The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Dino on October 08, 2012, 07:20:09 PM
-
My day has been filled with people who normally don't even mention the subject gratuitously declaring that the Earth is not flat in my presence. I've seen and heard it mentioned several times in the media, colleagues have referred to it in mocking tones, and several neighbors who know I'm a flat earth believer have pointed fingers at and laughed at me while children were present.
Nevermind, of course, that there's zero connection between Columbus and the shape of the Earth in the first place.
If people disagree with my opinions, I'm fine with that. I'll try to help them see the truth, but if they can't I'll leave them alone about it. Yet it seems perfectly acceptable to treat flat-Earthers as a group like we were Gypsies.
I'll get over it, but I sure hate this incredibly stupid holiday.
-
Don't tell people you're a FE'er. Problem solved.
-
There is only a few people I have told that the earth is flat wife and kids and maybe 3 or 4 friends. So far nobody believes me. :'(
-
Theirs a reason they point and laugh! aha you're a nut job; a flat earther believer. What's funnier? I'm not quite sure but with all of the physical and visual proof of a round one I would assume they would be laughing at your extreme case of denial. I know I would.
-
There is only a few people I have told that the earth is flat wife and kids and maybe 3 or 4 friends. So far nobody believes me. :'(
I believe you hoppy :D
-
Yet it seems perfectly acceptable to treat flat-Earthers as a group like we were Gypsies.
And what exactly is acceptable treatment for the Romani people? Based on your complaints in this thread it doesn't sound good...
-
A Flat-Earther's whole life is dedicated to rejecting the advancement of the human civilization. Whether or not you understand progress, to deny the scientific understanding that has come about in the last ... 2000+ years? Are you grasping just how much progress you are rejecting?
FErs are a stumbling block to advancement. Not a very big one since most people are smart enough to ignore you.
But we feel that you have mistreated us. You call our space programs conspiracy theories. You call us dumb and you call us sheeple for subscribing to the scientific community that has a well-respected and undisputed database of information. You pick out flaws in photographs, in the way we talk.
Many times I tried to get a point across and I was nitpicked for my grammar or for some minuscule mistake.
I feel contempt from nearly every Flat-Earther (except Kendrick). I would hope I would be nice to you on Columbus day but I can understand why someone wouldn't.
-
We often make jokes on the bridge about encountering the ice wall while out and about. Not gonna lie the flat earth society really does help kill the time by cracking jokes and laughing at the logic used by some of the members.
-
Keep up the good work! All you 'Flat Earthers' are comedy gold.
I love reading your posts, thank heavens for free speech.
Though I suspect a lot of you really do believe this flat earth rubbish,
most of you probably believe a whole host of conspiracy theories, but
don't worry, my theory is that you all need to join the real world, but like
I said, thank heavens for free speech.
What a great site, genius. Never have so many nutcases been together
in one place!
-
Keep up the good work! All you 'Flat Earthers' are comedy gold.
I love reading your posts, thank heavens for free speech.
Though I suspect a lot of you really do believe this flat earth rubbish,
most of you probably believe a whole host of conspiracy theories, but
don't worry, my theory is that you all need to join the real world, but like
I said, thank heavens for free speech.
What a great site, genius. Never have so many nutcases been together
in one place!
Could you please stop posting the same generic "lol this site is hilarious" comments in every thread?
-
Colombus Day is National "Native Americans Found Colombus Lost At Sea" Day.
-
Much as FE'ers may feel aggrieved, I think the indigenous peoples of his land and their descendants have the most to complain about.
-
Why would native Spaniards be aggrieved? ;)
-
My day has been filled with people who normally don't even mention the subject gratuitously declaring that the Earth is not flat in my presence. I've seen and heard it mentioned several times in the media, colleagues have referred to it in mocking tones, and several neighbors who know I'm a flat earth believer have pointed fingers at and laughed at me while children were present.
Nevermind, of course, that there's zero connection between Columbus and the shape of the Earth in the first place.
If people disagree with my opinions, I'm fine with that. I'll try to help them see the truth, but if they can't I'll leave them alone about it. Yet it seems perfectly acceptable to treat flat-Earthers as a group like we were Gypsies.
I'll get over it, but I sure hate this incredibly stupid holiday.
But there is a connection.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus1.asp (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus1.asp)
COLUMBUS AND THE FLAT SURFACE OF THE OCEAN
Columbus received the reward offered by the king for being the first one to see a human signal coming from some unseen land. Let's read his own words:
Thursday, 11 October. Steered west-southwest; and encountered a heavier sea than they had met with before in the whole voyage. Saw pardelas and a green rush near the vessel. The crew of the Pinta saw a cane and a log; they also picked up a stick which appeared to have been carved with an iron tool, a piece of cane, a plant which grows on land, and a board. The crew of the Nina saw other signs of land, and a stalk loaded with rose berries. These signs encouraged them, and they all grew cheerful. Sailed this day till sunset, twenty-seven leagues.
After sunset steered their original course west and sailed twelve miles an hour till two hours after midnight, going ninety miles, which are twenty-two leagues and a half; and as the Pinta was the swiftest sailer, and kept ahead of the Admiral, she discovered land and made the signals which had been ordered. The land was first seen by a sailor called Rodrigo de Triana, although the Admiral at ten o'clock that evening standing on the quarter-deck saw a light, but so small a body that he could not affirm it to be land; calling to Pero Gutierrez, groom of the King's wardrobe, he told him he saw a light, and bid him look that way, which he did and saw it; he did the same to Rodrigo Sanchez of Segovia, whom the King and Queen had sent with the squadron as comptroller, but he was unable to see it from his situation. The Admiral again perceived it once or twice, appearing like the light of a wax candle moving up and down, which some thought an indication of land. But the Admiral held it for certain that land was near; for which reason, after they had said the Salve which the seamen are accustomed to repeat and chant after their fashion, the Admiral directed them to keep a strict watch upon the forecastle and look out diligently for land, and to him who should first discover it he promised a silken jacket, besides the reward which the King and Queen had offered, which was an annuity of ten thousand maravedis. At two o'clock in the morning the land was discovered, at two leagues' distance; they took in sail and remained under the square-sail lying to till day, which was Friday, when they found themselves near a small island, one of the Lucayos, called in the Indian language Guanahani. ...Saturday, 13 October. This is a large and level island, with trees extremely flourishing, and streams of water; there is a large lake in the middle of the island, but no mountains: the whole is completely covered with verdure and delightful to behold.
The math is simple: 22½ leagues = 90 miles. From 10 to 2 hours after midnight there are 4 hours x 12 miles per hour = 48 miles. The land still was 2 leagues away, which is 8 miles, added to 48 gives 56 miles or above 90 kilometers. By his own words, there was not mountain. The ship could be some 3 meters above the water.
If the water of the ocean was curved, the island would be more than 600 meters below the line of sight of Columbus. Therefore neither he nor the others could see any light from that far a distance. Columbus and all those experts in high sea navigation knew these realities common among mariners: the water surface of the ocean is flat (except for the waves).
MOREOVER, we have this from Columbus.
From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:
This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.
From Columbus' words it is clear that double eclipses were also known to the king and to the queen.
-
Brother Levee, I believe that Dino was referring to the common misconception that FET was the consensus in the Middle Ages and Columbus's voyage to America somehow played a role in changing their minds. However, the information that you have posted intrigues me, and I shall look more closely into it.
-
levee, can you really trust some boat's observations some centuries ago as mathematical and historical fact? If you say that some things are conspiracy, why are your beliefs based on the measurements on a rocking tiny boat from before europe settled america?
-
Brother Levee
Levee's your brother?
-
There was no Columbus, no Catholic church, no Inquisition; all these things are pretty clear once we understand the new radical theory.
However, the journal written by Columbus himself (official chronology) does offer a pretty good proof that there was no curvature between the ship itself and the island encountered during the journey.
If you do not trust the observations, then you have a poor opinion of the mental faculty and judgement of those people; they wrote down exactly what they saw.
The fact that Columbus says he observed simultaneous eclipses is pretty straight forward also.
-
of course a journal writing by someone who thought he would land in india in the xvth century is 100% truth proof.
what columbus saw isn't really relevant: he saw a flat sea though he knew the earth was round,; we know that seing isn't the best scientifical proof.
-
we know that seing isn't the best scientifical proof.
And I suppose not seeing is the best scientific proof?
-
There was no Columbus, no Catholic church, no Inquisition; all these things are pretty clear once we understand the new radical theory.
However, the journal written by Columbus himself (official chronology) does offer a pretty good proof that there was no curvature between the ship itself and the island encountered during the journey.
If you do not trust the observations, then you have a poor opinion of the mental faculty and judgement of those people; they wrote down exactly what they saw.
The fact that Columbus says he observed simultaneous eclipses is pretty straight forward also.
If Columbus never existed how did he observe two simulatneous eclipses?
-
There was no Columbus, no Catholic church, no Inquisition; all these things are pretty clear once we understand the new radical theory.
However, the journal written by Columbus himself (official chronology) does offer a pretty good proof that there was no curvature between the ship itself and the island encountered during the journey.
If you do not trust the observations, then you have a poor opinion of the mental faculty and judgement of those people; they wrote down exactly what they saw.
The fact that Columbus says he observed simultaneous eclipses is pretty straight forward also.
So basically, historical accounts supported by a vast array of official documents and artifacts is false, but when some independent eye-witness writes down a claim it's 100% accurate.
-
And even if we did believe these were really Columbus's Journal Entries, his character would definitely be questioned and in a court of law today would probably be considered evidence.
-
we know that seing isn't the best scientifical proof.
And I suppose not seeing is the best scientific proof?
use your brain a little bit better please
-
we know that seing isn't the best scientifical proof.
And I suppose not seeing is the best scientific proof?
use your brain a little bit better please
You said that seeing isn't the best scientific proof. So it follows that not seeing is the best scientific proof.
You said it, not me.
-
we know that seing isn't the best scientifical proof.
And I suppose not seeing is the best scientific proof?
use your brain a little bit better please
You said that seeing isn't the best scientific proof. So it follows that not seeing is the best scientific proof.
You said it, not me.
You know that is a non-sequitur.
-
we know that seing isn't the best scientifical proof.
And I suppose not seeing is the best scientific proof?
use your brain a little bit better please
You said that seeing isn't the best scientific proof. So it follows that not seeing is the best scientific proof.
You said it, not me.
Plus, learn maybe basic geometry even, like from eighth grade. Just because a statement is true doesn't mean its converse is also true.
-
we know that seing isn't the best scientifical proof.
And I suppose not seeing is the best scientific proof?
use your brain a little bit better please
You said that seeing isn't the best scientific proof. So it follows that not seeing is the best scientific proof.
You said it, not me.
i haven't said it. what you understood is completely wrong.
-
Tom is correct. You claimed that one of our senses is not the best evidence. I assume all information you have ever learned was garnered via braille?
-
i guess you confuse seeing with your eyes a phenomenon (and believe what your eyes tell you) and reading instruments and documents who show you what the reality is.
-
i guess you confuse seeing with your eyes a phenomenon (and believe what your eyes tell you) and reading instruments and documents who show you what the reality is.
How do you know your eyes aren't modifying the readings on the instruments? You already made it clear that they are not trustworthy senses.
-
The idea is not that eyes are never to be trusted, when faced with a set of information, but that the human mind is not the end all reliable way to know if something is true. It is about flaws in our thinking, not a completely corrupt system. If hundreds of people have seen the readings of the machines, then I think it is safe to say that they are not all going to see the same mental illusion and be insane.
-
i guess you confuse seeing with your eyes a phenomenon (and believe what your eyes tell you) and reading instruments and documents who show you what the reality is.
How do you know your eyes aren't modifying the readings on the instruments? You already made it clear that they are not trustworthy senses.
when you read and indication on a meter, you know what the margin of error is, what problems migh occur. it is completely different from saying "the earth looks flat therefore it is".
why is that so difficultt to grasp for you?
-
i guess you confuse seeing with your eyes a phenomenon (and believe what your eyes tell you) and reading instruments and documents who show you what the reality is.
How do you know your eyes aren't modifying the readings on the instruments? You already made it clear that they are not trustworthy senses.
when you read and indication on a meter, you know what the margin of error is, what problems migh occur. it is completely different from saying "the earth looks flat therefore it is".
why is that so difficultt to grasp for you?
But what if you see a 9 when it actually shows 390?
-
i guess you confuse seeing with your eyes a phenomenon (and believe what your eyes tell you) and reading instruments and documents who show you what the reality is.
How do you know your eyes aren't modifying the readings on the instruments? You already made it clear that they are not trustworthy senses.
when you read and indication on a meter, you know what the margin of error is, what problems migh occur. it is completely different from saying "the earth looks flat therefore it is".
why is that so difficultt to grasp for you?
But what if you see a 9 when it actually shows 390?
Then you show the results to your scietnist friend and say "Wierd. It says 9 but we predicted about 390." Then he says, "It is 390, you idiot" And then you both go get some friends and eventually the general consensus is that the machine says 390. Simultaneously, another lab is doing the same experiment and they also get 390. SO your eyes decieved you but it didn't matter.