and tried unsuccessfully to sue.
Wow, no bias there at all. ::)
I still don't have any evidence that NASA is sending people to Africa.
I never made such a claim.
-
Never said you did. I'm talking about the "flawless" FAQ's
-
Never said you did. I'm talking about the "flawless" FAQ's
Where have you seen the FAQ referred to as "flawless"?
-
The earth is flat. Experiments may easily be performed to show this to be the case.
Now, try explaining how a conspiracy could not exist within the context of reality.
Simple, NASA doing their jobs.
Experiments could also be done to show that the earth is round.
But, opposition could easily question the consistency and validity of the experiments and proof.
Roundy the Truthinessist, if you admit that the FAQ is not flawless, why do FE'ers use it as an answer to our questions?
I do not want flawed answers.
I want logical answers backed up with evidence.
-
Never said you did. I'm talking about the "flawless" FAQ's
Where have you seen the FAQ referred to as "flawless"?
Well since it is the basis for this website shouldn't it at least be a bit more adequate?
-
Never said you did. I'm talking about the "flawless" FAQ's
Where have you seen the FAQ referred to as "flawless"?
Well since it is the basis for this website shouldn't it at least be a bit more adequate?
Do you know what 'FAQ' stands for?
-
Never said you did. I'm talking about the "flawless" FAQ's
Where have you seen the FAQ referred to as "flawless"?
Well since it is the basis for this website shouldn't it at least be a bit more adequate?
Do you know what 'FAQ' stands for?
Frequently Asked Questions. How does that name imply that those questions will have satisfactory answers?
-
How does that name imply that those questions will have satisfactory answers?
How does my question imply that the name has that implication?
-
Flawlessly Answered Questions
?
-
How does that name imply that those questions will have satisfactory answers?
How does my question imply that the name has that implication?
I didn't say that it did. However, of what possible use is a FAQ that does not have satisfactory answers to Frequently Asked Questions? ???
I suppose another way of putting it is: We know what a FAQ is. Do you know what a FAQ is for?
-
I was pointing out that the FAQ is not the "basis" for this site. As for whether or not I know what the FAQ is for, the FAQ is an introduction and guideline to some of the key concepts in FET. It is not intended to be exhaustive or definitive, and as a result some people may not consider that satisfactory. However, to make it exhaustive would make unsuitable for its original purpose.
-
I'm not saying that the FAQ needs to be (or even should be) the basis of or an exhaustive explanation of FET. It should, however, provide satisfactory answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about FET. The fact that not very many people (some FE'ers included) are satisfied with those answers suggests that the FAQ is in failing its intended purpose. Perhaps the FE Wiki will be better when (if) it goes live, but I'm not holding my breath.
-
Well, we're all about constructive criticism at The Flat Earth Society. How would you improve it?
-
Well, we're all about constructive criticism at The Flat Earth Society. How would you improve it?
Triple the size of the 'Disclaimer' heading. Also highlight the bolded parts with pretty colors. This should decrease (slightly) the amount of people questioning it's 'biblical' truth.
EDIT: No not the bolded parts, but the parts where it says 'this is not 100% accurate to everyone's beliefs' and what not
-
Well, we're all about constructive criticism at The Flat Earth Society. How would you improve it?
Q: "Do you have a map?"
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png)
This applies to the finite Earth model only.
Well, for one thing, you should put a disclaimer on this map explaining that it's a projection of a RE globe and is for illustrative purposes only and the true sizes and locations of the land masses are yet to be measured.
-
Noted, it happens to be something I agree with anyway.
-
Well if you're going to give me answers to frequently answered questions shouldn't they be you know... good?
-
Well if you're going to give me answers to frequently answered questions shouldn't they be you know... good?
Define good.
Like I said, instead of just making bland, useless criticisms, why not say something we can actually work with?
-
You're the ones who got off topic about the FAQ's.
Ok forget about the FAQ's, can we PLEASE move on to the topic at hand? The whole evidence thing?
-
Where is the evidence that suggests this is true? (besides the earth being flat)
Well, what reasonable experiment would you expect performed that would showcase a flat Earth?
-
I still don't have any evidence that NASA is sending people to Africa.
This is all just retarded. When the FE'rs see a problem, they just make up something that could happen and say that it's true because they believe the Earth is flat. Come on, you're never going to convince ANYONE that the Earth is flat at this rate.
Well, they convinced me. And they've convinced a whole lot of other people too.
-
The earth is flat. Experiments may easily be performed to show this to be the case.
Now, try explaining how a conspiracy could not exist within the context of reality.
Simple, NASA doing their jobs.
Experiments could also be done to show that the earth is round.
But, opposition could easily question the consistency and validity of the experiments and proof.
Roundy the Truthinessist, if you admit that the FAQ is not flawless, why do FE'ers use it as an answer to our questions?
I do not want flawed answers.
I want logical answers backed up with evidence.
Geez, you sure are demanding considering you're getting something for nothing. You should be glad people go through so much trouble to contribute to this forum for your benefit.
-
Geez, you sure are demanding considering you're getting something for nothing. You should be glad people go through so much trouble to contribute to this forum for your benefit.
Seriously, do you look at a mirror when you say this?
-
Geez, you sure are demanding considering you're getting something for nothing. You should be glad people go through so much trouble to contribute to this forum for your benefit.
Seriously, do you look at a mirror when you say this?
No, I look at the computer screen.
-
I still don't have any evidence that NASA is sending people to Africa.
This is all just retarded. When the FE'rs see a problem, they just make up something that could happen and say that it's true because they believe the Earth is flat. Come on, you're never going to convince ANYONE that the Earth is flat at this rate.
Well, they convinced me. And they've convinced a whole lot of other people too.
I know right? Because 12 people is a whole lot... out of 6 billion.
-
I still don't have any evidence that NASA is sending people to Africa.
This is all just retarded. When the FE'rs see a problem, they just make up something that could happen and say that it's true because they believe the Earth is flat. Come on, you're never going to convince ANYONE that the Earth is flat at this rate.
Well, they convinced me. And they've convinced a whole lot of other people too.
I know right? Because 12 people is a whole lot... out of 6 billion.
Hey, brainwashing can be difficult to overcome.
-
The earth is flat. Experiments may easily be performed to show this to be the case.
Now, try explaining how a conspiracy could not exist within the context of reality.
And which experiments are these? I assume they have been published in one of the many peer reviewed journals, and have been succesfully repeated by others?
-
The earth is flat. Experiments may easily be performed to show this to be the case.
Now, try explaining how a conspiracy could not exist within the context of reality.
And which experiments are these? I assume they have been published in one of the many peer reviewed journals, and have been succesfully repeated by others?
You would be correct in that assumption.
-
The earth is flat. Experiments may easily be performed to show this to be the case.
Now, try explaining how a conspiracy could not exist within the context of reality.
And which experiments are these? I assume they have been published in one of the many peer reviewed journals, and have been succesfully repeated by others?
You would be correct in that assumption.
soooooo... where are they? What are they? How may I repeat them myself?
-
The earth is flat. Experiments may easily be performed to show this to be the case.
Now, try explaining how a conspiracy could not exist within the context of reality.
And which experiments are these? I assume they have been published in one of the many peer reviewed journals, and have been succesfully repeated by others?
You would be correct in that assumption.
soooooo... where are they? What are they? How may I repeat them myself?
Read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
-
I repeated them, it showed me the Earth was round.
Do I win?
-
I repeated them, it showed me the Earth was round.
Do I win?
Have you figured out what you did wrong yet?
-
Have you figured out what you did wrong?
-
Still no evidence.
-
Read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
I think you'll quickly change your mind.
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
I think you'll quickly change your mind.
I wouldn't be so sure, proleg. A rational person would, but Areweonfiya doesn't really strike me as such a person.
-
Ooh, hoorah for ad hominems.
-
Ooh, hoorah for ad hominems.
You sure use them frequently enough.
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
I think you'll quickly change your mind.
I wouldn't be so sure, proleg. A rational person would, but Areweonfiya doesn't really strike me as such a person.
I know right? Because only rational people realise the Earth is flat and that Nasa is a huge conspiracy ::)
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
I think you'll quickly change your mind.
I wouldn't be so sure, proleg. A rational person would, but Areweonfiya doesn't really strike me as such a person.
I know right? Because only rational people realise the Earth is flat and that Nasa is a huge conspiracy ::)
In the face of all the evidence? Yes.
-
The earth is flat. Experiments may easily be performed to show this to be the case.
Now, try explaining how a conspiracy could not exist within the context of reality.
He doesn't need to. The standard position of science is disbelief of something that isn't accepted in the scientific community. The scientific community accepts that the Earth is round, provide empirical, absolute evidence supporting that the Earth is flat. "It seems flat from the surface" is unacceptable in this regard. Numbers fit in Round Earth Theory, and RE is far, far simpler than FE. Occam's razor definitely applies to the situation, kindly go back to 9/11 conspiracy theory.
-
Once again you FEers ask for proof. You all give no empirical evidence at all. But I give you all a very simple experiment that you all can perform yourself.
Get a pair of binoculars, check the ISS website for times the the Station will be passing over your area. Find a nice dark area, and some place you can get your arms very steady to hold the binoculars. Wait till you see it, and then point the binoculars right at it. Try to get your view just in front of where it's about to go...and steady them...and just watch it pass in front of the binoculars without moving them. You will quite clearly see the shape of the ISS.
Us REers have now given you without having to read some book by your hero, the exact procedure to do your own empirical experiment. Many of us have seen the evidence with our own eyes.
The burden of proof now moves to you all....get how that works?
Prove to me, as one of yours claims, that what I'm seeing is a blimp shaped like the ISS put up there by NASA, to further this ever growing conspiracy.
Explain to me why ISS appears to come out of no where when you first see it....and as it passes over it gets brighter in amplitude, and then as it gets further away it simply vanishes.
Explain to me why I can also see the shape of the Space Shuttle?
Why can I see them "chasing" each other right before the Shuttle docks, and right after it undocks?
The ball is in your court guys...and you guys don't seem to have a play. Might as well just get off the court and play with kids your own size.
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
I think you'll quickly change your mind.
I wouldn't be so sure, proleg. A rational person would, but Areweonfiya doesn't really strike me as such a person.
I know right? Because only rational people realise the Earth is flat and that Nasa is a huge conspiracy ::)
In the face of all the evidence? Yes.
Provide with "all the evidence" or access to it anyway. And leave this Earth Not A Globe book out, you've all mentioned this a hundred times before and as far as I'm concerned one guy writing a book about experiments he supposedly did doesn't class as evidence I'm afraid. Where are the published repeats and findings into it???? Even another guy on this forum says he tried them and found the earth to be round.
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
I think you'll quickly change your mind.
I wouldn't be so sure, proleg. A rational person would, but Areweonfiya doesn't really strike me as such a person.
I know right? Because only rational people realise the Earth is flat and that Nasa is a huge conspiracy ::)
In the face of all the evidence? Yes.
Provide with "all the evidence" or access to it anyway. And leave this Earth Not A Globe book out, you've all mentioned this a hundred times before and as far as I'm concerned one guy writing a book about experiments he supposedly did doesn't class as evidence I'm afraid. Where are the published repeats and findings into it???? Even another guy on this forum says he tried them and found the earth to be round.
Perhaps you should try them for yourself and see what you find.
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
I think you'll quickly change your mind.
I wouldn't be so sure, proleg. A rational person would, but Areweonfiya doesn't really strike me as such a person.
So your philosophy is that whoever does not agree with you and/or your book they are irrational? Lol.
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
I think you'll quickly change your mind.
I wouldn't be so sure, proleg. A rational person would, but Areweonfiya doesn't really strike me as such a person.
So your philosophy is that whoever does not agree with you and/or your book they are irrational? Lol.
Denial of fact is not rational.
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
I think you'll quickly change your mind.
I wouldn't be so sure, proleg. A rational person would, but Areweonfiya doesn't really strike me as such a person.
So your philosophy is that whoever does not agree with you and/or your book they are irrational? Lol.
Denial of fact is not rational.
Yes but our denial to the validity of experiments showing the world is flat, is no different to you denial of the experiments which prove the world to be round. Its just that in our case, there are far more which show that the earth is in fact a sphere so the latter is probably the more rational answer.
-
Yes but our denial to the validity of experiments showing the world is flat, is no different to you denial of the experiments which prove the world to be round.
Except our experiments are completely valid.
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
I think you'll quickly change your mind.
I wouldn't be so sure, proleg. A rational person would, but Areweonfiya doesn't really strike me as such a person.
I know right? Because only rational people realise the Earth is flat and that Nasa is a huge conspiracy ::)
In the face of all the evidence? Yes.
Provide with "all the evidence" or access to it anyway. And leave this Earth Not A Globe book out, you've all mentioned this a hundred times before and as far as I'm concerned one guy writing a book about experiments he supposedly did doesn't class as evidence I'm afraid. Where are the published repeats and findings into it???? Even another guy on this forum says he tried them and found the earth to be round.
Perhaps you should try them for yourself and see what you find.
I don't have time to try out some bogus experiments which will only prove that the earth is and has always been how i believed it to be, fl......hahahahahahahahahahaha, i'm sorry i couldn't keep that one up.
But on a more serious note, I've become quite bored with this forum, not because of what you think of and how ridiculous I may or may not think this to be, but the cryptic answers with which you come up with and they way in which you all seem to be incapable ofanswering a question in a measured and straight-forward manner.
-
Yes but our denial to the validity of experiments showing the world is flat, is no different to you denial of the experiments which prove the world to be round.
Except our experiments are completely valid.
How can you say that when people have tried them and found the earth to be round??
And I know how petty you are about providing a source so to satisfy your needs:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31552.40
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
I think you'll quickly change your mind.
I wouldn't be so sure, proleg. A rational person would, but Areweonfiya doesn't really strike me as such a person.
I know right? Because only rational people realise the Earth is flat and that Nasa is a huge conspiracy ::)
In the face of all the evidence? Yes.
Provide with "all the evidence" or access to it anyway. And leave this Earth Not A Globe book out, you've all mentioned this a hundred times before and as far as I'm concerned one guy writing a book about experiments he supposedly did doesn't class as evidence I'm afraid. Where are the published repeats and findings into it???? Even another guy on this forum says he tried them and found the earth to be round.
Perhaps you should try them for yourself and see what you find.
I don't have time to try out some bogus experiments which will only prove that the earth is and has always been how i believed it to be, fl......hahahahahahahahahahaha, i'm sorry i couldn't keep that one up.
Okay then.
-
Come on then, give us some evidence of guards on snow mobiles patrolling the ice wall, blimps which take the appearance of the ISS, and why if you believe other planets to be spherical, why the hell can't the earth be too?!? Especially when experiments have been carried out to prove this is the case.
-
Yes but our denial to the validity of experiments showing the world is flat, is no different to you denial of the experiments which prove the world to be round.
Except our experiments are completely valid.
How can you say that when people have tried them and found the earth to be round??
And I know how petty you are about providing a source so to satisfy your needs:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31552.40
I see no such evidence on that page.
-
I repeated them, it showed me the Earth was round.
Do I win?
Fine, I'll highlight it for you then.
-
I repeated them, it showed me the Earth was round.
Do I win?
Fine, I'll highlight it for you then.
Could you possibly highlight it further? I'm afraid that I still see no supportive data there. :-\
-
Fine you're childish ways seem to repeat themselves once again but I will let it slide.
Maybe you could give some evidence which shows that the data NASA has given to us (videos, photos etc.) has reason to be faked. I mean give me an example of something that doesn't seem legit.
And I would appreciate it if you would just answer the question this time instead of just picking some tiny little hole in my question and dancing around providing an answer, because to be honest this only shows a lack of crdibility in your version of things.
-
Yes but our denial to the validity of experiments showing the world is flat, is no different to you denial of the experiments which prove the world to be round.
Except our experiments are completely valid.
I'm sorry, but which experiments would those be?
-
Fine you're childish ways seem to repeat themselves once again but I will let it slide.
Desiring actual evidence is childish? ???
Maybe you could give some evidence which shows that the data NASA has given to us (videos, photos etc.) has reason to be faked. I mean give me an example of something that doesn't seem legit.
All of it.
-
Maybe you could give some evidence which shows that the data NASA has given to us (videos, photos etc.) has reason to be faked. I mean give me an example of something that doesn't seem legit.
All of it.
[/quote]
How does it seem to be faked then? What in particular is it that you cannot accept to be true (apart from the earth being round)?
-
Fine you're childish ways seem to repeat themselves once again but I will let it slide.
You are childish ways!
Also, using the word "childish" as an insult is ageist. Nothing wrong with children and therefore nothing wrong with being like they are!
-
How does it seem to be faked then? What in particular is it that you cannot accept to be true (apart from the earth being round)?
If the earth is flat, how can anything portraying it to be otherwise not be false?
-
How does it seem to be faked then? What in particular is it that you cannot accept to be true (apart from the earth being round)?
If the earth is flat, how can anything portraying it to be otherwise not be false?
You don't understand what I'm saying. Put aside the fact that the earth is flat and tell me how pictures taken from satellites, evidence of space missions etc have holes in them.
-
Right, I'm bored of waiting around for answers that are probably never going to come. I'm going to bed.
-
Right, I'm bored of waiting around for answers that are probably never going to come. I'm going to bed.
Good night.
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
I think you'll quickly change your mind.
I wouldn't be so sure, proleg. A rational person would, but Areweonfiya doesn't really strike me as such a person.
So your philosophy is that whoever does not agree with you and/or your book they are irrational? Lol.
Denial of fact is not rational.
What facts
-
Okay you know what? Fine, I'll read your phony book. Note that it does not constitute as evidence.
I think you'll quickly change your mind.
I wouldn't be so sure, proleg. A rational person would, but Areweonfiya doesn't really strike me as such a person.
So your philosophy is that whoever does not agree with you and/or your book they are irrational? Lol.
Denial of fact is not rational.
What facts
Well, the fact that the earth is a disc for one thing.
-
And what exactly lead you to believe this?
(A link to some valid experiment or anything as such would be appreiciated)
-
And what exactly lead you to believe this?
(A link to some valid experiment or anything as such would be appreiciated)
Several things:
1) The experiments presented in Earth Not A Globe.
2) Logical reasoning based on my own observation.
3) The logical reasoning of flat earthers all over this forum.
4) Accepting that if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and smells like a duck, and feels like a duck, it could just be... a duck! (In other words, that I don't have to deny everything my senses tell me just to match my views with those of the majority.)
-
How does it seem to be faked then? What in particular is it that you cannot accept to be true (apart from the earth being round)?
If the earth is flat, how can anything portraying it to be otherwise not be false?
That's a mighty big if.
-
How does it seem to be faked then? What in particular is it that you cannot accept to be true (apart from the earth being round)?
If the earth is flat, how can anything portraying it to be otherwise not be false?
Maybe it's evidence that the earth isn't flat.
Pictures and videos are so easily faked though.
-
Several things:
1) The experiments presented in Earth Not A Globe.
2) Logical reasoning based on my own observation.
3) The logical reasoning of flat earthers all over this forum.
4) Accepting that if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and smells like a duck, and feels like a duck, it could just be... a duck! (In other words, that I don't have to deny everything my senses tell me just to match my views with those of the majority.)
Sigh.
1) I would love for you to give ONE legit experiment that can prove the flatness of the Earth. I can't find this book anywhere dude.
2) Just because you say you have logical reasoning doesn't make it so.
3) Again saying somthing like that doesn't mean anything
4)The Earth does in fact look round (not when you're on the ground of course) but since you can't prove the roundness of the Earth by smelling hearing feeling or tasting, that's irrelevent.
5) I fail to see ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE at all here.
-
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/
-
How does it seem to be faked then? What in particular is it that you cannot accept to be true (apart from the earth being round)?
If the earth is flat, how can anything portraying it to be otherwise not be false?
Maybe it's evidence that the earth isn't flat.
Pictures and videos are so easily faked though.
Evidence of a Flat Earth is easy enough to fake too. What's your point?
-
I'm reading the first experiment and it contradicts the bendy light theory.
-
Several things:
1) The experiments presented in Earth Not A Globe.
2) Logical reasoning based on my own observation.
3) The logical reasoning of flat earthers all over this forum.
4) Accepting that if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and smells like a duck, and feels like a duck, it could just be... a duck! (In other words, that I don't have to deny everything my senses tell me just to match my views with those of the majority.)
Sigh.
1) I would love for you to give ONE legit experiment that can prove the flatness of the Earth. I can't find this book anywhere dude.
2) Just because you say you have logical reasoning doesn't make it so.
3) Again saying somthing like that doesn't mean anything
4)The Earth does in fact look round (not when you're on the ground of course) but since you can't prove the roundness of the Earth by smelling hearing feeling or tasting, that's irrelevent.
5) I fail to see ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE at all here.
You asked a question and I answered it. It's not so because I said it was, I said it was because it was so. The earth looks round only around the edges. It does not, ever, look like a sphere. The fact that smelling, hearing, or feeling don't mean anything doesn't make my point irrelevant. The earth looks flat. We can also prove that it is flat, which confirms the most logical hypothesis.
-
How does it seem to be faked then? What in particular is it that you cannot accept to be true (apart from the earth being round)?
If the earth is flat, how can anything portraying it to be otherwise not be false?
Maybe it's evidence that the earth isn't flat.
Pictures and videos are so easily faked though.
Evidence of a Flat Earth is easy enough to fake too. What's your point?
Not really, as the evidence can be recreated by anyone with the initiative.
-
You haven't proved that the Earth is flat.
-
How does it seem to be faked then? What in particular is it that you cannot accept to be true (apart from the earth being round)?
If the earth is flat, how can anything portraying it to be otherwise not be false?
Maybe it's evidence that the earth isn't flat.
Pictures and videos are so easily faked though.
Evidence of a Flat Earth is easy enough to fake too. What's your point?
Not really, as the evidence can be recreated by anyone with the initiative.
And RE evidence can be recreated by anyone with the resources. Again, what's your point?
-
Not really, as the evidence can be recreated by anyone with the initiative.
Kind of like attaching a camera to a balloon and letting it go, and later see video footage of Earth's curvature? Yeah, why don't you try that one.
-
How does it seem to be faked then? What in particular is it that you cannot accept to be true (apart from the earth being round)?
If the earth is flat, how can anything portraying it to be otherwise not be false?
Maybe it's evidence that the earth isn't flat.
Pictures and videos are so easily faked though.
Evidence of a Flat Earth is easy enough to fake too. What's your point?
Not really, as the evidence can be recreated by anyone with the initiative.
And RE evidence can be recreated by anyone with the resources. Again, what's your point?
What's yours?
-
Not really, as the evidence can be recreated by anyone with the initiative.
Kind of like attaching a camera to a balloon and letting it go, and later see video footage of Earth's curvature? Yeah, why don't you try that one.
Oh no, not you again.
But yes, the edge of the earth is curved.
Where are you going with this?
-
What's yours?
What's my what?
-
What's yours?
What's my what?
what's your point?
What's yours?
::)
-
What's yours?
What's my what?
what's your point?
What's yours?
::)
That you don't have one.
-
What's yours?
What's my what?
what's your point?
What's yours?
::)
That you don't have one.
Then my point is that you don't have one.
-
What's yours?
What's my what?
what's your point?
What's yours?
::)
That you don't have one.
Then my point is that you don't have one.
Typical tactic of a FE'er, poke holes and question the question until it goes away. That way you don't have to think of an answer and therefore you can keep on going believing your little theory that the earth is flat.
Anyway, maybe you can tell me about sunrises/sunsets. In the FAQ it says that the sun gets further away which makes it seem like it's approaching the horizon. Tell me, why then does the sun fully drop below the horizon, and if it's getting further away, why does it seem to get bigger?
-
What's yours?
What's my what?
what's your point?
What's yours?
::)
That you don't have one.
Then my point is that you don't have one.
Typical tactic of a FE'er, poke holes and question the question until it goes away. That way you don't have to think of an answer and therefore you can keep on going believing your little theory that the earth is flat.
Whatever. He/she asked what my point was, so I asked for his, and his response was that his point was that I don't have a point, so I said that my point was that he doesn't have one. Fair game.
The "what's your point" game is a lot like the why game in that you can keep going, "What's your point?" over and over, to each new response.
A: So this and this and this.
B: What's your point?
A: That _________.
B: What's your point?
A: That _________.
B: What's your point?
Oh, and if you have a real question, feel free to ask, but don't expect me to answer unless you can be a bit more polite/mature about it.
-
Whatever. He/she asked what my point was, so I asked for his, and his response was that his point was that I don't have a point, so I said that my point was that he doesn't have one. Fair game.
The "what's your point" game is a lot like the why game in that you can keep going, "What's your point?" over and over, to each new response.
A: So this and this and this.
B: What's your point?
A: That _________.
B: What's your point?
A: That _________.
B: What's your point?
Oh, and if you have a real question, feel free to ask, but don't expect me to answer unless you can be a bit more polite/mature about it.
That because you took my ""what's your point" out of context. If you recall, you proposed that all RE evidence can be faked. When I pointed out that FE evidence could be just as easily faked, only then did I ask you what your point was. My point was that saying that evidence can be faked is not evidence that it has been faked. Now, what was your point in saying that RE evidence can be faked?
-
Watch this crap.
-
Umm... Which crap are you referring to?
-
Well I would love for you to answer my question:
Maybe you can tell me about sunrises/sunsets. In the FAQ it says that the sun gets further away which makes it seem like it's approaching the horizon. Tell me, why then does the sun fully drop below the horizon, and if it's getting further away, why does it seem to get bigger? I have searched for the answer in the forums, but have found nothing.
-
Well I would love for you to answer my question:
Maybe you can tell me about sunrises/sunsets. In the FAQ it says that the sun gets further away which makes it seem like it's approaching the horizon. Tell me, why then does the sun fully drop below the horizon
There are two possible answers that I know of here.
1)Perspective. Rowbotham was of the opinion that if you don't understand that this is what you would normally expect according to the laws of perspective, you're wrong.
2)Electromagnetic Acceleration. The light bends upwards as it gets further away causing the illusion that the sun is sinking into the vanishing point.
I favor Option 2.
and if it's getting further away, why does it seem to get bigger?
This is merely an optical illusion.
-
By optical illusion, do you mean that while it seems bigger, it isn't actually bigger?
Because if that is the case, I can tell you for certain it is not. I've been lucky enough to see the sunset in a number of places, such as the Sahara, Carribbean, and just recently in the Outback from Ayres Rock. All of them showed the sun to be much bigger at the horizon that in the top of the sky.
-
By optical illusion, do you mean that while it seems bigger, it isn't actually bigger?
Yes.
Because if that is the case, I can tell you for certain it is not. I've been lucky enough to see the sunset in a number of places, such as the Sahara, Carribbean, and just recently in the Outback from Ayres Rock. All of them showed the sun to be much bigger at the horizon that in the top of the sky.
Wrong. It just looked bigger, kind of like how the moon looks bigger when it's closer to the horizon than when it's high in the sky.
-
In photos, it is bigger. I know that. It's always the same with you guys, whenever someone gives some sort of evidence, you just say no you're wrong, or I don't believe you, or it's fake. This is why it is so impossible to have a debate with any of you.
-
In photos, it is bigger. I know that. It's always the same with you guys, whenever someone gives some sort of evidence, you just say no you're wrong, or I don't believe you, or it's fake. This is why it is so impossible to have a debate with any of you.
Would you take the word of a REer?
http://www.ion.org/newsletter/v12n1.html#feature2
It appears that some navigators do not understand why the sun appears larger at sunset and sunrise than it does at noon. One of the more popular misconceptions is that it is caused by refraction. Actually, refraction makes the sun appear smaller at rising or setting, because there is more refraction acting on the lower limb of the sun (because of its lower altitude) than on the upper limb.
The image of the sun received by the eye is the same size (discounting the refraction effect) at both the horizon and the zenith.
It's always the same with you guys, you state things as fact that you have no idea about and argue that you're right until you're blue in the face. This is why it is so impossible to have a debate with any of you.
-
Even in RET the sun doesn't get bigger and smaller...
-
Not really, as the evidence can be recreated by anyone with the initiative.
Any source with accurate descriptions how this has been done by anyone recently?
-
Not really, as the evidence can be recreated by anyone with the initiative.
Any source with accurate descriptions how this has been done by anyone recently?
Yes, many.
One such source is Earth Not A Globe.
-
Not really, as the evidence can be recreated by anyone with the initiative.
Any source with accurate descriptions how this has been done by anyone recently?
Yes, many.
One such source is Earth Not A Globe.
Over 100 years ago is not recently.
-
Not really, as the evidence can be recreated by anyone with the initiative.
Any source with accurate descriptions how this has been done by anyone recently?
Yes, many.
One such source is Earth Not A Globe.
Rowbotham never accounted for atmospheric refractive phenomena in any of his long distance outdoor observations.
-
Not really, as the evidence can be recreated by anyone with the initiative.
Any source with accurate descriptions how this has been done by anyone recently?
Yes, many.
One such source is Earth Not A Globe.
Over 100 years ago is not recently.
Disregard anything not recent and you will miss out on many wonderful things.
-
How do you guys explain videos/images of the earth rotating from outerspace? Some of those vidoes/images are rather old, back when movie effects were incredibly poor. A fake would be extremely easy to spot, even more so with modern standards. I mean honestly, when asked for proof, you simply tell us to read a book, and yet when we explain experiments and evidence gathered by other scientists that prove us right, you say, "How do you know it's true? How do you know they weren't wrong? Have you tried it yourself? Then you don't know." What, pray tell, would be the point on covering up that the planet is flat? And what makes earth so special that it's the only flat planet out there? And how do other planets circle the sun if it's just a disk that moves around in a circle above earth? And if the earth accelerates upwards at 9.8m/s^2, then why isn't it moving towards any other galaxies? Even if you completely ignore NASA and all their proof, you mean to tell me the entire field of astronomy is full of lies and morons? Are all of you experienced scientists that have done the grunt work to prove this? Science is on our side. Your logic is faulty and goes against all the progession we've made, claiming things we've proven we can do to be impossible.
-
HTD, remember that NASA could afford quite advanced equipment, even for the time. They could make very convincing fakes, and they did. For some of the videos, all they actually had to do was paint the fake earth on a black canvas, create the fake spaceship interior, put it outside the window, and film it from within the "spaceship." They didn't do an amazing job though, and if you look closely at some of these "photos" and videos you can see that the earth is not drawn in a way that accurately represents the round earth model.
Also, planets do not circle around the sun.
-
HTD, remember that NASA could afford quite advanced equipment, even for the time. They could make very convincing fakes, and they did. For some of the videos, all they actually had to do was paint the fake earth on a black canvas, create the fake spaceship interior, put it outside the window, and film it from within the "spaceship." They didn't do an amazing job though, and if you look closely at some of these "photos" and videos you can see that the earth is not drawn in a way that accurately represents the round earth model.
Also, planets do not circle around the sun.
Oh my word, please don't tell me you guys also think that the planets circle Earth? Because how else would you explain their orbit? You can't...so...you must really think that the other planets circle Earth. Okay. That goes against everything we've discovered. The Earth is not the center of the universe and planets circle STARS. Planets do not circle other planets. We've tracked the movements of stars and planets for centuries. It just doesn't work like that. That would mean Jupiter and Mars are actually moons. That makes absolutely no sense. Although, if you guys have some alternate explanation, I'd love to hear it and will apologize for my tangent.
So, I completely trust in NASA, but if you want to believe that they're full of shit, go ahead, but the very laws of Physics prove the earth is round. I mean, if you want to get down to it, how can planes circle the earth...boats? And if you guys have some insane explanation for that, why haven't you guys all gotten together, pooled a fund, and traveled to the edge of the earth...where the big ice crap is, and voyage to the other side? Hmm? And just how thick is this 'flat earth'? I mean, how do you explain volcanos, plate tectonics? Look guys, the world isn't what it use to be. It is FULL of highly eduated people in most regions (minus the more obscure places of South America, Africa, etc)...you mean to tell me no one past your society has ever figured out the earth isn't round? That no one discovered that something a little fishy was going on? I mean NASA isn't the only space program. Several other nations have them. You mean to tell me that all joined together and said, "Let's pull a fast one on the entire world. FOR NO REASON! YAY!!!" I mean shit, we have satellite images and now you CAN'T say that they aren't real. I mean we can friggin' see them in the sky, for heaven sake. I mean if they did take images of a flat earth, I repeat, WHAT IS THE POINT OF HIDING IT?! We would advance better if we knew what the world is like. And we do know. We know it's round. The government isn't that friggin' stupid.
-
Oh my word, please don't tell me you guys also think that the planets circle Earth? Because how else would you explain their orbit? You can't...so...you must really think that the other planets circle Earth. Okay.
Incapable of expressing your opinions respectfully, then? No, I don't think the planets circle earth.
-
I'm sorry, my eyes were glazing over trying to read your walls of text. What is it that you're trying to say? Do you have any proof that the Earth is round? Remember, brevity is the soul of wit.
-
Oh my word, please don't tell me you guys also think that the planets circle Earth? Because how else would you explain their orbit? You can't...so...you must really think that the other planets circle Earth. Okay.
Incapable of expressing your opinions respectfully, then? No, I don't think the planets circle earth.
How was that disrespectful? I was simply assuming what you guys must think. After all, people that use to believe the Earth was flat also believed the planets revolved around it. It was a logical assumption to make. I didn't see anything in your FAQ about other planets circling the sun and even ended the paragraph saying that if you guys had some alternate explanation, I'd love to hear it.
And rather then just saying you don't think so, why don't you explain what you do think then? You guys seem to do that a lot around here. You refuse to explain yourselves. Instead, you just tell us to read the FAQ when there are some rather gaping holes sprinkled within there.
I'm sorry, my eyes were glazing over trying to read your walls of text. What is it that you're trying to say? Do you have any proof that the Earth is round? Remember, brevity is the soul of wit.
I'm sorry to hear that two paragraphs was much too much for you to read. I assume you also have trouble going over the entire menu at Applebee's? If you want to be a jerk, I can be one right back, sweety.
Do you have any proof the world is flat? Besides your FAQ and the one book you guys keep telling everyone to read? Is there anything you can tell me that I can't simply turn right back around on you?
-
Oh my word, please don't tell me you guys also think that the planets circle Earth? Because how else would you explain their orbit? You can't...so...you must really think that the other planets circle Earth. Okay.
Incapable of expressing your opinions respectfully, then? No, I don't think the planets circle earth.
How was that disrespectful?
See bold.
-
Oh my word, please don't tell me you guys also think that the planets circle Earth? Because how else would you explain their orbit? You can't...so...you must really think that the other planets circle Earth. Okay.
Incapable of expressing your opinions respectfully, then? No, I don't think the planets circle earth.
How was that disrespectful?
See bold.
Lol. It's easy to pick particular parts and slap them together and call them rude. The whole thing was a thought process I went through. And you still have yet to explain what the planets orbit then.
-
Lol. It's easy to pick particular parts and slap them together and call them rude. The whole thing was a thought process I went through. And you still have yet to explain what the planets orbit then.
Do you really think I want to explain anything to you after how nasty you've been?
-
Lol. It's easy to pick particular parts and slap them together and call them rude. The whole thing was a thought process I went through. And you still have yet to explain what the planets orbit then.
Do you really think I want to explain anything to you after how nasty you've been?
If you think I've been nasty, then you're ridiculously sensitive. Compared to some of the other people you get, I've been downright pleasent. And even though I'm very open minded, I tend to be very pushy with my opinions and have been exceedingly lovely compared to how I could have been. No, I just think you don't have an explanation and are avoiding the question. You need to lose some of that dodge rating and put it towards some hit.
-
And there it is. The "you're just not answering because you're afraid!!!" Used by round earthers time and time again when they realize no one wants to give them something for nothing when they're being completely unpleasant about it.
Fine, feel free to consider this as avoiding the question. Best of luck to you finding the answers you seek.
-
I never said you weren't answering because you were afraid. That implies you're not sure your answer is correct. What I was saying is that you don't actually have an answer to that particular question. Which is all I wanted to know. Some explanation that is not previously explained from what I've seen. Instead of discussing and debating, you whine that everyone is way too mean when they question your logic.
-
How can you expect people who are told that the Earth is flat that they should be pleasent about it?
-
Hello, I'm new to this website and I'd like to throw in my two cents. I'm neither convinced entirely nor disproven that the theory is true. But it doesn't mean that I can't at least be a little interested in what theories people have on the subject. If you come into a place like this with a close mind, you'll never learn anything. Perhaps you're not here to really learn anything but to troll, and I'm sorry for you. Me, I'm here on an open mind. Maybe the world really is flat? I don't know yet until I nod and agree to listen to what they have to say.
Please, let's be mature about this. So far, I have come up with this:
Oh my word, please don't tell me you guys also think that the planets circle Earth? Because how else would you explain their orbit? You can't...so...you must really think that the other planets circle Earth. Okay. That goes against everything we've discovered. The Earth is not the center of the universe and planets circle STARS. Planets do not circle other planets. We've tracked the movements of stars and planets for centuries.
This is assuming that planets really exist. From what I've read and understood thus far, the flat earth theory believes that NASA is truly a conspiracy and, its discoveries and theories may be just as wrong as its purpose. However, from Earth, planets look like stars and, according to the FAQ: "The stars are at a height of 3100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston." So, maybe planets don't exist and are really just stars in the sky?
Going back to the round earth theory, if are planets revolved around stars, we'd be revolving around millions of stars in different directions instead of the sun. So, planets don't circle the stars, I hope.
With saying that planets don't circle other planets, you're closing your mind off to the one thing that the flat earth theory bases itself on: NASA is a conspiracy. The belief is that NASA made everything up. They may have said they were tracking the planets' movements for centuries but really have been hoaxing it all along. How do we know? It could very well be true either way. I've never been to space and I don't think I ever will, so I can never for sure say that the world is flat or round because I have never seen it. And I sure as hell don't want to be force-fed information like a robot (which, by the way, is why I'm here; looking at both sides of the coin).
So, I completely trust in NASA, but if you want to believe that they're full of shit, go ahead, but the very laws of Physics prove the earth is round. I mean, if you want to get down to it, how can planes circle the earth...boats?
I'm almost positive that their FAQ answers both the Physics part and the boats/planes part of your comment.
And if you guys have some insane explanation for that, why haven't you guys all gotten together, pooled a fund, and traveled to the edge of the earth...where the big ice crap is, and voyage to the other side?
Apparently, the Flat Earth Society is not funded by the government like NASA is =) . Besides, even if the world was round or flat, scientist still agree that the weather in the ice cap is too cold for any human being to survive. That's why no one goes there to live.
And just how thick is this 'flat earth'? I mean, how do you explain volcanos, plate tectonics?
I also believe that is explained in the FAQ.
It is FULL of highly eduated people in most regions (minus the more obscure places of South America, Africa, etc)...you mean to tell me no one past your society has ever figured out the earth isn't round? That no one discovered that something a little fishy was going on?
Who's to say there aren't intelligent people already signed up in the society? Besides, intelligence can be easily swayed by the temptation of power and money.
I mean NASA isn't the only space program. Several other nations have them. You mean to tell me that all joined together and said, "Let's pull a fast one on the entire world. FOR NO REASON! YAY!!!"
That's exactly what they're saying. It makes sense to some degree. Imagine if governments were actually competing to make it to the moon first (and, off the flat earth theories, they were!) and to "accomplish" all these things first, psyching their neighboring countries out. Perhaps they're not in it together, but it does make sense if they were competing and saying they did this-and-this first.
I mean shit, we have satellite images and now you CAN'T say that they aren't real. I mean we can friggin' see them in the sky, for heaven sake. I mean if they did take images of a flat earth, I repeat, WHAT IS THE POINT OF HIDING IT?! We would advance better if we knew what the world is like. And we do know. We know it's round. The government isn't that friggin' stupid.
Satellite images like google earth? If that's what you're referencing there then the image itself isn't curvy; it's flat, like on a T.V. screen when you're zoomed in.
We can? You must have amazing eyesight because I can't XP lol. But seriously, how do you know those are satellites and not just stars? Do you map the sky every night? However, I do wonder how it is the Google Maps doesn't work without satellites (if someone from the Flat Earth Society would explain, I would be very intrigued :D )?
We don't know anything else except what the government tells us. Governments have been known to hide things from their citizens on countless occasions. Why would this occasion be any different?
~~~~~
Sorry for the long post ^^;, but I hope it helps a little and that we can have a sensible discussion :D
-
I adore you, Kakatary.
-
Aw... ^.^ Thanks
-
:)
-
This is assuming that planets really exist. From what I've read and understood thus far, the flat earth theory believes that NASA is truly a conspiracy and, its discoveries and theories may be just as wrong as its purpose. However, from Earth, planets look like stars and, according to the FAQ: "The stars are at a height of 3100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston." So, maybe planets don't exist and are really just stars in the sky?
That would mean everyone that ever looked into a telescope is wrong. The currently accepted definition of a star is such: Any massive celestial body of gas that shines by radiant energy generated inside it. (Encyclopedia Britannica, definition) Now, I could see how they might argue that anything in the sky is a star, but it's hardly fair to say that just because planets look like stars from the naked eye, that no purely civilian folks haven't ever seen planets in their true form. And not only that, I've even seen it admitted on these very forums that planets are round celestial bodies, while the earth is simply made of speshul sauce.
Also, why are the numbers so exact? What proof is there that the stars are 3100 miles high? I've yet to see any tangible proof of this. It seems like a number that was pulled out of thin air by someone. I mean, what research has been put forth to confirm it is 3100 miles high? I would love to see some calculations and numbers.
Going back to the round earth theory, if are planets revolved around stars, we'd be revolving around millions of stars in different directions instead of the sun. So, planets don't circle the stars, I hope.
Not true. We only revolve around one star in a system of millions and millions, but it's all about distance. We're not close enough to other stars to be sucked in by their gravity and revolve around them. In fact, the effect would be most certainly be the end of our solar system if such a thing would happen. Which, if you do believe NASA, could possibly happen in several billion years, but it's nothing we have to worry about, haha.
With saying that planets don't circle other planets, you're closing your mind off to the one thing that the flat earth theory bases itself on: NASA is a conspiracy. The belief is that NASA made everything up. They may have said they were tracking the planets' movements for centuries but really have been hoaxing it all along. How do we know? It could very well be true either way. I've never been to space and I don't think I ever will, so I can never for sure say that the world is flat or round because I have never seen it. And I sure as hell don't want to be force-fed information like a robot (which, by the way, is why I'm here; looking at both sides of the coin).
Again, NASA isn't the only people out there. Back in 280 B.C. Aristarchus suggested the Earth revolves around the Sun. He provided the first estimation of Earth-Sun distance. In 1420, Ulugh Beg's observatory produced astronomical tables that included a catalogue of over 1,000 stars. In 1609, Galileo discovered the Milky Way. We aren't making things up here. We are riding on the back of great men over thousands of years and it has merely evolved to what it is today.
I'm almost positive that their FAQ answers both the Physics part and the boats/planes part of your comment.
Yes, I read over it. Horrible memory, but it was something about they're not going in a straight line like they think they are. In essence, every person to ever fly a plane and steer a ship are utter morons for not noticing they were turning. I apologize, but that's all I see in that explanation.
Apparently, the Flat Earth Society is not funded by the government like NASA is =) . Besides, even if the world was round or flat, scientist still agree that the weather in the ice cap is too cold for any human being to survive. That's why no one goes there to live.
True about the conditions, but no one wants to live there. It doesn't mean that it isn't possible to get your best gear on and go on a dangerous exhibition. Humans have been known to do that for the longest time, despite the dangers. And besides, there are many research stations in Antarctica where scientists study all sorts of things, because the conditions make it uniquely perfect to gauge several things, including astronomical research. And sorry to say, this isn't all funded by NASA.
I also believe that is explained in the FAQ. [about volcanos/plate tectonics]
I saw an explanation pertaining to volcanoes, but not the plate tectonics. Perhaps I simply missed it, but I would still like to hear how they explain that one.
Who's to say there aren't intelligent people already signed up in the society? Besides, intelligence can be easily swayed by the temptation of power and money.
I think you're implying that I said no one is intelligent in this society. Perhaps not, but I just want to clarify that isn't what I meant. What I simply meant is the majority of intelligent people haven't noticed that there is a big conspiracy and many of civilians have done all sorts of research, some barely pertaining to the roundness of the earth, but still proving it to be true. And as far as money goes, I have yet to receive my check, hehe. No seriously, though, if you're saying everyone that has ever discovered the earth was flat got a giant hush check, I think you overestimate the power of the government over all people. There will always be one that'll stand up and tell the government to go fuck themselves and provide the truth.
That's exactly what they're saying. It makes sense to some degree. Imagine if governments were actually competing to make it to the moon first (and, off the flat earth theories, they were!) and to "accomplish" all these things first, psyching their neighboring countries out. Perhaps they're not in it together, but it does make sense if they were competing and saying they did this-and-this first.
Even you admit. To some degree. I don't believe your reasoning, but you yourself admitted that it doesn't entirely make sense. The explanation is not sound. If the governments were in such a state of competition, why wouldn't one simply disprove the other that 'accomplished it first', by going, "Liar. The earth is flat. Good job lying to your people. They'll sure trust you now." That level of discredit would do a shit load of damage. And during the space race, I seriously can't see Russia not taking that potshot at us.
Satellite images like google earth? If that's what you're referencing there then the image itself isn't curvy; it's flat, like on a T.V. screen when you're zoomed in.
We can? You must have amazing eyesight because I can't XP lol. But seriously, how do you know those are satellites and not just stars? Do you map the sky every night? However, I do wonder how it is the Google Maps doesn't work without satellites (if someone from the Flat Earth Society would explain, I would be very intrigued :D )?
Are you seriously going there? Dude, it's all a matter of perspective. A camera doesn't take round images, sorry to say. I could take a picture of a giant ball, and it would be flat. Does that mean the ball is flat? No. Besides, if you zoom out enough, there is a model of the earth that you can circle around and zoom in else where.
Besides, it goes against what they think, anyways. They think satellites don't exist. Which does bring up an odd point you said. How the hell does Goggle Earth work then? I mean, there are images there that were taking WAY above the earth and yet zoom in seamlessly. (Notice how they people commented on how they loved you/your post and failed to answer your question?)
Okay, satellites are visible to the naked eye. They're dots of light that move much faster then the stars. How do I know those dots aren't simply stars? Telescope. Telescope. Telescope. Come on now. Go to the store, buy one, and look up.
We don't know anything else except what the government tells us. Governments have been known to hide things from their citizens on countless occasions. Why would this occasion be any different?
Wrong. Utterly wrong. I've basically explained, but the government isn't the only one out there doing the research. It's crap to say that 'all we know is what the government tells us'. That wasn't a very well thought out response. I don't mean to be rude, I really don't, but the government only controls so much. And yes, it's a lot. I won't deny that. We need the government to control a lot, but it isn't the only thing existing out there.
Sorry for the long post ^^;, but I hope it helps a little and that we can have a sensible discussion :D
Don't be sorry. Your post was very refreshing compared to the responses I've gotten so far. They were thought out (except what I said just above XD) and thoughtful, and now I can have the debate I wanted. =D. Btw, I love your avatar. I make all my friends watch that movie because it's so full of win.
-
I adore you, Kakatary.
Makes you wonder who's alt she is.
-
I adore you, Kakatary.
Makes you wonder who's alt she is.
Saddam has a lot of alts, but his posts are typically a lot shorter.
-
I adore you, Kakatary.
Makes you wonder who's alt she is.
Because God forbid anyone of intelligence be sincere around here... ::)
-
Lol. It's easy to pick particular parts and slap them together and call them rude. The whole thing was a thought process I went through. And you still have yet to explain what the planets orbit then.
Do you really think I want to explain anything to you after how nasty you've been?
Oh boo hoo!! Avoiding the question again are we? I spit in your general direction! Whaddya have to say to that eh? You think HTD's being NASTY? Oh Hell no, she's giving you the royal treatment now. Might as well thank her for being so merciful.
-
date=1252926710]And not only that, I've even seen it admitted on these very forums that planets are round celestial bodies, while the earth is simply made of speshul sauce.
Oh, that?s true. I have no idea about it then lol. I?m learning as much as you are on this. If this site really has agreed that planets exist then I am as curious as you as to how it is they move as well.
Also, why are the numbers so exact? What proof is there that the stars are 3100 miles high? I've yet to see any tangible proof of this. It seems like a number that was pulled out of thin air by someone. I mean, what research has been put forth to confirm it is 3100 miles high? I would love to see some calculations and numbers.
I was trying to find out how that number came about too. At first, I thought that was the belief of the height of the atmosphere and they just applied it to the thought, but maybe the answer is floating around on the website somewhere?? *goes to dig through old threads*
Again, NASA isn't the only people out there. Back in 280 B.C. Aristarchus suggested the Earth revolves around the Sun. He provided the first estimation of Earth-Sun distance. In 1420, Ulugh Beg's observatory produced astronomical tables that included a catalogue of over 1,000 stars. In 1609, Galileo discovered the Milky Way. We aren't making things up here. We are riding on the back of great men over thousands of years and it has merely evolved to what it is today.
From what you?ve said, it doesn?t seem to go against their theory. However, the more I delve, the more I learn that I don?t know much about this theory (which gives me more reason to learn a bit more about it :D ). They believe that stars exist. If I?m to reference your information, then Aristarchus suggested the Earth revolved around the Sun but perhaps had no solid proof himself? And Galileo?s theory doesn?t seem to be covered in the FAQ, which makes it difficult for me to say anything on that lol (it?s probably floating around the forums somewhere as well >.< ).
Yes, I read over it. Horrible memory, but it was something about they're not going in a straight line like they think they are. In essence, every person to ever fly a plane and steer a ship are utter morons for not noticing they were turning. I apologize, but that's all I see in that explanation.
Well, if ships and planes rely on the directions (North, South, East, West) and North is considered towards the center of the flat earth theory?s map, then it may not seem like they?re going in a circle but straying a little from their North mark. They could also shrug it off as a human inability to steer straight. Human error.
True about the conditions, but no one wants to live there. It doesn't mean that it isn't possible to get your best gear on and go on a dangerous exhibition. Humans have been known to do that for the longest time, despite the dangers. And besides, there are many research stations in Antarctica where scientists study all sorts of things, because the conditions make it uniquely perfect to gauge several things, including astronomical research. And sorry to say, this isn't all funded by NASA.
Why would they be doing astronomical research in Antarctica? It?s snowing a lot out there, which would make it hard to even see the sky. I thought they only went to study climate, plants, and the survival of animals in that weather? (This is a random, off-the-topic question that I?m truly wondering about ^^; )
I saw an explanation pertaining to volcanoes, but not the plate tectonics. Perhaps I simply missed it, but I would still like to hear how they explain that one.
Same. But, if you think about how they talk about the earth being flat, if plate tectonics exist and move, what if they moved too much and fell off? Could that happen? O.o
A camera doesn't take round images, sorry to say. I could take a picture of a giant ball, and it would be flat. Does that mean the ball is flat? No. Besides, if you zoom out enough, there is a model of the earth that you can circle around and zoom in else where.
Besides, it goes against what they think, anyways. They think satellites don't exist. Which does bring up an odd point you said. How the hell does Goggle Earth work then? I mean, there are images there that were taking WAY above the earth and yet zoom in seamlessly. (Notice how they people commented on how they loved you/your post and failed to answer your question?)
But it?s just a model. It?s made of pixels. I could go and make a Google Flat Earth model as well. I agree on the whole picture thing though and am still wondering and waiting on an explanation of the Google Earth. Maybe, again, that?s floating around too.
Wrong. Utterly wrong. I've basically explained, but the government isn't the only one out there doing the research. It's crap to say that 'all we know is what the government tells us'. That wasn't a very well thought out response. I don't mean to be rude, I really don't, but the government only controls so much. And yes, it's a lot. I won't deny that. We need the government to control a lot, but it isn't the only thing existing out there.
Just thought you?d like to read this (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/governmentlies.html?q=governmentlies.html). Again, hasn't really got anything to do with what we're discussing, but it's still interesting.
Don't be sorry. Your post was very refreshing compared to the responses I've gotten so far. They were thought out (except what I said just above XD) and thoughtful, and now I can have the debate I wanted. =D. Btw, I love your avatar. I make all my friends watch that movie because it's so full of win.
Oh, I?m glad to hear that. :D I?m just trying to understand it myself. I can?t make it clear enough that I?m not choosing sides or anything. I really just want to understand some of this stuff so I can see that there are always two (sometimes both are valid) sides of an argument.
Yeah, I haven?t watched the movie yet because I want to read the book first *sad face*. It looks so beautiful. I actually hope to be a Geisha when I get a bit older ^^ .
By the way, thanks for having a civilized discussion with me. It?s not everyday you come across someone who will be patient and not start throwing daggers at someone for disagreeing :D .
@Anyone who thinks I?m some other person: Um? why and who?
-
Oh, that?s true. I have no idea about it then lol. I?m learning as much as you are on this. If this site really has agreed that planets exist then I am as curious as you as to how it is they move as well.
Exactly. And yet they refuse to answer. Like browse this thread I made with several questions. A few of them only attempted to answer one and just ignored the rest.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=32273.0
I was trying to find out how that number came about too. At first, I thought that was the belief of the height of the atmosphere and they just applied it to the thought, but maybe the answer is floating around on the website somewhere?? *goes to dig through old threads*
That?s not the only number! Incoming quotes:
Circumference: 78,225 miles
Diameter: 24,900 miles
The Earth is an infinite plane and is 9000 kilometers deep.
The sun and moon [?] rotate at a height of 3000 miles above sea level.
Why so exact? I suppose it could be significant figures, but it just seems too perfect to me. Where are these numbers coming from? How are they calculating them? Did you find anything?
From what you?ve said, it doesn?t seem to go against their theory. However, the more I delve, the more I learn that I don?t know much about this theory (which gives me more reason to learn a bit more about it :D ). They believe that stars exist. If I?m to reference your information, then Aristarchus suggested the Earth revolved around the Sun but perhaps had no solid proof himself? And Galileo?s theory doesn?t seem to be covered in the FAQ, which makes it difficult for me to say anything on that lol (it?s probably floating around the forums somewhere as well >.< ).
Those were just examples. Perhaps you?re correct about Aristarchus, but the three I listed are not the sole benefactors of modern astronomy. I could site hundreds of men in history that have all helped come to the conclusion that the earth is round. I?m too lazy to do this, but they?re out there.
Well, if ships and planes rely on the directions (North, South, East, West) and North is considered towards the center of the flat earth theory?s map, then it may not seem like they?re going in a circle but straying a little from their North mark. They could also shrug it off as a human inability to steer straight. Human error.
Eh. As stated in the link I provided above, it?s not just directions. They use all sorts of things. Stars, radar, and a spherical coordinate map. And I still find it utter crap that human error could be so horrible. Especially considering how technology has evolved. Planes and ships are circling the globe constantly and no one has noticed? Please.
Why would they be doing astronomical research in Antarctica? It?s snowing a lot out there, which would make it hard to even see the sky. I thought they only went to study climate, plants, and the survival of animals in that weather? (This is a random, off-the-topic question that I?m truly wondering about ^^; )
Nope. Antarctica is actually great for astronomy. Perfect some would say. The air quality is the best on earth. No pollution as no one lives there and they don?t have to worry about heat admitted form the atmosphere as it?s bloody freezing, plus it?s very dark. Not only that, but it?s extremely dry there and airborne water vapors don?t interrupt the telescopes. And as for the snowing constantly, I?m to understand that in the higher areas it?s actually very calm with little to no weather at all.
Have some articles?
http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/big-ideas/astronomy-in-antarctica/
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2461
http://spaceinfo.com.au/antarctica20090902.html
Same. But, if you think about how they talk about the earth being flat, if plate tectonics exist and move, what if they moved too much and fell off? Could that happen? O.o
Logical assumption. And if they claim plate tectonics don?t exist, I?d like them to explain earthquakes and the Mariana Trench, et cetera.
But it?s just a model. It?s made of pixels. I could go and make a Google Flat Earth model as well. I agree on the whole picture thing though and am still wondering and waiting on an explanation of the Google Earth. Maybe, again, that?s floating around too.
I?m not saying the round little earth on Google Earth is substantial evidence. I was just saying, the flat images equal up to a round earth.
I?m doubting that one. Even if the figure out a way to explain how the images were taken, they?ll probably talk of editing. Which is hilarious because if you?ve seen some of the Google Earth editing that goes around (things people have found that hide army bases or government areas they don?t want seen. It?s painfully obvious, be it a pitiful blur or excessive cloning of foliage). Example:
(http://www.boingboing.net/200808121656.jpg)
Oh yeah. Nothing suspicious there. You?d think the government would hire some of the NASA photoshoppers if they really wanted to ensure security.
Just thought you?d like to read this (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/governmentlies.html?q=governmentlies.html). Again, hasn't really got anything to do with what we're discussing, but it's still interesting.
I?m not saying our government isn?t corrupt. Our entire nation is corrupt. The notion this country was based on is all but lost to us. I firmly believe that we are in the pockets of the rich and that it would take some serious work to get it back to how it should be. Still. When you take something like NASA and stamp a conspiracy sticker on it?I think it?s disgusting. I trust their science and all endless research that they have put forward to understand the earth better.
Oh, I?m glad to hear that. :D I?m just trying to understand it myself. I can?t make it clear enough that I?m not choosing sides or anything. I really just want to understand some of this stuff so I can see that there are always two (sometimes both are valid) sides of an argument.
Yeah, I haven?t watched the movie yet because I want to read the book first *sad face*. It looks so beautiful. I actually hope to be a Geisha when I get a bit older ^^ .
By the way, thanks for having a civilized discussion with me. It?s not everyday you come across someone who will be patient and not start throwing daggers at someone for disagreeing :D .
Well, you must believe something yes? I?m sure there is a position on which you lean. Most likely the one you believed before discovering there was a Flat Earth Society.
Are you joking?! Oh no! You must see the movie. Honestly, I don?t think the book compares. And it?s extremely rare for me to say that. It?s just?the book had the feel of an outsider telling the story. And he was. I think he was American or something, but he definitely wasn?t raised in their customs. The movie on the other hand, had that real natural feel. It was so beautiful. Are you Japanese? From what I understand, there is only one outsider in history they allowed to be a Geisha, and she had studied their ways for years without ever actually intending to become one herself.
You?re welcome! Well, I can?t say I haven?t been tempted on here. I?m so very opinionated and it?s difficult for me not to be too pushy, haha.
-
Exactly. And yet they refuse to answer. Like browse this thread I made with several questions. A few of them only attempted to answer one and just ignored the rest.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=32273.0
Already posted :) .
That?s not the only number! Incoming quotes:
Circumference: 78,225 miles
Diameter: 24,900 miles
The Earth is an infinite plane and is 9000 kilometers deep.
The sun and moon [?] rotate at a height of 3000 miles above sea level.
Why so exact? I suppose it could be significant figures, but it just seems too perfect to me. Where are these numbers coming from? How are they calculating them? Did you find anything?
They are surprisingly exact. Maybe FEers believe that the world is so perfect that the measurements need to show that there is no room for unequal measurements? This is as much as I could find:
August 13, 2009 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31418.msg771050#msg771050)
And?
July 23, 2009 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30870.msg759932#msg759932)
Eh. As stated in the link I provided above, it?s not just directions. They use all sorts of things. Stars, radar, and a spherical coordinate map. And I still find it utter crap that human error could be so horrible. Especially considering how technology has evolved. Planes and ships are circling the globe constantly and no one has noticed? Please.
This is a reach but what if we?ve just grown accustomed to the circular motion to the point that we have built certain things to compliment the turn? I know, a reach, but there doesn?t seem to be a FEer helping me out here so, a reach it is XD .
Nope. Antarctica is actually great for astronomy. Perfect some would say. The air quality is the best on earth. No pollution as no one lives there and they don?t have to worry about heat admitted form the atmosphere as it?s bloody freezing, plus it?s very dark. Not only that, but it?s extremely dry there and airborne water vapors don?t interrupt the telescopes. And as for the snowing constantly, I?m to understand that in the higher areas it?s actually very calm with little to no weather at all.
Have some articles?
http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/big-ideas/astronomy-in-antarctica/
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2461
http://spaceinfo.com.au/antarctica20090902.html
Ah! That would make sense! But you never really hear about people going out to Antarctica just to look at stars lol. Still, I?ve learned something new today :D
Logical assumption. And if they claim plate tectonics don?t exist, I?d like them to explain earthquakes and the Mariana Trench, et cetera.
This (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19968.msg401352#msg401352) will be interesting for you. It?s the furthest answer that FEers have really provided.
I?m doubting that one. Even if the figure out a way to explain how the images were taken, they?ll probably talk of editing. Which is hilarious because if you?ve seen some of the Google Earth editing that goes around (things people have found that hide army bases or government areas they don?t want seen. It?s painfully obvious, be it a pitiful blur or excessive cloning of foliage). Example:
(http://www.boingboing.net/200808121656.jpg)
Oh yeah. Nothing suspicious there. You?d think the government would hire some of the NASA photoshoppers if they really wanted to ensure security.
Where?d that pic come from? Poor thing >.> it?s been butchered XD ! No, but seriously, why edit the pics?
I?m not saying our government isn?t corrupt. Our entire nation is corrupt. The notion this country was based on is all but lost to us. I firmly believe that we are in the pockets of the rich and that it would take some serious work to get it back to how it should be. Still. When you take something like NASA and stamp a conspiracy sticker on it?I think it?s disgusting. I trust their science and all endless research that they have put forward to understand the earth better.
Oh good, at least we?re kinda on the same page with that issue.
Well, you must believe something yes? I?m sure there is a position on which you lean. Most likely the one you believed before discovering there was a Flat Earth Society.
Are you joking?! Oh no! You must see the movie. Honestly, I don?t think the book compares. And it?s extremely rare for me to say that. It?s just?the book had the feel of an outsider telling the story. And he was. I think he was American or something, but he definitely wasn?t raised in their customs. The movie on the other hand, had that real natural feel. It was so beautiful. Are you Japanese? From what I understand, there is only one outsider in history they allowed to be a Geisha, and she had studied their ways for years without ever actually intending to become one herself.
You?re welcome! Well, I can?t say I haven?t been tempted on here. I?m so very opinionated and it?s difficult for me not to be too pushy, haha.
Well, the thing is, I don?t really want to have a side in the argument because then, if I choose to follow the facts I was taught as a kid about the earth being round, I?m closing my mind off. If I completely side with the FET, I?ll look like an idiot because I don?t understand its theories and ideas well enough yet. I?m hopping back and forth, really XD . I?m trying to be a little open minded about things right now because I?ve learned you can?t always believe what the school teaches you. I learned that out from Columbus D: he actually killed the Native Americans! They taught us that he was an awesome white dude! Grr?
Oh, ok. I?ll take your word for it. I?d really love to see it; their culture fascinates me extremely. And no, I?m not Japanese, but I have a few friends that are and can get me into it if I wanted since there is a Geisha house a few towns away from where I live. I has contacts ^^ ! lol. I don?t know, worse comes to worse, I?ll just meet a Geisha in real life. *shrug*
Lol, pushy is good. Sometimes that?s the best way to get the answers you?re searching for.
-
Already posted :) .
Why thank you. You?re much more thoughtful then I am. Maybe they?ll listen to you.
They are surprisingly exact. Maybe FEers believe that the world is so perfect that the measurements need to show that there is no room for unequal measurements? This is as much as I could find:
August 13, 2009 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31418.msg771050#msg771050)
And?
July 23, 2009 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30870.msg759932#msg759932)
I suppose your theory could be correct, but that seems a bit of a...childish notion. No, that?s not right, I can?t find the right word. Curse my horrible memory. My vocabulary suffers because of it. You get what I?m getting at though, right? And as far as those threads go, I think they only prove how shaky the FE argument is. To quote it directly:
If they take measurement of the spherical earth as a basis for a flat earth, they accept that nasa et al who measured the globe were actually correct. therfore they are playing down their own conspiracy theory and mocking them selves.
This is a reach but what if we?ve just grown accustomed to the circular motion to the point that we have built certain things to compliment the turn? I know, a reach, but there doesn?t seem to be a FEer helping me out here so, a reach it is XD .
That sounds like something they would say. I suppose that satisfies the logical side of the argument, but there is no scientific evidence (unless someone would like to post some), so yes it is a stretch. Plus, we didn?t build the stars. -Wink-
Ah! That would make sense! But you never really hear about people going out to Antarctica just to look at stars lol. Still, I?ve learned something new today :D
Well, unless you?re like me and watch Discovery channel, History channel, Bio channel documentaries constantly. It?s amazing the things I?ve learned. And what I?ve failed to actually retain, haha. I?d be so much more intelligent if I could just remember everything I learn on those. I watch them enough, sheesh. No, but seriously, yeah I actually didn?t know ?that? much about Antarctica before I researched it. Of course, they could simply claim every article is influenced by NASA so it?s all wrong, but I?ll choose to believe them.
This (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19968.msg401352#msg401352) will be interesting for you. It?s the furthest answer that FEers have really provided.
LOL is all I have to say. To quote this one as well:
None of [the FEers] ever started posting...
Not entirely true, but the only FEer that posted failed to make an acceptable argument.
Where?d that pic come from? Poor thing >.> it?s been butchered XD ! No, but seriously, why edit the pics?
To hide things they don?t want seen. It would be bad for dangerous countries to be able to see some places. Of course, the one I actually posted isn?t a government site, but they generally are things like that. Image retained here:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/12/photoshop-cloned-tre.html
And if you?re interested in some others, here is a list of things that are blurred out:
http://www.itsecurity.com/features/51-things-not-on-google-maps-071508/
Oh good, at least we?re kinda on the same page with that issue.
Kind of.
Well, the thing is, I don?t really want to have a side in the argument because then, if I choose to follow the facts I was taught as a kid about the earth being round, I?m closing my mind off. If I completely side with the FET, I?ll look like an idiot because I don?t understand its theories and ideas well enough yet. I?m hopping back and forth, really XD . I?m trying to be a little open minded about things right now because I?ve learned you can?t always believe what the school teaches you. I learned that out from Columbus D: he actually killed the Native Americans! They taught us that he was an awesome white dude! Grr?
Oh, ok. I?ll take your word for it. I?d really love to see it; their culture fascinates me extremely. And no, I?m not Japanese, but I have a few friends that are and can get me into it if I wanted since there is a Geisha house a few towns away from where I live. I has contacts ^^ ! lol. I don?t know, worse comes to worse, I?ll just meet a Geisha in real life. *shrug*
Lol, pushy is good. Sometimes that?s the best way to get the answers you?re searching for.
Well, Columbus was awesome. Just like Hitler was awesome. Not to say that they didn?t do horrible things, but they were amazing people. Hitler was an incredible leader. For the wrong reasons, yes, but he rallied so many people behind him, you have to wonder how. Evil as he was, he was certainly good at his job. That?s just my 2 cents, though.
Oh! I?d love to meet one. They?re so beautiful and elegant. I want to meet one and see them dance with their fans. The culture is just incredible. The movie makes me hate Americans. I won?t say why or anything in particular, but you?ll see what I mean when you watch it. Where do you live, by the way? A Geisha house only a few towns away? o.o
Gah, the question marks are driving me insane. You'd think they'd be able to register basic symbols from Word/Works.
-
Just because the quoting thing is driving me crazy, I'm going back to the standardized way of discussion lol.
I just wish the REers would enlightenment me on the ideas that they have on certain questions. Like the reason why ships and planes don't realize they're turning. I'm sure they have a reason, but I wish they would get back to me on it...
Sadly, I don't watch those channels often. Too much school work and not enough hours in the day. :/ They have very interesting shows and ideas on there that I'd be very excited to see, but, again, time is my enemy nowadays >.< .
I'll agree with you on the Hitler thing; he was considered one of the best speakers of the century. He was able to work himself up to the position he was at. It was a shame that he did the things he did. The same can be applied to Columbus, it's just the point I'm making is that schools mostly teach (up to a certain year) that Columbus was great because he found America and he was super amazing to the Indians he found there, when, in truth, that's not true. And it's quite the opposite for Hitler (he was a terrible person, killed many people, started a war) but he also had some redeeming qualities. Both the good and the bad were true, but schools only emphasize one aspect the most until a certain age.
Bleh, my rants go on and on.
-
Just because the quoting thing is driving me crazy, I'm going back to the standardized way of discussion lol.
I just wish the REers would enlightenment me on the ideas that they have on certain questions. Like the reason why ships and planes don't realize they're turning. I'm sure they have a reason, but I wish they would get back to me on it...
Sadly, I don't watch those channels often. Too much school work and not enough hours in the day. :/ They have very interesting shows and ideas on there that I'd be very excited to see, but, again, time is my enemy nowadays >.< .
I'll agree with you on the Hitler thing; he was considered one of the best speakers of the century. He was able to work himself up to the position he was at. It was a shame that he did the things he did. The same can be applied to Columbus, it's just the point I'm making is that schools mostly teach (up to a certain year) that Columbus was great because he found America and he was super amazing to the Indians he found there, when, in truth, that's not true. And it's quite the opposite for Hitler (he was a terrible person, killed many people, started a war) but he also had some redeeming qualities. Both the good and the bad were true, but schools only emphasize one aspect the most until a certain age.
Bleh, my rants go on and on.
The quotes are a bit annoying. They do organize the discussion well, though. Hehe.
You mean FEers, right? Yeah...the lack of answers is a tad suspicious. I mean, even a simple 'I don't know', like you said, would suffice for me.
Oh, that's unfortuate. I only get to a few times a week, but anytime I'm not doing anything, I'll look and see what's playing. I'm particularly font of the Egyptian stuff, Oooold religious stuff, and anything about the universe or the earth.
Well, we don't exactly learn about Hitler until later in our school careers and I can't really see a bunch of 10 year olds making hand turkeys and wearing belt buckle hats while the teacher goes, "And so that's why Colombus slaughtered so many Native Americans! Speaking of blood, make sure to add some red to your turkey!" LOL. Exaggeration, but it serves my purpose.
-
Oops, yeah I meant FEers lol.
Me too XD . If I go to college (which I'm sure I will), I'm going to study Egyptology as my major at Brown University. That's my dream job. Then comes Geisha lol. <3
I'm talking about middle school lol. Of course they're not going to tell the elementary children anything of that sort. lmao, good example though XD
-
Oops, yeah I meant FEers lol.
Me too XD . If I go to college (which I'm sure I will), I'm going to study Egyptology as my major at Brown University. That's my dream job. Then comes Geisha lol. <3
I'm talking about middle school lol. Of course they're not going to tell the elementary children anything of that sort. lmao, good example though XD
Oh. That sounds like it'd be amazing. I would love to do something like that, but I don't believe I have the intelligence for such, and I don't know what I'd do for a job. I mean, what do Egyptologists do exactly?
-Grin-
It gave me a laugh, hehe. I suppose you have a point though. Middle school is a time where they can reveal the truth. Of course, schools seem to think kids are so sensitive. They probably think we'll melt if we know people actually died.
-Gasp-
The horror!
Bleh. I gotta head to bed. Have to get up early and study about the Angelo-Saxons before my test tomorrow. YAY.
-Snicker-
I'll see you around.
-
@the first couple of pages, telling people the Rowbotham experiments prove the earth is flat.
I like the link you posted, here it from the FAQs. E:NaG (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm)
And a direct quote from that page, copied and pasted:
Rowbotham never adequately explains his alternative astronomy. If the Copernican theory so adequately explains planetary motions, why discard it, and what would he use in its place? What is the sun orbiting around once a day and how does it work like a spotlight, not a 'point source'? If the moon is self-luminous, what creates its phases? If gravity appears to work here on earth, why doesn't it apply to the celestial objects just a few hundred miles up?
To make his system work he had to throw out a great deal of science, including the scientific method itself, using instead what he calls a 'Zetetic' method. As far as I can see this is simply a license to employ circular reasoning (e.g., the earth is flat, hence we can see distant lighthouses, hence the earth is flat).
Please stop linking people outdated, not commonly accepted material that proves nothing.
Thanks!
-
@the first couple of pages, telling people the Rowbotham experiments prove the earth is flat.
I like the link you posted, here it from the FAQs. E:NaG (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm)
And a direct quote from that page, copied and pasted:
Rowbotham never adequately explains his alternative astronomy. If the Copernican theory so adequately explains planetary motions, why discard it, and what would he use in its place? What is the sun orbiting around once a day and how does it work like a spotlight, not a 'point source'? If the moon is self-luminous, what creates its phases? If gravity appears to work here on earth, why doesn't it apply to the celestial objects just a few hundred miles up?
To make his system work he had to throw out a great deal of science, including the scientific method itself, using instead what he calls a 'Zetetic' method. As far as I can see this is simply a license to employ circular reasoning (e.g., the earth is flat, hence we can see distant lighthouses, hence the earth is flat).
Please stop linking people outdated, not commonly accepted material that proves nothing.
Thanks!
Of course John Bruno Hare is perfectly qualified to pass such judgment. After all, he is an experienced software designer, internet developer, and punk musician.
-
You learn the scientific method in like, third grade.
And I've read posts from FEers saying rowbotham's findings pretty much mean nothing.