-
- no curvature
- angular sun rays
- flight paths
- dome
- fake photos of earth
- fake photos of moon
- no satellites or ISS
- landmarks from too far away
all these 'evidences' and more, used by the FE community, have been irrefutably disproven
my question is, as those points above can no long be used, what's left for the FE to use as evidence?
[purposeful derailment will be reported]
-
Seeing as you appear to believe it's all been sorted; what's left is for you to have no reason whatsoever to be here continually putting up threads having a pop at flat Earth, unless you're a paid shill or simply some antagonistic loner that wants to scream and scream that you've proved flat earth wrong by citing everything you read in your fantasy books.
Nothing left here for you now, unless you decide to use your brain and start thinking for yourself.
-
Seeing as you appear to believe it's all been sorted; what's left is for you to have no reason whatsoever to be here continually putting up threads having a pop at flat Earth, unless you're a paid shill or simply some antagonistic loner that wants to scream and scream that you've proved flat earth wrong by citing everything you read in your fantasy books.
Nothing left here for you now, unless you decide to use your brain and start thinking for yourself.
You must have me mistaken
I'm not one to quote proof, I'm the one that has testable evidence, you can test it yourself, anyone can
the reason I'm still here is to explain to those that are actually fooled by the flat earth wild goose chase why they're here
if you believe the earth is flat, you're being duped by the elite, you think you're getting one over them by 'cracking their secret', but in all seriousness, you're falling for their tricks
the flat earth theory is clearly just a distraction from the secrets of Antarctica
I'm a person, I care about my fellow man, I'm against the elite.. divide and conquer has always been their most useful tool
you shouldn't be falling for it
-
also, why don't you answer the question..
with those 'proofs' exposed, what is it that still makes you believe the earth is flat?
-
You're assertions aren't "proof" they're just words.
Cry to the mods all you want! I hope you spam the report feature again, you big fucking crybaby.
-
You're assertions aren't "proof" they're just words.
Cry to the mods all you want! I hope you spam the report feature again, you big fucking crybaby.
No they're evidence, you refuse to even attempt to prove any wrong
why don't you actually do what globe earthers do; research and present findings
but no, you've no evidence, you've nothing to support your theory and you've absolutely no argument against the IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE I've presented
instead you just try to wind me up, you're just showing how little argument there is
-
for the THIRD time, feel free to talk to me about my points, individually
if you're brave enough?
-
Stop being ridiculous. There are thousands of posts on this forum discussing all these things you bring up. It doesn't require bravery to post on a forum.
Why don't you tell us who these "elite" are who have convinced us the earth is flat. If you're brave enough.
-
my question is, as those points above can no long be used, what's left for the FE to use as evidence?
I like turtles. Someone once said that under the Earth, it's just turtles all the way down. Since I like them a lot, I think the statement is rather attractive. But it may or may not be true. Also, this:
Now, to get to the heart of your question, I think JD's non-Euclidean flat surface remains to be disproven. AND, like your evidence that you have, it's not in your list. Maybe you could just assert that it's wrong though and everything will be better?
FWIW though, I bet it's wrong. I like turtles.
-
Stop being ridiculous. There are thousands of posts on this forum discussing all these things you bring up. It doesn't require bravery to post on a forum.
Why don't you tell us who these "elite" are who have convinced us the earth is flat. If you're brave enough.
I suppose it was ridiculous of me to expect anything other than diversion from you.. absolutely unwilling to discuss any of the IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE I've presented
the only 'proof' I've seen you present is the same piece of evidence, twice: "look out your window"
I'm sorry but you've got to do more than that
you've agreed that angular sun rays do not prove a flat earth (in fact, angular sun rays actually prove a globe earth, but one point at a time).. so doesn't that make you realise that other things that some flat earthers use as 'absolute proof' may also be incorrect?
like the ones I've listed above?
they've ALL been irrefutably proven with tests, not maths, tests that I can explain in easy terms so no one is left asking questions
so my previous question remains
what do you have left to actually use as evidence?
@boydster
you seem to also only want to antagonise me, why can't people just talk like normal humans on the internet? leave your ego at the door man, I'm not interested
if you've got any argument against my findings, I'm all ears..
if not, you're just another person who may as well have replied 'you're absolutely right'
if you don't think I'm right, discuss by all means.. unless ASKING for your opinion constitutes 'demanding' answers again?
I've said it before, I'll say it again..
I'M ALL EARS!!!
-
So.... go ahead and disprove John Davis' non-Euclidean flat surface.
Also, you came into this place reeking of ego from the get-go. You literally just posted that I should have just replied with "You're absolutely right" even though you ignored what I said about JD's latest theory that you haven't addressed.
-
So.... go ahead and disprove John Davis' non-Euclidean flat surface.
gimme a link
-
please ;)
-
If you search "John Davis Non Euclidean Surface" it's the first thread to come up... so... yeah. Here ya go.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66391.0
Your posts just seem so conflict-driven. I don't know why you get upset when people respond accordingly. Reread your OPs on the threads you have started and ask yourself who wants to antagonize who.
-
you're confusing 'matter of fact' and 'layman terms' with an attempt to antagonise
as for 'layman terms', that post has confused me, too many scientific terms that aren't needed
if I understand correctly, then the lunar eclipse shadow instantly disproves his model, he claims a 'finite plane', which is NOT what we see with our eyes, the flat earth explanation for the lunar eclipse doesn't stand up to testing
so unless I misunderstood his post (very possible), then I'd class that as job done
-
you're confusing 'matter of fact' and 'layman terms' with an attempt to antagonise
No, I'm not. You have been arrogant and condescending while offering very little to back up your position and being very demanding of everyone else to bow to your requests for information. Example: asking me to provide you a link instead of searching. Or demanding that I defend FE for some weird reason after I just tried to offer you the usual responses that I've seen (you know, since you were new here and maybe hadn't seen those answers before).
as for 'layman terms', that post has confused me, too many scientific terms that aren't needed
if I understand correctly, then the lunar eclipse shadow instantly disproves his model, he claims a 'finite plane', which is NOT what we see with our eyes, the flat earth explanation for the lunar eclipse doesn't stand up to testing
so unless I misunderstood his post (very possible), then I'd class that as job done
Ok, so no resolution then. So stop being so cocky.
-
@JO
You are confrontational and demanding.
As boydster points out you do not come off as asking, but demanding people to give you answers.
You also need to consider what site you are on. You are going to run into true believers of FE and people who just enjoy trolling or playing devil's advocate.
-
Stop being ridiculous. There are thousands of posts on this forum discussing all these things you bring up. It doesn't require bravery to post on a forum.
Why don't you tell us who these "elite" are who have convinced us the earth is flat. If you're brave enough.
I suppose it was ridiculous of me to expect anything other than diversion from you.. absolutely unwilling to discuss any of the IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE I've presented
the only 'proof' I've seen you present is the same piece of evidence, twice: "look out your window"
I'm sorry but you've got to do more than that
you've agreed that angular sun rays do not prove a flat earth (in fact, angular sun rays actually prove a globe earth, but one point at a time).. so doesn't that make you realise that other things that some flat earthers use as 'absolute proof' may also be incorrect?
like the ones I've listed above?
they've ALL been irrefutably proven with tests, not maths, tests that I can explain in easy terms so no one is left asking questions
so my previous question remains
what do you have left to actually use as evidence?
You haven't posted a single bit of evidence. You've made assertions, you've made demands, you've cried to the mods. No one here "has got to do" what you tell us to do.
I never agreed with your angular sun rays nonsense. You're the one stating absolutes here, not the flat earthers.
So my previous question remains. Who are the "elite" you referred to?
-
let me get this straight..
boydster - stating that the 'proofs' that the flat earthers use have already been disproved beyond question and asking bluntly why people still believe AFTER seeing the evidence, is not arrogant or cocky..
when people ask a question, they usually expect an answer, that's not demanding, that's standard asking
I apologise if anything I've said has offended you, and I have obviously noticed you're not FE.. but still, YOU said I had NO evidence, and refused to challenge anything I've stated, making me take you with the same pinch of salt I take anyone else avoiding the actual question, it's obvious you've got a bit more about you, I'm unsure as to why you're unwilling to discuss
woody - again, if it seems demanding, apologies.. I'm asking questions in the right place, I'm just expecting more that diversion tactics
space cowgirl - how can you possibly say I've just presented no evidence? I've asked you directly more than once - there's a list in this thread's OP and also in my other thread's OP, you've failed to challenge anything on either thread, you've just said 'you've got no evidence', that's called 'cognitive dissonance'
also please don't lie, you clearly stated angular sun rays do not prove a flat earth
as for the elite, that'll be the same ones YOU claim nasa are working for
if you don't know who the elite are, I not surprised you're easily led a mery dance by the FE society
-
SPACE COWGIRL -
my apologies, it was someone else who said that about the sun rays
DO you think angular sun rays prove a localised sun?
-
let me get this straight..
boydster - stating that the 'proofs' that the flat earthers use have already been disproved beyond question and asking bluntly why people still believe AFTER seeing the evidence, is not arrogant or cocky..
when people ask a question, they usually expect an answer, that's not demanding, that's standard asking
I apologise if anything I've said has offended you, and I have obviously noticed you're not FE.. but still, YOU said I had NO evidence, and refused to challenge anything I've stated, making me take you with the same pinch of salt I take anyone else avoiding the actual question, it's obvious you've got a bit more about you, I'm unsure as to why you're unwilling to discuss
woody - again, if it seems demanding, apologies.. I'm asking questions in the right place, I'm just expecting more that diversion tactics
space cowgirl - how can you possibly say I've just presented no evidence? I've asked you directly more than once - there's a list in this thread's OP and also in my other thread's OP, you've failed to challenge anything on either thread, you've just said 'you've got no evidence', that's called 'cognitive dissonance'
also please don't lie, you clearly stated angular sun rays do not prove a flat earth
as for the elite, that'll be the same ones YOU claim nasa are working for
if you don't know who the elite are, I not surprised you're easily led a mery dance by the FE society
It's not that I'm offended, it's just that I don't feel I owe you anything. I'm happy to have a conversation. I may not be a seasoned vet here, but I've certainly had more substantive dialogue than what I've felt inclined to get into on your threads. You listed a bunch of stuff that you think has been disproven at the beginning of this thread with no support, and then ask what else is left. So maybe those things have (probably the case) or maybe they haven't (and who's to say you know one way or the other, or if you are just listing things that Google agrees with you about after a cursory search), but there's no justification that I've seen for the assertions. And I provided you something that would be good to put a little bit of thought into in order to provide a reasoned argument against it. But you dismissed it because it had too many sciencey words that you said (read: asserted) were unnecessary. And something about the moon. I think there is an argument to be made about the complexity of such a system vs a RE model, and why would space warp a flat surface enough to make observers on the surface see the external universe behave as if it were moving around a sphere, but you just dismissed the whole thing without any apparent thought.
Also, crepuscular rays don't prove or disprove FE or RE. So what's the deal with going after SCG about lying? I don't remember that happening? And now I'm playing FEer apologetics again! Arrgh.
Edit: ok I see you retracted the crepuscular rays argument at SCG, disregard.
-
So.... go ahead and disprove John Davis' non-Euclidean flat surface.
Also, you came into this place reeking of ego from the get-go. You literally just posted that I should have just replied with "You're absolutely right" even though you ignored what I said about JD's latest theory that you haven't addressed.
It all boils down to the single point S. Celestial Pole that needs to be above a single point S.Pole. As demonstrated here, it can not be on a disk/plane with people living on just one side: (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)
To make the non-Euclidean flat surface work, it will have to be something along the lines of the following: (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66985.msg1787756#msg1787756)
Of course you have to invoke something that will convert the non-Euclidean plane to appear spherical and something on the "edge" that will instantaneous teleport light and matter to the other side of the "edge".
As I keep saying, amateur astronomy (visual/photographic) supports/proves or falsifies/disproves /destroys/annihilates all Earth models. You can't fake the sky.
So although you can play theoretical mind games like "would an infinite plane collapse because of gravity?", all that, like UA on a disk, is totally irrelevant if you can't make the sky "work". THE difficulty that must be explained is how the S. Celestial Pole "works" on any FE model - in this case a non-Euclidean plane. Once you have THAT, then we can discuss other stuff. No S. Celestial Pole/S. Pole as a single point, no working FE model.
-
I only offered that example as a mental exercise for Johnorbital to put his money where he mouth has been. It was something for him to disprove, because he seems to have a big boner for finding a new way to disprove FE and when I first brought it up, he dismissed it with no thought. So now he still doesn't have to think. Oh well.
But your answer is a great debunk, and totally worth contributing. I don't want to take away from that, as you make a very valid point. It's just that JO has been walking around with his balls dragging on the ground and I was hoping to provide him an opportunity to think through an answer about a topic that doesn't come up on every thread.
-
SPACE COWGIRL -
my apologies, it was someone else who said that about the sun rays
DO you think angular sun rays prove a localised sun?
Apology accepted >:(
I don't know what you mean by "localised sun", so I can't answer that.
-
@boydster
my points are NOT from google
1. lunar eclipse - our shadow, it's round - the FE explanation for the lunar eclipse doesn't stand up to testing (absolute evidence of a globe earth)
2. landmarks from too far away - when looking at the Chicago skyline (for instance) from too far away, when the camera is put at ground level, the skyline is no longer visible (evidence of curve)
3. meteors - the mere fact they exist, and have been documented/photographed/collected by some non-government agents immediately disproves the dome (absolute evidence of no dome)
4. angular sun rays - when using perspective from different angles at the same time, the location of the sun is in different places (absolute evidence of a non-localised sun, disproving the flat earth model's location of the sun)
5. satellites and the ISS - visible with the naked eye and in detail with a telescope/binoculars (disproving their non-existence, in turn, absolute evidence they exist)
to name a few
5 pieces of IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE
as for you making out I've some sort of mental deficiency because I'm not scientifically literate just makes you a dick, I wanted to make that clear
what someone who actually wanted me to answer would have done, would have been break it down for me, in layman terms, like I made it clear that I needed.. but no, you'd rather be able to just 'get one over' on me.. awesome
I read it, it stated a plane, therefore it has a major flaw.. the lunar eclipse.. I'm sure I said that in my last response
@space cowgirl
the flat earth theory dictates the sun is just above us, the same 3000ish miles away that the moon is.. unless there's a photo of angular sun rays, at which point the believers tell you it's just above the clouds, localised, with the moon, under the dome (the model has no third celestial body)
-
Dude. I didn't say anything about you have a mental deficiency. Another poster came and answered a question I posed to you. One that you dodged earlier. Pardon me for acknowledging that.
1) I can't imagine a way the FE can explain lunar eclipses reasonably. Maybe there is something they could come up with, I don't know.
2) The non-Euclidean surface could have explained this. After all, a sphere is a non-Euclidean flat surface.
3) "No dome" doesn't mean "no FE"
4) Really very few people cling to this as a real argument, as has been stated before
5) Tell me about it. I know! I've said as much before. I'm sure there are several different FE responses though.
It's not really 5 pieces of irrefutable evidence, and it's certainly not 5 things that all FEers believe. It's 5 assertions that could have alternate explanations than RE given certain initial conditions. I think lunar eclipses are a good example of something that really helps support RE over FE, and same with satellites. But "prove" and "irrefutable" are strong words you keep using without proving anything with irrefutable evidence.
And seriously, I'm a dick?! Because you read something into my post about you being scientifically illiterate? All I said was that you claimed the sciencey sounding words were irrelevant. If you don't even know what they mean, that's not because of anything I said, implied, or you thought I implied. It's because you don't know what they mean. Ignorance isn't a problem. Willful ignorance is. And blaming others for your ignorance, willful or otherwise. It's OK not to know something. No one knows it all. And if you have a handle on the vocab, then the words shouldn't be an issue.
Finally: I don't want to get one over on you. But I'd love it if you showed some critical thinking, instead of asking everyone else to do that so you can just tell them they are wrong. And if you don't want to do that, that's cool too. But I'm not being a dick by expecting the same from you that you are asking of other people.
-
critical thinking?
I've been cross examining the flat earth evidences for years, I know exactly what I'm talking about
I was almost convinced for a short while too, but there's absolutes that stop the theory in its tracks, things that the flat earth theory has no explanation for, and 99% of the flat earth's 'proofs' can be picked apart by a 10yr old
the fact they have to change the theory when it's proven wrong, to a totally different theory, speaks volumes
I honestly don't understand why people still follow the theory, ots been proven wrong beyond doubt, people are simply being manipulated and I, for one, don't think it's right, I'd happily bet that a good 50% of 'flat earthers' don't really believe it themselves
are you willing to explain what you want me to look into, I'm not dismissing or ignoring, dragging my balls or whatever else you'd like to say, I answered both times, if the theory involves a flat plane and not a round celestial body, then it's failed on the drawing board and needs no more inspection.. do you not agree?
-
I'm surprised no one's stated we're in a glass ball, with a flat plane in the middle yet..
I mean anyone can just make something up on the spot
there's a flat earth model, you either follow it or you don't, it's not a bloody tv show with spin offs
holy moly
-
the fact they have to change the theory when it's proven wrong, to a totally different theory, speaks volumes
The infinite plane theory has been around for a long time. We did not change to a totally different theory! If you have been "cross examining" flat earth theory for years, then you'd know this.
-
infinite plane is actually quite a new one.. used when flat earthers wrongly quoted Admiral Byrd after his Antarctica expedition, dismissed by most flat earthers now anyway
even though in the video he clearly says, more than once 'the continent of Antarctica'
-
infinite plane is actually quite a new one.. used when flat earthers wrongly quoted Admiral Byrd after his Antarctica expedition, dismissed by most flat earthers now anyway
even though in the video he clearly says, more than once 'the continent of Antarctica'
The infinite plane theory goes back to Rowbotham.
-
Non-Euclidean flat surfaces include the surfaces of spheres. That's why I brought up that example. And you did dismiss it. Look, we're not on different sides of this issue. It's just your presentation that I've had trouble with. I'll play devil's advocate with my 17-year-old when he takes an uninformed position on an issue (or sometimes, when he takes an informed position and surprises me with the level of thought he puts into his responses) to encourage him to think, whether I think he's right or wrong. Just taking a side and attacking the opposing view doesn't involve any sort of insight - it's groupthink. Researching something for years, though, tends to open the door for one to make a long-winded and well thought out reply to a question regarding something like the shape of the Earth. So I anticipated less hostility and more insight when I challenged your position.
The ball-dragging reference had more to do with your over-self-confidence than an unwillingness to answer a question.
-
it doesn't matter what the evidence is, if it disproves a theory, the theory needs addressing
its not over confidence, it's 'knowledge'
again, that's what research and testing gives you.. answers
not blind guessing.. like some of these on the spot explanations
here goes, the earth is a diamond shape and there's 6 corners.. no one's ever seen the corners but no one has proved me wrong, so I'm claiming it as fact
would that be valid as a theory?
do you think I could gain a following?
the flat earth heirachy have well and truly manipulated a following of gullible people
-
Holy cow. You asked me to explain what it was I asked you to look into. I did. You are now deflecting to some other idea about a diamond shaped Earth AND asking me if I'll tell you again what I said before? ???
Is this a joke? Are you my kid, and you are now messing with me on an online forum for kicks?? Because THAT would be hilarious. And very well played.
You:
...are you willing to explain what you want me to look into, I'm not dismissing or ignoring...
Me:
Non-Euclidean flat surfaces include the surfaces of spheres. That's why I brought up that example.
I'm not going to keep posting the same thing. It's tiring for me. I'm sure no one else wants to keep reading it.
-
Stop being ridiculous. There are thousands of posts on this forum discussing all these things you bring up. It doesn't require bravery to post on a forum.
Why don't you tell us who these "elite" are who have convinced us the earth is flat. If you're brave enough.
Well, it's definitely not an elite, but there are people who've done it to get money or fame.
-
Holy cow. You asked me to explain what it was I asked you to look into. I did. You are now deflecting to some other idea about a diamond shaped Earth AND asking me if I'll tell you again what I said before? ???
Is this a joke? Are you my kid, and you are now messing with me on an online forum for kicks?? Because THAT would be hilarious. And very well played.
You:
...are you willing to explain what you want me to look into, I'm not dismissing or ignoring...
Me:
Non-Euclidean flat surfaces include the surfaces of spheres. That's why I brought up that example.
I'm not going to keep posting the same thing. It's tiring for me. I'm sure no one else wants to keep reading it.
I've answered you twice
if I understand correctly, then the lunar eclipse shadow instantly disproves his model, he claims a 'finite plane', which is NOT what we see with our eyes, the flat earth explanation for the lunar eclipse doesn't stand up to testing
I read it, it stated a plane, therefore it has a major flaw.. the lunar eclipse.. I'm sure I said that in my last response
-
its simply just another flat earther who's been proven wrong about the curve, so instead of admitting defeat, he's made up a theory on the spot to account for the 'clearly testable' curve
once again, changing the basis of the whole theory to fit is a ridiculous thing to do
try telling the rest of the flat earthers that there's now a curve!
his theory is a made up on the spot theory, I've not seen anything to make this seem like it's even worth a discussion, even if it's a slightly curved flat plane, that's not what we witness during the lunar eclipse
its got as much going for it as my diamond.. absolutely nothing
-
its simply just another flat earther who's been proven wrong about the curve, so instead of admitting defeat, he's made up a theory on the spot to account for the 'clearly testable' curve
once again, changing the basis of the whole theory to fit is a ridiculous thing to do
try telling the rest of the flat earthers that there's now a curve!
his theory is a made up on the spot theory, I've not seen anything to make this seem like it's even worth a discussion, even if it's a slightly curved flat plane, that's not what we witness during the lunar eclipse
its got as much going for it as my diamond.. absolutely nothing
I think the only "True Believer" among those answering you is: (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=5882;type=avatar) and since she's the "Official FE Recruiter" you'd better watch that you don't get signed up!
The rest are just appalled at your attitude.
-
I don't believe for one second that she believes the earth is flat
she's just a wind up merchant trying to get people annoyed
she mustn't have much going on at home and definitely not got much going on upstairs
-
plus they can think what they like about my attitude, my evidence speaks for itself
the theory is over, I'm now just wondering WHY people still claim to believe the flat earth theory when all the evidence is staring them in the face
-
boydster is wise beyond his years.
-
plus they can think what they like about my attitude, my evidence speaks for itself
the theory is over, I'm now just wondering WHY people still claim to believe the flat earth theory when all the evidence is staring them in the face
I doubt there is more than just a handful of real FE believers here. Most people simply are here to debate "If a FE existed" or just trolls ("poking the bear" just for the fun of it - look at jroa's initial posts from 2011). I would not be surprised if debate teachers/professors send their students here to take the underdog position of a FE. Possibly governments may do this also. As I have said several times before, the FE concept is slavery and has no benefits. FEers believe Antarctica is "off-limits" and no space travel. What a wonderful "theory" to keep people from trying to go there or even think about it.
So, no matter how much actual evidence in the real world (reality) you present, the FE concept will not go away. The same arguments, presented over and over and over again will continue. There are debate tactics like letting any good arguments just "roll off" or derailing.
-
@jadyyn
Admiral Byrd went on that expedition to Antarctica, he reported masses of natural resources and stated he expected lots more expeditions to follow
instead, shortly after, the Antarctic treaty was signed, the massive ice shelf was renamed 'The Rockefeller Plateau'..
..and the flat earth theory started doing the rounds again
it's almost obvious, as I've stated before, that the flat earth theory is simply a distraction from the secrets of Antarctica
that's my only opinion
-
@jadyyn
Admiral Byrd
Really?
-
@jadyyn
Admiral Byrd
Really?
have you not seen his interview?
-
boydster is wise beyond his years.
He's one of us, someday he'll realize the flatness.
-
Yeah that probably won't happen. But then, if there was some convincing evidence, I'm not opposed to changing my views. It just seems like a really tough task for someone to overturn all the reasons to stand by the globe model. I mean, IT FREAKING WORKS MAN! There are maps of the whole thing, distances make sense, airplane routes make sense, gravity makes sense, cosmology makes sense... the list goes on.
FE has....... ....... denpressure....? UA? Look out your window? OH! And millions of people involved in a huge lie spanning potentially thousands of years. It's a tough pill to swallow, as it stands presently.
-
He is almost there. I can see his mind getting flatter as we speak.
-
He is almost there. I can see his mind getting flatter as we speak.
I'm going to commune with the lunas tonight, I will ask them to show him the way.
-
..if there was some convincing evidence, I'm not opposed to changing my views..
and now it all starts to become clear as to why you're dismissing absolute evidence as 'nearly' evidence
I've been there, I was shown a lot of flat earth 'proofs' and it blew me away.. I showed a few people, explained a few things that seem unanswerable to those who haven't researched (flight paths, skylines, doctored photos of earth, angular sun rays)..
but after MUCH research and cross examination, a few tests and owning a pair of eyes, I got answers
there's irrefutable evidence of a globe earth and absolutely zero for a flat earth
just a load of jokers with no answers and a select few with thorough explanations, unfortunately with very visible major flaws in their experiments/explanations
the earth is a globe and the universe is beautiful
-
Of course you would say that if you close your eyes and ignore the mountains of evidence that goes against your indoctrination.
-
Of course you would say that if you close your eyes and ignore the mountains of evidence that goes against your indoctrination.
mountains of evidence?
where?
there's absolutely zero evidence supporting a flat earth.. evidence ends speculation and answers questions.. flat earthers don't even AGREE on the the theory
indoctrination? that's quite offensive to be quite honest
do you hear me citing nasa or going off anyone else's findings? no, I give you explanations and evidence that you can TEST YOURSELF
cognitive dissonance
-
..if there was some convincing evidence, I'm not opposed to changing my views..
and now it all starts to become clear as to why you're dismissing absolute evidence as 'nearly' evidence
I've been there, I was shown a lot of flat earth 'proofs' and it blew me away.. I showed a few people, explained a few things that seem unanswerable to those who haven't researched (flight paths, skylines, doctored photos of earth, angular sun rays)..
but after MUCH research and cross examination, a few tests and owning a pair of eyes, I got answers
there's irrefutable evidence of a globe earth and absolutely zero for a flat earth
just a load of jokers with no answers and a select few with thorough explanations, unfortunately with very visible major flaws in their experiments/explanations
the earth is a globe and the universe is beautiful
Where did I dismiss evidence? You are here saying you are entirely closed minded on the issue. That's not science. Don't pretend like it is. The hallmark of any theory is that it is, in fact, refutable (falsifiable). As more and more supporting evidence from different, unrelated sources is found, the theory becomes more and more likely to be an accurate description of reality. But that doesn't mean one should stop trying to learn more, and that necessarily means leaving the door open to being proven wrong eventually. Seems entirely unlikely to happen though with the globe model, though.
As for your last line, I'm inclined to agree with you.
Of course you would say that if you close your eyes and ignore the mountains of evidence that goes against your indoctrination.
Well, hello, pot. Have you met kettle yet?
-
Your scientists can not agree about your own "Gravity" theory. By your logic, that makes it BS, right?
-
Your scientists can not agree about your own "Gravity" theory. By your logic, that makes it BS, right?
I have scientists?! Which ones do I get? THIS IS SUCH A GREAT DAY!
-
Your scientists can not agree about your own "Gravity" theory. By your logic, that makes it BS, right?
haha nice try, well, poor try to be honest
no, I didn't say that the reason the flat earth theory is over is BECAUSE you all can't agree with each other
It's over because of the evidence
- the lunar eclipse
- no north star visible from deep in the southern hemisphere
- constellations further above the horizon in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere
- meteors
and something that is not irrefutable but absolutely improbable is the amount of people who would have to be in on the lie.. from astrophysicists, to amateur photographers, pilots to navigators, even celebrities have been into space.. but they're all in on it?
if I personally zoomed in to see the ISS, I'd automatically be 'one of them'?
-
Of course you would say that if you close your eyes and ignore the mountains of evidence that goes against your indoctrination.
I don't know about "indoctrination". That means you don't question beliefs. I think most REers do question them but actually get answers that make sense. These then become a relatively solid theory - heliocentric spherical Earth model. This can be and is taught in schools. You can call it "indoctrination" or just "common sense" supported by "mountains of evidence".
I can see why FEers can not be indoctrinated. There is nothing to indoctrinate. Every FEer has their own "theory" that is wrong. They are "free thinkers" making up stuff as they go along. What would you teach children in school?
When a child asks "where am I on Earth?", having no map, the FEer would say "after THOUSANDS of years, we still don't know. All we can be sure of is that the N.Pole is in the middle because there is an Antarctica conspiracy. We don't know distances. Although we go on ships and planes that use RE maps/globes, we don't believe in them".
If a child asks "what is the shape of the Earth?". The FEer would say "after THOUSANDS of years, we are not sure if it is a disk or plane, just that it is flat because it looks flat out my window".
If a child asks "what is the shape of the sky?", the FEer would say, "after THOUSANDS of year, we are not sure. It may be a dome, but we don't know how high it is or what it is made of. We are not sure how high the Sun or Moon are. Some people think they are flat disks, others spherical. We don't know what causes phases or eclipses. Some people believe they are Moonshramps. As today we don't use telescopes and we are really not interested in astronomy, we don't have the knowledge they had THOUSANDS of years ago."
And this what you would have us teach in schools? Really?
-
Where did I dismiss evidence? You are here saying you are entirely closed minded on the issue. That's not science. Don't pretend like it is. The hallmark of any theory is that it is, in fact, refutable (falsifiable). As more and more supporting evidence from different, unrelated sources is found, the theory becomes more and more likely to be an accurate description of reality. But that doesn't mean one should stop trying to learn more, and that necessarily means leaving the door open to being proven wrong eventually. Seems entirely unlikely to happen though with the globe model, though.
As for your last line, I'm inclined to agree with you.
Personally Johnorbital sounds like just a troll. And you bit the bait by continuing to respond to his posts. :)
-
providing evidence and requesting a discussion.. ON A FORUM..
I, personally, wouldn't know how to tie that in with trolling
but I've said many times, I've been doing this a long time, I'm used to that approach to people with valid points.. its called 'a defence mechanism'
all I've asked is to discuss my points, I've had very little back
-
(https://thumb.ibb.co/gQwryv/flat_earth_proof.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gQwryv)
According to wiki:
Earth has a diameter of 12742
In Romania if you are on Bucegi Plateau you can see the Black Sea).
Bucegi is at 2.4 km from sea level.
Black sea is of about 400 km from Bucegi Plateau.
Made you a sketch in AutoCAD.
If Earth was round, you can see only what's in 88 km... after that, everything should had disappeared... but.. actually you can still see the SEA !!
This is fun :))
-
Your scientists can not agree about your own "Gravity" theory. By your logic, that makes it BS, right?
I don't see any great disagreement that Newton's Gravitation is a very good approximation until you need to do some calculations in the vicinity of extremely massive objects!
Even then there seems no argument that General Relativity can be brought in, leading to a much greater difficulty in computation.
So where are all these "scientists can not agree about your own "Gravity" theory"?
OK, there may be different hypotheses on the underlying physical cause of gravitation, but no argument on its effect.
But contrast this with Flat Earth "Theory"! Is "gravity" explained by:
- Universal Acceleration,
- Infinite Plane Earth + ::) Newtonian Gravitation, ::)
- Denpressure, (??)
- Dextrorotatory Ether waves, or something??, according to Sandokhan!
- Things just have an innate tendency to go down?
Please identify the theory "terrestrial gravity" you use today or is it #1 on Monday, #2 on Tuesday, etc, and throw a die on the weekend?
So please list all these scientists who argue so much about what gravity does!
-
(https://thumb.ibb.co/gQwryv/flat_earth_proof.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gQwryv)
According to wiki:
Earth has a diameter of 12742
In Romania if you are on Bucegi Plateau you can see the Black Sea).
Bucegi is at 2.4 km from sea level.
Black sea is of about 400 km from Bucegi Plateau.
Made you a sketch in AutoCAD.
If Earth was round, you can see only what's in 88 km... after that, everything should had disappeared... but.. actually you can still see the SEA !!
This is fun :))
So much misinformation. The Black Sea is about 280-290km from the Bucegi plateau, not 400km. The distance to the horizon from that altitude is about 174km, and not 88km. That would still not mean you can't see objects that are further away than 174 km, unless their height was 0. Anyway, at that distance I think that even if earth was flat, it would still be impossible to see the sea, due to the haze and clouds. I even googled for pictures, and couldn't find anything. If you ever personally saw something from up there, it probably was something else that you confused for the sea (haze makes everything appear blue).
-
either way, the flat earth theory is no more
what they used to use as evidence has been disproven
I'm still waiting for ANY evidence of a flat earth that hasn't already been disproven using testable experiments
or a reason why there's still flat earthers when they've not got a single shred of backup
anyone?
-
all I'm asking is;
what are flat earthers using as evidence?
I find it strange that there's this flat earth forum, with believers of a flat earth..
but NONE are up for a standard debate? its a forum, that's why we're all here right?
come on, surely someone's up for a discussion?
-
all I'm asking is;
what are flat earthers using as evidence?
I find it strange that there's this flat earth forum, with believers of a flat earth..
but NONE are up for a standard debate? its a forum, that's why we're all here right?
come on, surely someone's up for a discussion?
You don't want discussion. All you want to do is to deny everything no matter what. You might as well move on and leave it to people who are actually interested in flat/alternate Earth theory.
-
all I'm asking is;
what are flat earthers using as evidence?
I find it strange that there's this flat earth forum, with believers of a flat earth..
but NONE are up for a standard debate? its a forum, that's why we're all here right?
come on, surely someone's up for a discussion?
You don't want discussion. All you want to do is to deny everything no matter what. You might as well move on and leave it to people who are actually interested in flat/alternate Earth theory.
I do want a discussion, that's why I'm here.. you avoid direct questions and don't really discuss anything.. not sure why you comment on my threads, you should stick with the beginners
or.. feel free to answer any of my questions?
no?
didn't think so
-
all I'm asking is;
what are flat earthers using as evidence?
I find it strange that there's this flat earth forum, with believers of a flat earth..
but NONE are up for a standard debate? its a forum, that's why we're all here right?
come on, surely someone's up for a discussion?
The round earthers don't want a discussion with you either.
-
so not one single flat earther can provide one single thing that makes them think the earth is flat?
spacecowgirl I don't want your empty comments, I'm here to speak with grown ups
-
Why don't you put together a list of all the people who are still allowed to comment on your thread. ::)
-
I've not said anyone isn't allowed to comment, but I'm just getting tired of arguing with a kid
this is a forum, do you not know what forums are for? or how they work?
I've asked a question and got next to no substance back, only you.. and even you didn't accept my answer, even though I gave it 3 times
I'm waiting for someone who actually wants to discuss facts instead of trying to ridicule
double standards are rife
-
I'm probably old enough to be your mother, you little whippersnapper.
-
I'm probably old enough to be your mother, you little whippersnapper.
I call bullsh**, I'd be very surprised if you're over 13
-
I'm probably old enough to be your mother, you little whippersnapper.
I call bullsh**, I'd be very surprised if you're over 13
Do you mean bullshit? Are you sure you're over 13? Oh, maybe you should cry to the mods again.
Why do you want FE to debate you? You've declared the theory "no more", why are you even still here?
-
I've not said anyone isn't allowed to comment, but I'm just getting tired of arguing with a kid
You just told SCP not to comment on your threads and Scepti to stick to the beginner threads. You told me not to comment on your thread earlier.
this is a forum, do you not know what forums are for? or how they work?
Um... do you?
I've asked a question and got next to no substance back, only you.. and even you didn't accept my answer, even though I gave it 3 times
Your answer to me had no substance. You misunderstand what a non-Euclidean flat surface is. I stopped trying because it was like talking to a brick wall. You can't declare that a victory. That's like a FEer declaring victory because they don't understand gravity and even though you might have tried explaining it several times, they just don't get it. You know, like Scepti.
-
I understood it clearly enough, it fails at the testing I described in my answer
as for the comparison with FE's and gravity, there's a huge difference.. the globe guys reply and discuss.. I can't get a straight answer from anyone!
you've got the giggly teenager never discussing anything on topic, annoyed because I pulled her on trying to purposely derail my thread.. so what, don't do it then, simple, try backing up what you say.. you know, like I have done
then there's scepti, another simply avoiding answering anything directly, not sure why he's attempting to answer my thread when he doesn't have an answer, I'm allowed to ask for a better response right?
its ridiculous, and I expected MORE from here than from the likes of Facebook and YouTube? well I can tell you that has NOT happened, they at least answer questions
"so go away then" seems to be the answer from the FE's.. nice argument guys, nice way to prove your theory
I'm only asking for a discussion about WHY you believe the earth is flat? that IS the purpose of this thread.. In fact, it's the purpose of the whole forum
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS THAT ACTUALLY RELATE TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION?? thanks
-
It does not fail your test. A sphere is a non-Euclidean surface. A lunar eclipse shadow would look the same in both models.
-
There are literally thousands of posts on this forum discussing why we believe the earth is flat. If you want a debate about a specific topic, then be specific. If it's something that has been talked about a million times already, then most of us will ignore it. It doesn't matter how many times you REers cry about not getting answers.
-
What was the question again?
-
There are literally thousands of posts on this forum discussing why we believe the earth is flat. If you want a debate about a specific topic, then be specific. If it's something that has been talked about a million times already, then most of us will ignore it. It doesn't matter how many times you REers cry about not getting answers.
read the OP
boydster - there's 1 flat earther that has now stated the flat earth is no longer flat, it's a sphere?
simply because the lunar eclipse blows the whole theory out of the water?
and you think that's proved me wrong?
I thought you had at least SOME intelligence
so now it's a spherical flat earth? haha
that's called clutching at straws, making things up on the spot and hoping they're just blindly accepted
again, it's got as much going for it as my diamond planet, I made that up on the spot.. are you going to go around now making everyone who proves the flat earth theory wrong, try to prove my diamond wrong?
no?
you're kidding no one
my questions are VERY clear
my evidence is clear and concise too
no one is even attempting to disprove anything I've said
if they've been answered a million times then why is it so hard for you to find the answers?
ridiculous replies, another stupid attempt to derail and belittle
running theme
-
has no one got a shred of discussion about them?
its very common in here, someone posts evidence, the FE's just call names and give no argument for their beliefs
I've provided evidence
still waiting for anyone to even TRY to prove me wrong
nothing
-
What was the question again?
-
What was the question again?
Careful, he will report you to the moderators.
-
boydster - there's 1 flat earther that has now stated the flat earth is no longer flat, it's a sphere?
simply because the lunar eclipse blows the whole theory out of the water?
I don't think the lunar eclipse is why he came up with that idea. But you'd have to ask him. He certainly didn't say it was a sphere. Did you even read the thing you said you disproved? Either way, you clearly haven't disproved it, even though you said many times you had. And now you're deflecting again, with an argument from incredulity no less. Good luck, pal. Everyone else's debating skills suck, and you can just assert things that can't be questioned. My 3 year old likes games like that - you know, ones where the rules are: whatever she says, goes, and at the end, she wins.
-
What was the question again?
I replied last time, read the OP, feel free to answer
@boydster
you're as bad as they are, simply making things up and ignoring replies
the example you gave me states a 'curved plane' right?
so upon testing, the lunar eclipse disproves it
if he's claiming its a sphere with a dome, then meteors disprove it
simple, you're trying to convince yourself the earth is flat, so you've adopted cognitive dissonance
once again, no one has even attempted to answer any questions
I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not
-
still laugh at the lack of answers anyone has for my points
I'm here for a discussion and to prove what I know with ACTUAL evidence
I've presented my evidence, no one has even attempted to answer ANYTHING
so it's clear, there's no 'proofs' left for the flat earth theory, so my original question still stands
why, with absolutely no supporting evidence, do people try convincing others that the earth is flat?
the evidence of a globe is abundant
-
Maybe if you were better at presenting a concise question, you might get more answers. You ever think that the problem might be on your end, not ours?
-
What was the question again?
Careful, he will report you to the moderators.
We have moderators?!?
-
Maybe if you were better at presenting a concise question, you might get more answers. You ever think that the problem might be on your end, not ours?
are you for real?
I couldn't possibly make the questions any more concise
- no curvature
- angular sun rays
- flight paths
- dome
- fake photos of earth
- fake photos of moon
- no satellites or ISS
- landmarks from too far away
all these 'evidences' and more, used by the FE community, have been irrefutably disproven
my question is, as those points above can no long be used, what's left for the FE to use as evidence?
[purposeful derailment will be reported]
that's the OP, I've referred you personally back to it twice already
you're NOT reading the OP, and if you are, then you're ignoring the CLEAR direct question
I'll ask it again:
as all of the flat earth 'proofs' have been disproven, what is making FE's still believe?
its a VERY simple question, if you can't understand it, ask a 7yr old to help you
-
Maybe if you were better at presenting a concise question, you might get more answers. You ever think that the problem might be on your end, not ours?
are you for real?
I couldn't possibly make the questions any more concise
- no curvature
- angular sun rays
- flight paths
- dome
- fake photos of earth
- fake photos of moon
- no satellites or ISS
- landmarks from too far away
all these 'evidences' and more, used by the FE community, have been irrefutably disproven
my question is, as those points above can no long be used, what's left for the FE to use as evidence?
[purposeful derailment will be reported]
that's the OP, I've referred you personally back to it twice already
you're NOT reading the OP, and if you are, then you're ignoring the CLEAR direct question
I'll ask it again:
as all of the flat earth 'proofs' have been disproven, what is making FE's still believe?
its a VERY simple question, if you can't understand it, ask a 7yr old to help you
Well, since you simply listed anything that popped into your head and declared them to have been proven wrong with no explanation and nothing to debate because we would be debating your mental stability if we tried, I asked for clarification on several occasions now, but all you keep saying is that I should look at the OP like there is some kind of code in there that I have been missing. I am sure most people are just as confused about you simply making a list and then asking what is next. It is like me saying, "Mammals don't exist, so how are you going to explain elephants existing?" Your question makes no sense, and anyone with an IQ about 80 would leave you alone to argue with yourself. Then, you come back saying that we have no answers and demanding answers. Have you had a mental check up lately? It sounds like you are past due for one. ::)
-
really..?
the question is simple, why do people still believe in the flat earth theory when the 'proofs' have been disproven?
are you saying that anything on that list is still up for discussion?
I've not gone into the details as I've already done that on previous threads, with fully testable visual explanations
@boydster
my points are NOT from google
1. lunar eclipse - our shadow, it's round - the FE explanation for the lunar eclipse doesn't stand up to testing (absolute evidence of a globe earth)
2. landmarks from too far away - when looking at the Chicago skyline (for instance) from too far away, when the camera is put at ground level, the skyline is no longer visible (evidence of curve)
3. meteors - the mere fact they exist, and have been documented/photographed/collected by some non-government agents immediately disproves the dome (absolute evidence of no dome)
4. angular sun rays - when using perspective from different angles at the same time, the location of the sun is in different places (absolute evidence of a non-localised sun, disproving the flat earth model's location of the sun)
5. satellites and the ISS - visible with the naked eye and in detail with a telescope/binoculars (disproving their non-existence, in turn, absolute evidence they exist)
to name a few
I have explained my points, I don't talk about things I've not researched, hence me asking you basic gravity questions
I don't pretend I know things I don't
-
so.. why do flat earthers still believe when the evidence has proven their 'proofs' wrong?
Very very simple question
-
really..?
the question is simple, why do people still believe in the flat earth theory when the 'proofs' have been disproven?
are you saying that anything on that list is still up for discussion?
I've not gone into the details as I've already done that on previous threads, with fully testable visual explanations
@boydster
my points are NOT from google
1. lunar eclipse - our shadow, it's round - the FE explanation for the lunar eclipse doesn't stand up to testing (absolute evidence of a globe earth)
2. landmarks from too far away - when looking at the Chicago skyline (for instance) from too far away, when the camera is put at ground level, the skyline is no longer visible (evidence of curve)
3. meteors - the mere fact they exist, and have been documented/photographed/collected by some non-government agents immediately disproves the dome (absolute evidence of no dome)
4. angular sun rays - when using perspective from different angles at the same time, the location of the sun is in different places (absolute evidence of a non-localised sun, disproving the flat earth model's location of the sun)
5. satellites and the ISS - visible with the naked eye and in detail with a telescope/binoculars (disproving their non-existence, in turn, absolute evidence they exist)
to name a few
I have explained my points, I don't talk about things I've not researched, hence me asking you basic gravity questions
I don't pretend I know things I don't
You came to a debate forum for the flat Earth, but did not want to have a discussion about anything, then get mad when nobody replies to you? Are you being for real, or is this a joke?
-
so.. why do flat earthers still believe when the evidence has proven their 'proofs' wrong?
Very very simple question
That is like asking, "Why is the sky blue if color does not exist?" Don't worry, you are getting better at asking questions, you simply have not mastered it yet.
-
so you're not going to answer?
- I've listed the explanations that you asked for
- I've asked one very simple question
I'm not sure why you're saying I don't want a discussion..
you simply won't reply on topic.. you're just repeating 'you don't make sense' over and over..
the explanations are clear, I'm happy to elaborate if you decide to actually have a discussion one day.. and the question is clear
you've either got an answer or you've not, you either know what you're talking about or you don't
am I going to get an answer or are you going to carry on BLATANTLY AVOIDING it?
-
@boydster
you're as bad as they are, simply making things up and ignoring replies
I didn't make anything up. You just don't understand the words, and you are very hostile towards everyone. You claim you proved something that you didn't. And you continue to try and back out of it without "proving" anything. I'm the one making things up?? I didn't come up with John's idea, and I didn't tell everyone I disproved it. Check the thread again, mon ami.
the example you gave me states a 'curved plane' right?
so upon testing, the lunar eclipse disproves it
if he's claiming its a sphere with a dome, then meteors disprove it
If it is, in fact, curved so much that it's spherical, then no. The lunar eclipse doesn't disprove it. Either model would look the same in that respect. You keep repeating your claim that has no merit. Like Papa on that damn physics thread.
And who said anything about a sphere with a dome? You just created a straw man there. Awesome debating skillz, bro.
simple, you're trying to convince yourself the earth is flat, so you've adopted cognitive dissonance
Dude, don't tell me what I'm trying to convince myself of. Just wow. I'll try what you're doing: You are projecting, you are so convinced of your own superiority that you have adopted cognitive dissonance that has prevented you from understanding what a non-Euclidean flat surface can look like, or how observers on said surface would perceive events that are far above the surface.
once again, no one has even attempted to answer any questions
I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not
Once again, you lashed out and dodged and asserted you were right, but brought nothing to the table. I'd like to say I'm surprised, but history.
You came into this thread looking for a debate. You seem to either be upset that people responded to take a different side than you, or unwilling to actually engage in the debate you started the thread to have. Telling people they are wrong doesn't make it true. Telling people you have proven something doesn't make it true. And making a bunch of straw men to tear down doesn't make you a great debater. Your examples of why most flat earth models fail work for most flat earth models. But you've done a terrible job explaining away one in particular. And actually, your Chicago skyline argument can fail at times if weather conditions permit but that's an entirely different issue.
...I don't talk about things I've not researched, hence me asking you basic gravity questions
I don't pretend I know things I don't
Well. You said it, so it must be true.
-
again, my explanations were very clear, if you disagree, feel free to discuss my points
WHY DOESN'T the lunar disprove the whole theory
WHY DONT meteors disprove the dome
WHY DONT constellation positions disprove the whole theory
WHY DOESN'T the landmark explanation prove a curve
WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work
just because you say I'm wrong, doesn't make it so
you say I've provided no evidence, but ever since I posted my THOROUGH EXPLANATIONS, no one has even attempted to discuss anything
you say I'm like your son, so how would you describe everyone in here (including yourself), who instead of answering very direct questions, just claim that I've got no evidence, totally ignoring the evidence and explanations I'm posting
you say I'm wrong and keep banging on about a NEW theory as if I should give it some merit, if it's a globe earth then it's correct, if it's a flat earth its wrong, if it's a flat sphere then it doesn't even make sense
but you won't elaborate, you're happy to cling on to 'John doesn't know something', well I know that my evidence stands up to testing, ALL OF IT
..While NONE of the flat earth 'evidence' stands up to testing
seriously, how am I supposed to take anyone seriously when all they do is avoid answering questions, they ignore my points completely, they call names and generally just try to wind me up
and you call ME a kid?
have you never heard of irony?
-
Finally, some actual question.
WHY DOESN'T the lunar disprove the whole theory
Because lunar means the moon and nobody claims that the moon does does not exist.
WHY DONT meteors disprove the dome
First of all, not all of us claim there is a dome. Secondly, meteors do not disprove anything.
WHY DONT constellation positions disprove the whole theory
Constellations move throughout the year. How does this prove the shape of the Earth?
WHY DOESN'T the landmark explanation prove a curve
What the F*** does this mean?
WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work
Angular rays have been proven to show that the sun is very close on many occasions.
Perhaps you can now give another list of things that you can claim to have disproved, even though you have not?
-
Finally, some actual question.
WHY DOESN'T the lunar disprove the whole theory
Because lunar means the moon and nobody claims that the moon does does not exist.
WHY DONT meteors disprove the dome
First of all, not all of us claim there is a dome. Secondly, meteors do not disprove anything.
WHY DONT constellation positions disprove the whole theory
Constellations move throughout the year. How does this prove the shape of the Earth?
WHY DOESN'T the landmark explanation prove a curve
What the F*** does this mean?
WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work
Angular rays have been proven to show that the sun is very close on many occasions.
Perhaps you can now give another list of things that you can claim to have disproved, even though you have not?
firstly, I've explained these points in my only other thread thoroughly
I'll go again though
1. lunar eclipse - during a lunar eclipse, the shadow of the earth is shown on the moon
the shape? round!
instantly dismissing anything regarding a flat earth (it doesn't happen at the same point in the sky every time, taking away the possibility of a disc)
2. if there was a glass dome (like 99% of flat earthers claim), then yes, the existence of meteors immediately disproves that
'fireworks thrown from planes' is the general consensus, but actually looking at what lands immediately disproves that too
3. constellations are further above the horizon in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere - again, you can't even see the north star from deep in the southern hemisphere
immediately proving that the further south you travel, the less you see of a northern sky, very basic,
that's also why there's no flat earthers deep in the southern hemisphere
4. landmarks from too far away, when the camera is put at ground level, the landmarks are no longer visible, PROVING A CURVATURE
again, manipulating tests doesn't stand up, do the test correctly, get genuine results
5. angular sun rays prove only that the sun is in fact a long way away
I'll explain very clearly AGAIN..
let's say you're on a beach, looking out to sea, and you see angular sun rays hitting the water..
now, if you stayed there, and a friend went out to sea on a boat, once YOU saw him PASS the shine that YOU see, from HIS perspective, he still hasn't reached the shine..
if he turned around and took a photo, no shine would be visible
this is due to BASIC perspective
if you and a friend stood together at the afore mentioned beach, with the angular sun rays hitting the sea..
then you both travelled along the beach in opposite directions..
1. why would the sun seem to follow you BOTH? Instead of staying localised as you claim?
2. if you both took a photo at the same time from where you travelled to, why does the sun look localised in different positions at the same time?
Man this is BASIC perspective, how in the world can you not understand?
do you think rainbows are localised too? Or do you think people simply see them from THEIR perspective?
-
THAT'S why I call it absolute evidence
because it works upon testing, flat earth 'proofs' FAIL on testing
that's what research and testing gives you.. absolutely genuine irrefutable evidence
-
1. Round is a 2 dimensional shape. A sphere is 3 dimensional. ::)
2. Very few people claim there is a dome. Why don't you actually read what people say?
3. You have a very sick and twisted idea of what a constellation is. Have you ever even tried to look at one? No, just no.
4. Sounds like you are finally starting to discover perspective. Keep up the learning. :)
5. Angular sun rays have proven, on many occasions, that the sun is very close. Your scientists hand wave this off. Care to try again with some real science, or are you just going to make another list of baseless statements that you claim have already been disproved? You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
-
5. Angular sun rays have proven, on many occasions, that the sun is very close. Your scientists hand wave this off. Care to try again with some real science, or are you just going to make another list of baseless statements that you claim have already been disproved? You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
This just proves that you don't understand perspective. Move towards a set of angular Ray's and they proves precisely the opposite; that the sun is very far away.
-
1. Round is a 2 dimensional shape. A sphere is 3 dimensional. ::)
2. Very few people claim there is a dome. Why don't you actually read what people say?
3. You have a very sick and twisted idea of what a constellation is. Have you ever even tried to look at one? No, just no.
4. Sounds like you are finally starting to discover perspective. Keep up the learning. :)
5. Angular sun rays have proven, on many occasions, that the sun is very close. Your scientists hand wave this off. Care to try again with some real science, or are you just going to make another list of baseless statements that you claim have already been disproved? You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
are you kidding?
I've just given evidence and explanations, you've not even tried to explain anything
1. what shape would the SHADOW of a sphere be? a flat earth would not show a round shadow EVERY TIME! (as I EXPLAINED in my previous brackets)
2. Very few? well, we can agree to disagree on numbers, I'm guessing we can both agree there is no dome though.. again, the mere existence of meteors immediately disproves any possible dome
3. constellations are groups of stars near each other in space, they move together and from our perspective they make shapes, the ancients described them as following the sun, they show us the 'great ages', we're currently residing in the great age of Pisces, the next great age is in a few hundred years ('when you see the man with the pitcher of water, follow him into his house' - J Christ, when asked when the next passover will be
..also why moses got mad when he saw people worshipping a bull, signalling the end of the age of Taurus)
so, constellations in the sky are further above the horizon in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere because the southern hemisphere is further south
this simply wouldn't happen on a flat earth as we're all apparently on a flat plane.. therefore proving there's a 'closer' and 'further away' from those constellations, again, not what the flat earth theory dictates
4. perspective isn't difficult to understand..
someone claiming that angular sun rays prove a localised sun AND claiming they understand perspective on the other hand, IS difficult to understand
5. so in what possible way was the sun proven to be much closer than what we're told, you said there's proof but for some strange reason you didn't present any
you call me not very sharp but then make me explain that in a way so that even a child could understand.. why would I use science when you don't even understand the basics
you don't need maths and formulas, you can disprove a flat earth with your eyes
ok do have you any answers? I've elaborated on every point, I'm now hoping to get an intelligent response instead of empty comments with no backup
or is it going to be the usual, divert, avoid, belittle, divert, avoid, belittle
-
..or simply ignore, as the case clearly is
-
1. Round is a 2 dimensional shape. A sphere is 3 dimensional. ::)
2. Very few people claim there is a dome. Why don't you actually read what people say?
3. You have a very sick and twisted idea of what a constellation is. Have you ever even tried to look at one? No, just no.
4. Sounds like you are finally starting to discover perspective. Keep up the learning. :)
5. Angular sun rays have proven, on many occasions, that the sun is very close. Your scientists hand wave this off. Care to try again with some real science, or are you just going to make another list of baseless statements that you claim have already been disproved? You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
How would you expect a "spherical" shadow to look??
Also, everyone, please stop calling them "angular sun rays". It took me quite a while to understand what you are talking about. They're called crepuscular rays.
FErs should really stop pretending crepuscular rays is an acceptable argument. Even if we accepted that crepuscular rays are not a phenomenon of mainly perspective and (on some rare cases) refraction, and that they look that way because the sun is really close, we're led to major paradoxes. The places where the rays hit (in most cases being just a few kilometers or even less apart) would be different time zones. Start thinking.
-
How would you expect a "spherical" shadow to look??
So, then, why do you people keep saying that the shape of a shadow tells you what the object's shape is that is casting it?
-
How would you expect a "spherical" shadow to look??
So, then, why do you people keep saying that the shape of a shadow tells you what the object's shape is that is casting it?
Because from every angle, it shows the same shape
a non globe earth would show a non circular shape, at least from time to time
visual proof
-
1. Round is a 2 dimensional shape. A sphere is 3 dimensional. ::)
2. Very few people claim there is a dome. Why don't you actually read what people say?
3. You have a very sick and twisted idea of what a constellation is. Have you ever even tried to look at one? No, just no.
4. Sounds like you are finally starting to discover perspective. Keep up the learning. :)
5. Angular sun rays have proven, on many occasions, that the sun is very close. Your scientists hand wave this off. Care to try again with some real science, or are you just going to make another list of baseless statements that you claim have already been disproved? You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/round?s=t
Read up
-
How would you expect a "spherical" shadow to look??
So, then, why do you people keep saying that the shape of a shadow tells you what the object's shape is that is casting it?
Because from every angle, it shows the same shape
a non globe earth would show a non circular shape, at least from time to time
visual proof
Oh, so you were just making assumptions. Good to know.
-
How would you expect a "spherical" shadow to look??
So, then, why do you people keep saying that the shape of a shadow tells you what the object's shape is that is casting it?
The way you phrased it was as if you were saying that the shadow of a spherical object is not round.
Spherical objects produce round shadows all the time. Round objects produce shadows that are sometimes round, sometimes ellipses, depending on the angle of the light hitting them, but the shadow on the moon is always round.
-
How would you expect a "spherical" shadow to look??
So, then, why do you people keep saying that the shape of a shadow tells you what the object's shape is that is casting it?
Because from every angle, it shows the same shape
a non globe earth would show a non circular shape, at least from time to time
visual proof
Oh, so you were just making assumptions. Good to know.
no, no assumptions whatsoever, it's called visual evidence
I'm interested to hear how you'd challenge it (not that you'll even try, you'll just say a few words with absolutely no backup whatsoever, as usual)
if you're saying I'm wrong, at least try to tell me why
I've presented clear visual testable irrefutable proof, you've presented no argument
-
really funny how no one ever actually brings anything substantial to the table
just vague guesses and insults
then there's me, with evidence that you can test yourself, real world tests, that work..
..and you guys say I've got nothing
well no one's proved a single thing I've said wrong yet
I'm still waiting for an intelligent debate
-
(https://thumb.ibb.co/icLkaa/66132147.jpg)
If only the world had known Johnorbital sooner, so much time and energy could have been saved. You are a sage and humble warrior for truth, justice, and the pursuit of greater knowledge. Thank you, sir, for joining these fine message boards to tactfully and gracefully express your truths.
-
my question is, as those points above can no long be used, what's left for the FE to use as evidence?
I like turtles. Someone once said that under the Earth, it's just turtles all the way down. Since I like them a lot, I think the statement is rather attractive. But it may or may not be true. Also, this:
Now, to get to the heart of your question, I think JD's non-Euclidean flat surface remains to be disproven. AND, like your evidence that you have, it's not in your list. Maybe you could just assert that it's wrong though and everything will be better?
FWIW though, I bet it's wrong. I like turtles.
JD's non euclidean surface isn't even stated clearly enough to be disproven.
-
At least that argument against it makes sense.
-
At least that argument against it makes sense.
Honestly, here in the debate sections, JD acts all rational and cool, and meanwhile, in the FE general and FE believers forums he argues that sunlight is sun's defense against predators or something and this: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=5562;area=showposts;start=180
-
(https://thumb.ibb.co/icLkaa/66132147.jpg)
If only the world had known Johnorbital sooner, so much time and energy could have been saved. You are a sage and humble warrior for truth, justice, and the pursuit of greater knowledge. Thank you, sir, for joining these fine message boards to tactfully and gracefully express your truths.
pot.. kettle..
you yourself have the biggest ego in this place, full of condescension but absolutely no substance
your answer to my question was simply another question
I answered yours, you've still not proven anything I've said wrong
all you've done is 'SAID', that I've got nothing, you've not PROVEN anything, you've simply SAID it
..then followed me round telling me that I'm doing that.. I ALWAYS give explanations that people can test themselves
you 'just say' things
you're making yourself look silly, you don't need my help.. claiming to not believe in a flat earth? but you clearly WANT to
you've got no backup for your claims, unlike me
-
Are you asking boydster to prove you didn't prove something?
-
JO, I didn't set out in this thread to prove anything. I'm not sure what you are attacking me for not proving. I'm certainly not going to go to great efforts to disprove a round Earth - is that what you are asking me to do? That's silly. I simply pointed out an instance of a FE idea that agrees with the narrow field of tests you set forth. And, in what I can only say has been an astounding parade of arrogance, you asserted over and over that you disproved something that you really didn't, and you didn't listen to the reason why your disproof was incomplete. Now, had you been reading along in your own thread, you would have noticed Jadyyn provided a pretty good rebuttal to the idea. DNO was even a little more succint but gave a decent reason for dismissing the idea as it stands presently. But instead you've just doubled (tripled? quadrupled?) down on your original statement about lunar eclipses.
To be clear: I'm NOT going to try and disprove a globe Earth, and I'm NOT going to just agree with you when you start blindly lashing out at a community for no good reason other than you disagree with the people that make up the community. Don't be a meanie. :-*
-
my question is, as those points above can no long be used, what's left for the FE to use as evidence?
Perhaps nothing. Does that threaten you?
Message to honest folks:
You do not need to provide evidence to anybody for anything you choose to believe.
-
Are you asking boydster to prove you didn't prove something?
Next he'll be asking him to divide by zero and bring about the penguin apocalypse.
-
Are you asking boydster to prove you didn't prove something?
Next he'll be asking him to divide by zero and bring about the penguin apocalypse.
It doesn't matter, according to John Davis, penguins are bioengineered anyways.
-
I'm asking nothing of the sort, again, putting words in my mouth
I presented evidence in my first thread, I asked for a debate on the points I raised, instead, the people who seem to be the 'regulars' on here, simply attacked, insulted and derailed
all I want, all I've asked for, is a debate around the points I've raised
instead, boydster, you wanted me to answer a completely new theory and disprove that instead (this is the flat earth forum, I'm dealing with one thing at a time if that's ok)
you claimed I had no evidence, no matter how many times I asked you to discuss my points, you failed to do so once
spacecowgirl is clearly a 10-14yo kid, her responses are just childish, she doesn't even attempt to elaborate further than 'look out the window'
scepti and pretty much everyone else who's commented, has failed to discuss any of my points
I'm still waiting
-
Dude. It was an idea put forward by the guy running the Flat Earth Society forum, posted on the Flat Earth Society forum, in the section for discussing general topics related to Flat Earth Theory. There is no overarching, all-encompassing FE theory that all FEers believe, and you didn't say you were out to debate only one certain model or specify which models you were willing to debate. And you don't even stick to just one model when you are sharing your irrefutable evidence - bouncing from UA to dome to who-knows-what - so how is anyone supposed to know what line you refuse to cross?
OK now you are mentioned your first thread. Part of your "evidence" in the first thread was that smoke doesn't go down. You led with that as your first argument. And you profess to never post anything you haven't researched in depth. Given the lack of understanding you demonstrated of how buoyancy works, it makes it kind of hard to take your claims of research seriously on other matters. And before you try and say you weren't serious about that argument, or it was just off-the-cuff, take a look at the thread again and you'll notice you made the claim, it was explained why it was wrong, you stepped away from it, then came back and doubled down again saying it was, again, "evidence." You also said crepuscular rays ONLY work on a globe model, but that's not really true either - they can work in either model, and that was explained in your other thread as well. That's half of your points from the first thread that clearly weren't well researched, but like in this thread, you were aggressive about promoting them and less than tactful in your approach.
My claim is not that you have no evidence. In this thread, my claim was that your lunar eclipse refutation didn't hold in a particular instance of a model proposed by a notable FEer.
-
What flat Earth model is being discussed now, and whom can I talk to with questions about it?
-
Kremnotts, AdamSK! Good question. One I can't fairly answer, but I think Universal Acceleration and Dome are acceptable. Welcome to the xoxoff.
-
Kremnotts, AdamSK! Good question. One I can't fairly answer, but I think Universal Acceleration and Dome are acceptable. Welcome to the xoxoff.
Do you mean that you understand the UA and Dome models well enough to discuss observational discrepancies? Or that the models appear to withstand scrutiny?
Remdre ib xoxoff!
-
spacecowgirl is clearly a 10-14yo kid, her responses are just childish, she doesn't even attempt to elaborate further than 'look out the window'
It's true. I wasn't even a year old when I joined this forum!
What flat Earth model is being discussed now, and whom can I talk to with questions about it?
There is no specific flat earth model being discussed in this thread. If you want to talk about the universal accelerator model, or the infinite plane model, you should probably start a new thread, or look for one that already exists. There was a pretty decent UA thread started a couple days ago.
-
@boydster
I blatantly admitted when asking about the smoke that it was an 'off the cuff remark' and that I don't get into the gravity debate as I've not enough knowledge on the subject, I'll say it again, if gravity can pull a ball down, why can't it pull smoke down.. We cleared that up days ago, I never reverted back and called it evidence
also, I never once said that crepuscular rays only work on a globe model.. again putting words in my mouth
I quite clearly stated that it is absolute evidence that the sun is not localised like on the flat earth model
as for which model I'm going off, it's the flat earth model, the majority verdict.. this place is full of alternative theories to try to make sense of the evidence contradicting the theory, but most have pretty much been made up on the spot and fail at testing
to clear things up
my points were (as stated in the OP, and probably around twenty times since to try to get a straight answer) :
- no curvature
- angular sun rays
- flight paths
- dome
- fake photos of earth
- fake photos of moon
- no satellites or ISS
- landmarks from too far away
this is some of what flat earthers use as evidence of a flat earth
..all of which have answers or fail under testing
the name of the thread is 'what's left?'
5-6 pages later, still no answer
-
even your created model doesn't work
1. explain how it doesn't affect the smoke but does affect a ball
2. I've thoroughly explained the sun rays, they ONLY work on a globe model (see my explanation above your post)
3. the shadow object WOULD dim lights of other stars as it passes in front of them (stars are suns remember), end of story
4. I'll leave your meteor theory alone as you admit you created it to fit
I would prefer evidence with claims, I never just guess, I don't appreciate people doing the same
thanks for your reply, but as you see, under practical and visual testing, most of the flat earth proofs simply don't work
thanks
2 things.
- You put those words in your mouth. Not me. STFU with your angry words when faced with it.
- Your smoke comment in your first thread was explained, in reply #7 you said it was an off-the-cuff remark but then on comment 11 you came back with a vengeance saying "I don't normally discuss gravity but the travelling upwards theory doesn't work due to it having enough force to put a ball back down but not enough to move smoke, smoke is lighter than a ball, therefore WOULD be affected also." But you only post things you've researched and have irrefutable evidence for. Except when you don't, apparently.
I showed you something that qualified for "what's left" and you first ignored it, then dismissed it, then said you proved it wrong, then most recently said it wasn't a qualifying option to be discussed because it wasn't FE-er enough even though it was posted by John freakin' Davis. And it's already been addressed by other posters. Frankly, I don't even care if you spend any time thinking about it. But this petulant lashing out is just... special.
-
Kremnotts, AdamSK! Good question. One I can't fairly answer, but I think Universal Acceleration and Dome are acceptable. Welcome to the xoxoff.
Do you mean that you understand the UA and Dome models well enough to discuss observational discrepancies? Or that the models appear to withstand scrutiny?
Remdre ib xoxoff!
No, I do not mean any such thing. I mean simply that the great Mentott to this fine thread seems to be accepting of discussion about those models. I made the mistake of bringing up a different model and it was deemed unworthy of his time. But I have yet to find an exhaustive (or even loosely defined) list of acceptable models for discussion. I infer those 2 from the initial List of Very Important Things provided by the one called Johnorbital, but frankly my brain is starting to feel like molten lactate extract of hooved mammals just trying to keep up with the many things he says that are in disagreement with other things he says (or, sometimes, says he has said). But that is why he is the Mentott, and not I. With more learning, I may achieve enough knowledge to follow along.
....or perhaps he's been consuming the gelatosphere! :) I kid, I kid.
-
you've agreed that angular sun rays do not prove a flat earth (in fact, angular sun rays actually prove a globe earth, but one point at a time).. so doesn't that make you realise that other things that some flat earthers use as 'absolute proof' may also be incorrect?
but ignore that yeah?
-
4. angular sun rays - when using perspective from different angles at the same time, the location of the sun is in different places (absolute evidence of a non-localised sun, disproving the flat earth model's location of the sun)
5. The flat earth theory dictates the sun is just above us, the same 3000ish miles away that the moon is.. unless there's a photo of angular sun rays, at which point the believers tell you it's just above the clouds, localised, with the moon, under the dome (the model has no third celestial body)
and just ignore that yeah?
-
WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work
i didn't get an answer there either
-
Finally, some actual question.
WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work
Angular rays have been proven to show that the sun is very close on many occasions.
and when I DID get an answer, this was the extent of the argument, no backup, just words
-
WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work
5. angular sun rays prove only that the sun is in fact a long way away
I'll explain very clearly AGAIN..
let's say you're on a beach, looking out to sea, and you see angular sun rays hitting the water..
now, if you stayed there, and a friend went out to sea on a boat, once YOU saw him PASS the shine that YOU see, from HIS perspective, he still hasn't reached the shine..
if he turned around and took a photo, no shine would be visible
this is due to BASIC perspective
if you and a friend stood together at the afore mentioned beach, with the angular sun rays hitting the sea..
then you both travelled along the beach in opposite directions..
1. why would the sun seem to follow you BOTH? Instead of staying localised as you claim?
2. if you both took a photo at the same time from where you travelled to, why does the sun look localised in different positions at the same time?
Man this is BASIC perspective, how in the world can you not understand?
do you think rainbows are localised too? Or do you think people simply see them from THEIR perspective?
ignoring this too?
again, thorough explanation, no substantial argument
-
5. Angular sun rays have proven, on many occasions, that the sun is very close. Your scientists hand wave this off. Care to try again with some real science, or are you just going to make another list of baseless statements that you claim have already been disproved? You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
(my reply)
5. so in what possible way was the sun proven to be much closer than what we're told, you said there's proof but for some strange reason you didn't present any
I'm surprised boydster didn't say 'just because you say it..' to the flat earther there, only seems to be to me, even though I blatantly offer explanations
I've explained, might have got my words mixed up from time to time but I've made it abundantly clear, time and time again, that angular sun rays simply "prove the sun is NOT localised like the flat earth theory dictates"
but boydster, you keep plugging them single times I've slipped up with my wording, and refusing to answer ANY of my points
everyone, by now, should be able to see through your tactics
I've given thorough explanations for my points, all people do is nit pick at miswording
ANY DEBATE TO MY ORIGINAL POST YET? or are we still gonna run around in circles because no one is willing to even try to discuss anything?
-
Crepuscular rays don't prove either model. If earth was flat, crepuscular rays would still work the way they do for the same reason they do now (perspective). What FErs claim about them is a misconception. Sun in FE is really far away as well (3000km as claimed by most), and different angles of incidence cause time zones (or so FErs think).
-
Crepuscular rays don't prove either model. If earth was flat, crepuscular rays would still work the way they do for the same reason they do now (perspective). What FErs claim about them is a misconception. Sun in FE is really far away as well (3000km as claimed by most), and different angles of incidence cause time zones (or so FErs think).
most FE's use the crepuscular rays as evidence of a 'localised' sun to prove their model which dictates both the moon and the sun are similar sizes and similar distances away, both under the dome, travelling in circles providing day and night
the testing proves its not localised like is put forward in the flat earth model
that's just ONE of the flat earth 'proofs' completely proven wrong
I've listed quite a few in my OP
-
No. All it means is that it doesn't prove a flat earth, but it doesn't disprove it either. There are other tests that can be done to show that sun is further away than FErs say, but that is not one of them. It's just that some FErs don't realize what their own model implies.
-
No. All it means is that it doesn't prove a flat earth, but it doesn't disprove it either. There are other tests that can be done to show that sun is further away than FErs say, but that is not one of them. It's just that some FErs don't realize what their own model implies.
yes, me and spacecowgirl's only agreement was that the sun rays themselves don't prove shape
but it does prove that the sun isn't localised
to which spacecowgirl's reply was 'I don't know what 'localised' means'
its near on impossible to get a straight answer in this place
-
There is no overarching, all-encompassing FE theory that all FEers believe, and you didn't say you were out to debate only one certain model or specify which models you were willing to debate. And you don't even stick to just one model when you are sharing your irrefutable evidence - bouncing from UA to dome to who-knows-what - so how is anyone supposed to know what line you refuse to cross?
so the fact that the flat earth model changes every time, simply depending on what question is asked, is now MY FAULT??
shocking, just shocking
the points I've raised pretty much disprove every flat earth model..
if not, then for the hundredth time.. LET'S DISCUSS THE POINTS!!!
divert divert divert!
-
It doesn't prove it isn't "localized" either. It simply shows that an argument FErs use to prove it is very close is wrong.
Let me explain it this way: if I said "Spaghetti is thin, therefore most pigs can't fly" is wrong. However, this doesn't mean pigs can fly. Similarly, FErs say "Crepuscular rays prove that sun is really close". That's wrong, but it's not a reason why sun isn't really close. There are other reasons for that.
-
It doesn't prove it isn't "localized" either. It simply shows that an argument FErs use to prove it is very close is wrong.
Let me explain it this way: if I said "Spaghetti is thin, therefore most pigs can't fly" is wrong. However, this doesn't mean pigs can fly. Similarly, FErs say "Crepuscular rays prove that sun is really close". That's wrong, but it's not a reason why sun isn't really close. There are other reasons for that.
yes, like working out perspectives from different vantage points..
I'm not sure but I'm guessing thats how they worked it out in the first place?
-
It's possible that there was such an experiment, but no evidence exists. It's more possible that it was realized only after considering spherical earth to be a given.
-
No. All it means is that it doesn't prove a flat earth, but it doesn't disprove it either. There are other tests that can be done to show that sun is further away than FErs say, but that is not one of them. It's just that some FErs don't realize what their own model implies.
yes, me and spacecowgirl's only agreement was that the sun rays themselves don't prove shape
but it does prove that the sun isn't localised
to which spacecowgirl's reply was 'I don't know what 'localised' means'
its near on impossible to get a straight answer in this place
You could have explained what you meant. You look for malice when there is none, you take offense when you could have a conversation... but you're so sure that you are correct on all things! You make it impossible for any discussion to take place. Now you've got two round earthers trying to talk to you, but your delicate ego makes it difficult even for them. boydster is one of the most reasonable REers here!
There is no overarching, all-encompassing FE theory that all FEers believe, and you didn't say you were out to debate only one certain model or specify which models you were willing to debate. And you don't even stick to just one model when you are sharing your irrefutable evidence - bouncing from UA to dome to who-knows-what - so how is anyone supposed to know what line you refuse to cross?
so the fact that the flat earth model changes every time, simply depending on what question is asked, is now MY FAULT??
shocking, just shocking
the points I've raised pretty much disprove every flat earth model..
if not, then for the hundredth time.. LET'S DISCUSS THE POINTS!!!
divert divert divert!
Again, taking offense when none was offered. boydster didn't blame you for the different FE models. He pointed out that you didn't specify which one you were arguing against. You got angry when he said your points don't disprove one of the models. If you're wondering which model that is, it's the infinite plane one. This model wasn't just dreamed up over night because UA doesn't work, it has been around for years! I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that youtube FE are all about the UA model. We (this forum) are not part of the youtube crowd, although some of them do come here to post their videos from time to time. They are free to join the forum just as anyone else.
If you want to discuss the points you should make them more clearly. This isn't such harsh criticism as you are making it out to be! Your impatience and rudeness isn't getting you anywhere. As you can see you are being avoided by most RE and FE, which seems to be causing you some heartache.
My advice (which you are free to ignore) is to start a new thread, with only one or two points to discuss. "What's left now" isn't really a topic of debate, is it? You think there is nothing left, and become angry when people think there's plenty more left! Stop being so grumpy and have some fun.
-
@spacecowgirl
- constellation positions disprove an infinite plane
- as does the lunar eclipse
if you don't understand how, please ask, I'll happily explain
its VERY simple to understand
-
It must not be very simple for you to understand how debates work. You making a claim and declaring it true doesn't make it so!
There are hundreds of threads on these topics, do some research. It's very simple to do.
-
@spacecowgirl
- constellation positions disprove an infinite plane
- as does the lunar eclipse
if you don't understand how, please ask, I'll happily explain
its VERY simple to understand
I'm not so sure they disprove the non euclidean plane model. I would be more sure if there was a proper statement of the model.
-
johnyorbital is the only person in the history of mankind who can prove things wrong simply by declaring that they are wrong. I wish I was like johny. :(
-
@spacecowgirl
- constellation positions disprove an infinite plane
- as does the lunar eclipse
if you don't understand how, please ask, I'll happily explain
its VERY simple to understand
I'm not so sure they disprove the non euclidean plane model. I would be more sure if there was a proper statement of the model.
"let's make a flat earth spherical model"
I don't see how any credit is given to someone who has had the flat earth theory proved completely wrong, then gone away to personally think up a globe version of a non-globe earth, simply to change all the parts of the original theory that simply don't work
its an absolute farce, I'm sure he'll find plenty cognitive dissonant followers here though
as for spacecowgirl, once again not answering a direct question, like I said, if you don't understand how, ask me and I'll explain
i WAS giving you the benefit of the doubt
also, YOU asking ME if I know how to debate, in all fairness, was an outright insult, you debate like a child, telling people to look out their windows, and replying to metaphorical questions with answers like 'an ant can't see properly'.. you're an embarrassment, you've got absolutely no answers to ANY questions, so instead you just ridicule others for proving you wrong.. yeah,you've got awesome debating skills
@spacecowgirl - I'll ask in as basic terms as I possibly can, knowing full well that you'll not answer, but here goes..
- do you agree that constellations being further above the horizon in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere disproves a flat plane?
..if not, why?
- do you agree that the fact you cannot see the north star from deep in the southern hemisphere disproves a flat plane?
..if not, why?
- do you agree that the shadow during a lunar eclipse disproves a flat plane?
..if not, why?
@jroa
I'm providing VISUAL TESTABLE EVIDENCE with everything I'm declaring, how is that simply declaring?
how about you guys do what I do.. make CLEAR points and provide EVIDENCE to support
no? didn't think so
again, cognitive dissonance
-
Wow, we are still waiting for this "proof" that you keep claiming. Saying you have it without sharing it is just retarted.
-
Wow, we are still waiting for this "proof" that you keep claiming. Saying you have it without sharing it is just retarted.
and you still asking for it after I've presented it MANY MANY MANY times is a joke
read the thread
ask me a direct question regarding my points
its not difficult
-
the thread you replied to had thorough explanations.. why not tackle them first?
holy fuckin shit, you guys are so unwilling to discuss anything its embarrassing
-
1) no, perspective or optical illusion
2) no, maybe it's just too far away
3) no, the shadow doesn't prove the shape of what made it
Have you considered eating a diet high in fiber?
-
I thought the orbit guy was getting better at actually asking questions. I was wrong.
-
1) no, perspective or optical illusion
2) no, maybe it's just too far away
3) no, the shadow doesn't prove the shape of what made it
Have you considered eating a diet high in fiber?
is that it? after all the effort you put into your ridicule of others, your actual flat earth 'evidence' is 2 word answers with absolutely no backup (again)?
that's not debating one bit.. you're not supposed to guess, I'm asking what makes you BELIEVE the things you're saying
high fibre diet? erm yes, you're hilarious? is that what you're going for? humour? its not working (if you hadn't guessed)
jroa - I've asked plenty CLEAR AND CONCISE questions, I've given CLEAR AND CONCISE, TESTABLE VISUAL EVIDENCE too..
you're claiming I've not even asked a question? is your screen broken? are you only seeing half of my posts or something?
the questions are clearly there, you're CHOOSING to simply not answer them, that's totally up to you
-
Have you checked your blood pressure lately?
-
Have you checked your blood pressure lately?
"shit, he's not falling for my bullshit diversion tactics, he's asking me to elaborate.." PANIC!!
not a shred of substance to you
-
You mad bro?
-
I'm not going to bother with going back and quoting things, there's been a lot of activity since my last post, but man JO I pointed out something you said, after you told me you didn't say it, and then you puked all over the thread. As I said in a previous post, it's hard to keep up with everything you've said and stuck with, said and walked back, or never said but said you've said. So I went and posted references to exactly the posts I was referring to, to make sure (for myself and for you) that I wasn't putting words in your mouth or taking anything out of context. You say you don't post anything without lots of research, and that you don't post speculation (I'm admittedly paraphrasing here but I don't think I'm doing so unfairly) and sometimes you say things are aren't well researched and/or seem speculative - or at the very least, could use a little more attention to detail before being proclaimed a "disproof" with an arrogant flair.
Also, SCG answered your questions in a simple, direct way. You didn't ask for evidence. You asked "Do you agree - , if not, why?" and she answered those questions. If it wasn't to your liking or expectation, that's where conversation would generally happen rather than attacks.
Moving on, though. With respect to that celestial movement argument: you aren't grasping the non-Euclidean plane thing. And that's OK, it's a weird concept, I'm not faulting you but I am pointing out that it has been a source of misunderstanding since I first brought it up. There is room in that framework for celestial movement to look the same as it does on the globe model, because the plane can, in a specific interpretation, resemble the shape of a globe. It's such a loosely defined concept that there's not much to hang a hat on and say "that's wrong because [words]" with respect to observations we make of space from the surface. You seemed like someone who was interested in a mental exercise back then, and your [proof|disproof|evidence|insert phrase of choice here] list seemed to omit anything that would address that concept. So I pointed it out. My bad. Obviously I was wrong and you wanted to hash out inconsistencies between your specific set of observations and the FE concepts you were familiar with. But by asking "what's left now?" I was not exactly presented with a way of inferring that.
-
again boydster, I got the smoke thing wrong
I admitted I got the smoke thing wrong
you cling to it no end
how about tackling some of the points I've raised?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm giving NO credit to one man and his made up flat ball.. why should I?
Isn't it the same guy that was peddling the old theory until proven wrong?
and you're giving him more respect than me? someone who's actually giving testable evidence?
that says a lot about you and what you WANT to believe
-
again, no substantial response from spacecowgirl (but when I respond in a similar fashion, you're all over me like a rash, double standards)
and jroa was stopped in his tracks
as for debating skills, leaving you lot without an answer after WEEKS of asking, says a lot
not ONE substantial answer to ANY of my points
-
once again, feel free to discuss my points and attempt to prove me wrong
in fact, I've been begging for a discussion / debate since I joined
boydster, you said I omitted something?
Every claim I've made has had thorough explanations, you've yet to discuss ANYTHING with me, or prove anything, or tackle anything
all you've done is cling to 2 things: what I said about smoke, and some random theory you want me to disprove first
that's not how it works, seeing as everyone else is acting like a child, I will too..... 'I asked first'
-
johnyorbital is the only person in the history of mankind who can prove things wrong simply by declaring that they are wrong. I wish I was like johny. :(
Aren't you?
-
johnyorbital is the only person in the history of mankind who can prove things wrong simply by declaring that they are wrong. I wish I was like johny. :(
Aren't you?
lol cheers mate but I wouldn't bother, pointing out contradictions and double standards would be a full time job in this place
I appreciate your comment though :)
-
once again, feel free to discuss my points and attempt to prove me wrong
in fact, I've been begging for a discussion / debate since I joined
boydster, you said I omitted something?
Every claim I've made has had thorough explanations, you've yet to discuss ANYTHING with me, or prove anything, or tackle anything
all you've done is cling to 2 things: what I said about smoke, and some random theory you want me to disprove first
that's not how it works, seeing as everyone else is acting like a child, I will too..... 'I asked first'
I just reread my post. You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say you omitted something. I said you are misunderstanding what a non-Euclidean flat plane can look like, namely a sphere. On a sphere, which is a valid non-Euclidean flat plane, observations from the surface of celestial movement would be identical to the globe model.
I pointed out the smoke thing because you are clear to express how you never post anything that isn't well-researched. Well, turns out you do sometimes. If you weren't so hostile, it would be easier to let stuff like that slide. But you are hostile, and even though you seem to dislike it, you are also wrong sometimes. It happens.
Your question at the beginning of this thread was "what's left" wasn't it? How am I in the wrong here for offering up a mental exercise about something that you hadn't addressed again? Why is it you can't take any ownership for your actions here? When I first brought it up, you dismissed it, said you disproved it, then said it was invalid for discussion, even though it's a FE idea put forth by John Davis.
Regarding all of your questions from reply #95 (I'm guessing you wanted me to address those and that is what you say I keep evading, but I'm probably wrong since I seem to be perpetually wrong in your eyes), I'm not sure why it's my responsibility to answer those. You asked, in the thread title, what's left?
WHY DOESN'T the lunar disprove the whole theory? Because in JD's concept, it would look the same as on a globe.
WHY DONT meteors disprove the dome? Who here has tried defending the dome? Certainly not I. And I won't. But meteors don't disprove any of the models that don't include a dome, of which there are several.
WHY DONT constellation positions disprove the whole theory? Again, JD's concept would look the same as a globe.
WHY DOESN'T the landmark explanation prove a curve? The mirage/super mirage effect doesn't prove a curve, it explains why things can be visible from further away than curve would normally allow. Sometimes the Chicago skyline is visible, sometimes it isn't. And sometimes it's upside down. If presented with ACTUAL DATA sufficient to allow someone to calculate how much light should bend in a certain set of conditions, it could be considered EVIDENCE for a curve. But simply stating that sometimes you can see Chicago from across the lake, THEREFORE CURVE!!!! isn't really meaningful.
WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work? We've been over crepuscular rays, they don't prove either way, and I don't think you would still raise this question today (like the smoke thing) so I'm not going to put further effort into it.
In rereading some of your posts close to #95 where I got that list from, it seems you think I'm trying to disprove you. That's not the case. Again, you asked what's left for the FE community to cling to and I simply presented something I had quite literally just read days earlier that seemed like a good candidate.
Lastly, JO, commence auto-honing. I answered your request for something that remained for FEers to cling to in post #1 and was met with dismissal and then hostility. I explained why I thought it deserved more attention than you gave it, and was met with more hostility. I answered your additional questions from 90+ posts into the thread even though you have still just been hostile. Obviously, there was no actual desire on your part to have a discussion outside of a very narrow field, so it was disingenuous of you to suggest you were open to debate.
-
I don't understand what a non-Euclidean flat plane is. A flat plane is Euclidean by definition. A plane that is non-Euclidean cannot reasonably be called flat.
Can someone provide more detail as to what is meant by a plane being both flat and non-Euclidean?
-
I just reread my post. You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say you omitted something. I said you are misunderstanding what a non-Euclidean flat plane can look like, namely a sphere. On a sphere, which is a valid non-Euclidean flat plane, observations from the surface of celestial movement would be identical to the globe model
so it's a globe?
look man, I'm purposely questioning in this way, because the whole idea is ridiculous.. a non-flat, non-spherical, flat, spherical earth? and you're actually wondering why I'm not giving it the time of day?
well I'm not as full of cognitive dissonance as you, so I'll take it exactly how it is, nonsensical
I'll explain again, it's a ridiculous attempt to cover the huge holes in the original theory.. made by some random guy that YOU seem to think deserves some respect for a reason you're clearly not sharing
I pointed out the smoke thing because you are clear to express how you never post anything that isn't well-researched. Well, turns out you do sometimes. If you weren't so hostile, it would be easier to let stuff like that slide. But you are hostile, and even though you seem to dislike it, you are also wrong sometimes. It happens.
I blatantly admitted I was wrong MANY times regarding the smoke, I even explained when I FIRST mentioned it that I didn't have enough knowledge on the subject and admitted it was an 'off the cuff' remark.. but ignore all that, just concentrate on that 1 thing I got wrong
as for hostile? I've been very reserved here, can you honestly say people weren't out to antagonise me? from the off..
quite clearly because I wasn't allowing the diversion tactics (I don't see you pulling spacecowgirl over calling me a fuckin crybaby, again, double standards)
Your question at the beginning of this thread was "what's left" wasn't it? How am I in the wrong here for offering up a mental exercise about something that you hadn't addressed again? Why is it you can't take any ownership for your actions here? When I first brought it up, you dismissed it, said you disproved it, then said it was invalid for discussion, even though it's a FE idea put forth by John Davis.
absolutely agree, you provided a link to something I'd not heard before, kudos.. I apologise for my reaction at the time, looking back, TECHNICALLY you answered the question, but you ignored my points that I made and instead asked me to disprove a completely different theory.. obviously I didn't take that well due to the amount of diversion I'd encountered by everyone here, yours, in all fairness, was not much different
Regarding all of your questions from reply #95 (I'm guessing you wanted me to address those and that is what you say I keep evading, but I'm probably wrong since I seem to be perpetually wrong in your eyes), I'm not sure why it's my responsibility to answer those. You asked, in the thread title, what's left?
WHY DOESN'T the lunar disprove the whole theory? Because in JD's concept, it would look the same as on a globe.
I hope you can respect why I am taking that comment as an off topic comment, my questions are not directed to one man's random theory, it's aimed at the believers of a flat earth
WHY DONT meteors disprove the dome? Who here has tried defending the dome? Certainly not I. And I won't. But meteors don't disprove any of the models that don't include a dome, of which there are several.
yes they do, irrefutably..
most flat earthers don't even have an answer for meteors, how would YOU explain a meteor passing through a solid dome? (as you're the one claiming it doesn't disprove any dome)
WHY DONT constellation positions disprove the whole theory? Again, JD's concept would look the same as a globe.
again, I'm not talking about some other random one man theory, I'm talking about the flat earth theory, I know you're not purposely diverting, and I'm not taking it offensively, I'd just like some answers regarding the FLAT earth theory
WHY DOESN'T the landmark explanation prove a curve? The mirage/super mirage effect doesn't prove a curve, it explains why things can be visible from further away than curve would normally allow. Sometimes the Chicago skyline is visible, sometimes it isn't. And sometimes it's upside down. If presented with ACTUAL DATA sufficient to allow someone to calculate how much light should bend in a certain set of conditions, it could be considered EVIDENCE for a curve. But simply stating that sometimes you can see Chicago from across the lake, THEREFORE CURVE!!!! isn't really meaningful.
that's not what I've said, not even once..
I said, very clearly, when the people are doing the 'landmarks from far away' test to PROVE no curvature, they are not doing the test from ground/sea level, therefore the test is instantly flawed.. my example was simple.. go to a place where you can see a landmark from too far away, put your camera on the ground, take a photo, no more landmark
WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work? We've been over crepuscular rays, they don't prove either way, and I don't think you would still raise this question today (like the smoke thing) so I'm not going to put further effort into it.
I've said very blatantly, MANY times, that crepuscular rays only prove that the sun is much further away than the flat earth theory dictates, and I'm not wrong, it doesn't prove either shape, but it does disprove the flat earth theory's 'localised sun'
In rereading some of your posts close to #95 where I got that list from, it seems you think I'm trying to disprove you. That's not the case. Again, you asked what's left for the FE community to cling to and I simply presented something I had quite literally just read days earlier that seemed like a good candidate.
Lastly, JO, commence auto-honing. I answered your request for something that remained for FEers to cling to in post #1 and was met with dismissal and then hostility. I explained why I thought it deserved more attention than you gave it, and was met with more hostility. I answered your additional questions from 90+ posts into the thread even though you have still just been hostile. Obviously, there was no actual desire on your part to have a discussion outside of a very narrow field, so it was disingenuous of you to suggest you were open to debate.
ok, to clear that up
when I asked 'what's left', I didn't mean 'what other theories are left', I simply wanted to know, from the people who use the things I stated to PROVE a flat earth or DISPROVE a globe earth, what do they use NOW as proof, seeing as those 'proofs' can no longer be used
I did think the question was clear, apologies if it was too confusing for everyone
-
so it's a globe?
look man, I'm purposely questioning in this way, because the whole idea is ridiculous.. a non-flat, non-spherical, flat, spherical earth? and you're actually wondering why I'm not giving it the time of day?
well I'm not as full of cognitive dissonance as you, so I'll take it exactly how it is, nonsensical
I'll explain again, it's a ridiculous attempt to cover the huge holes in the original theory.. made by some random guy that YOU seem to think deserves some respect for a reason you're clearly not sharing
It could be interpreted to resemble a globe. It's not the most cohesive idea (notice, I don't call these ideas "theories") so it's hard to say exactly what it looks like from any particular frame of reference, you'd have to ask the guy that came up with the idea. But a sphere is an acceptable form for an elliptical non-Euclidean shape, so within the loose framework that JD put forth a spherical shape isn't ruled out. And I agree - it's ridiculous! I think I actually said as much in his original thread, but I can't remember exactly what I wrote off hand. I posted it as a mental exercise, because I thought that's what you were looking for. No more, no less. But take note: it's not put forth by some random FEer. It's put forth by one that is taken pretty seriously by the community.
I blatantly admitted I was wrong MANY times regarding the smoke, I even explained when I FIRST mentioned it that I didn't have enough knowledge on the subject and admitted it was an 'off the cuff' remark.. but ignore all that, just concentrate on that 1 thing I got wrong
Right, but there are 2 things worth noting. First, it wasn't researched even though you've been very vocal (some might say aggressive) with insisting to others that you never post anything you haven't researched. You've hit me with the cognitive dissonance thing a couple times now... try and understand why I might point out something like this. Second, you returned to it after owning up to the fact that it wasn't a valid argument, and in another thread entirely asked me again to explain why it was wrong, so it became more than just off-the-cuff, at least from my vantage point (which, much like your vantage point, is behind a glowing screen with some text on it that doesn't have much personality...). But I get what you are saying, it's over, I'm not trying to imply you are still sticking with it.
as for hostile? I've been very reserved here, can you honestly say people weren't out to antagonise me? from the off..
quite clearly because I wasn't allowing the diversion tactics (I don't see you pulling spacecowgirl over calling me a fuckin crybaby, again, double standards)
I guess I wouldn't want to be around you when you are feeling hostile then. Sure, people tried antagonizing you, but reread your posts from before that and pretend you're someone else - you came off more than a little abrasive. It probably wasn't your intention, but it is what it is. And for it being your first posts right out of the gate, what kind of reception would one expect? Open arms while you're flinging insults? I'm sure you wouldn't expect that. As for not going after SCG, that's kinda hard to expect when, from my perspective, you were lashing out at everyone and then went asking the mods to intervene when people starting shoveling some of the shit back at you.
absolutely agree, you provided a link to something I'd not heard before, kudos.. I apologise for my reaction at the time, looking back, TECHNICALLY you answered the question, but you ignored my points that I made and instead asked me to disprove a completely different theory.. obviously I didn't take that well due to the amount of diversion I'd encountered by everyone here, yours, in all fairness, was not much different
Chalk it up to a misunderstanding between us. I'm not here to defend all your points from a FE vantage point, so frankly I wasn't interested in rehashing those (there are, as has been pointed out, lots of other threads that cover topics just like you listed in the beginning). But I think we're at the same place here - just a misunderstanding, you thought my intentions were different, I thought your expectations were different.
I hope you can respect why I am taking that comment as an off topic comment, my questions are not directed to one man's random theory, it's aimed at the believers of a flat earth
As stated, that's an idea put forth by someone who is taken very seriously by the FE community, so I respectfully submit that you should consider it to be ON topic. But your opinions are yours.
WHY DONT meteors disprove the dome? Who here has tried defending the dome? Certainly not I. And I won't. But meteors don't disprove any of the models that don't include a dome, of which there are several.
yes they do, irrefutably..
most flat earthers don't even have an answer for meteors, how would YOU explain a meteor passing through a solid dome? (as you're the one claiming it doesn't disprove any dome)
Reread what I said. Meteors don't disprove any models that DO NOT include a dome. We are agreeing here, I think you overlooked part of my post - maybe my fault, for using a double-negative. Dome models don't have much room for meteors flying around in space and crashing into the Earth. But lots of FEers don't believe there is a dome. So, in the same way you consider JD's idea off-topic, this idea could also be dismissed as such. Or both could be considered to be on topic as they relate to things currently discussed in the FE community.
WHY DONT constellation positions disprove the whole theory? Again, JD's concept would look the same as a globe.
again, I'm not talking about some other random one man theory, I'm talking about the flat earth theory, I know you're not purposely diverting, and I'm not taking it offensively, I'd just like some answers regarding the FLAT earth theory
I get it, no sweat, my thoughts are written above already.
WHY DOESN'T the landmark explanation prove a curve? The mirage/super mirage effect doesn't prove a curve...
that's not what I've said, not even once..
I said, very clearly, when the people are doing the 'landmarks from far away' test to PROVE no curvature, they are not doing the test from ground/sea level, therefore the test is instantly flawed.. my example was simple.. go to a place where you can see a landmark from too far away, put your camera on the ground, take a photo, no more landmark
Hang on, I got a couple posts confused. That test is somewhat flawed, though, and the mirage effect has a lot to do with it. The mirage could be showing high enough up that your camera could still see it, again it is weather dependent though. This is what I meant the first time I said that, many many posts ago, but it seemed off topic so I didn't go into it. But to be clear, it's not a solid disproof because there are outlier cases where it fails. If a FEer took your thought experiment as something that should work 100% of the time, and found that even once it failed, they would (could) hold that up as a victory of sorts for FE (as in, "one more proof disproven, yay earth is flat!!").
WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work? We've been over crepuscular rays, they don't prove either way, and I don't think you would still raise this question today (like the smoke thing) so I'm not going to put further effort into it.
I've said very blatantly, MANY times, that crepuscular rays only prove that the sun is much further away than the flat earth theory dictates, and I'm not wrong, it doesn't prove either shape, but it does disprove the flat earth theory's 'localised sun'
Yes but you also said before that they only work on a round Earth, and not all FE believers think the sun is at one particular height, so again we can split hairs over which models you want to pick apart and which ones need to be shelved for another time but I'll just say, and I think this is fair, it's hard to know ahead of time which model or models you have in mind because I'm not psychic. You started all of this before you had much time to dig around on the site, I think, so it would make sense that maybe you didn't know just how diverse the beliefs are for the FEers, but holy moly there's a lot of things that get thrown around on here. How am I supposed to know you only want to talk about super-localised sun with dome above AND Universal Acceleration (which may or may not include a dome) models BUT none of the others if that's not explained at the outset? Likewise though, how are you supposed to know how to even express that if you haven't been around long enough to see what's out there for ideas right now?
ok, to clear that up
when I asked 'what's left', I didn't mean 'what other theories are left', I simply wanted to know, from the people who use the things I stated to PROVE a flat earth or DISPROVE a globe earth, what do they use NOW as proof, seeing as those 'proofs' can no longer be used
I did think the question was clear, apologies if it was too confusing for everyone
We good now?
-
John Davis theory is not some random theory. It is flat earth theory. If you really researched before you post then you would know this.
-
We good now?
almost.. a few points..
1. thanks, not had many respect-worthy replies since being here, that was definitely one
2. if you look back, there was absolutely no incitement for that attack from spacecowgirl, I asked the few people who were clearly out to derail the thread, POLITELY first, to please take the chit chat elsewhere, you all didn't..
"Flat Earth Debate
This board is reserved for debates on Flat Earth Theory. Please note that it is strictly moderated!"
"Flat Earth Debate - Rules & Guidelines
..This forum is also subject to the Forum Rules, which are strictly enforced in this board.
..8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic."
I was well within my rights to report the thread, I wanted certain posts looking at so I reported them.. It was my first day on the forum, I didn't know what to do properly
3. For what reason is John Davis any more 'respected' than anyone else? I've more respect for spacecowgirl at the moment, she's here replying at least
4. If you remember, I said, I've come direct from years worth of debating the same theory on Facebook and YouTube, there's absolutely no variety of theories, they all pretty much follow the same model.. a couple of tweaks here and there but nothing to the extent of this place, it's like a circus of ideas made up on the spot, so my apologies but I'm definitely following the majority verdict with regards to the model
5. Yes, I 100% missed the double negative, my bad
look, I'm a very reasonable guy, an intelligent guy, a respectful guy, I've done plenty research, if I'm not sure of something, I'll say from the off, if I'm proved wrong I'm happy to hold my hands up
..but I'm not gonna have someone like spacecowgirl trying to wind me up for her own amusement, so yeah, I not so discreetly politely patronised the shit out of her.. she deserved it, I'd ask your opinion but I reckon at this point you'd probably plead the 5th ;)
but yeah man, I'm not wanting an argument, I'd like a back and forth discussion with a calm and reasonable flat earther one day.. they're hard to find though
-
We're going to have to agree to disagree on some things. I'm OK with that. It would be weird if we didn't have areas of disagreement.
1. Cheers
2. I'm assuming you mean the crybaby post at the beginning? This thread didn't happen in a microcosm. Other conversations bled into it. Not just in that post, but in plenty of other posts in this thread. I think it can safely be said that a lot of the head-butting started before this thread, and then this thread was started kind of in the midst of things being heated in the other. That's life for ya. A new thread isn't a reset button. Also, I get that this is a place we might disagree.
3. He's been running the forum for a long time, and been interviewed as a representative of the Flat Earth Society in the news before, and I can't really speak to his other credentials. I think he wrote a book, too? Someone else with more knowledge should probably answer, but suffice to say that he's not just some random Joe. His opinion carries some weight around here.
4. What I meant was, perhaps you weren't being so inconsiderate as to assume that I was reading your mind while you were not reading mine. I'm leaving that olive branch dangling out there.
5. I figured. Glad we're on the same page.
-
4. absolutely..
- I didn't anticipate the variety
- you, being here for a while, wouldn't have anticipated someone unaware of that fact
the rest, water under the bridge
-
Are you actually trying to suck up to boydster now? Like you think you've got some bro thing going on, and he's gonna fist bump you or some shit? You're the one being patronized, you dingbat.
-
you're boring
-
to be honest. he answered respectfully, he got a respectful answer
I know, that may be hard for you to grasp
-
You've been answered many ways, I hope you take the time to actually look into the theories put forth on this website and not expect us to answer for Facebook and YouTube.
John Davis' infinite plane theory was not dreamed up over night because UA failed. The search feature on this forum is your friend.
-
wrong.. its clear that it was dreamed up to cover the lunar eclipse as every other model failed at explaining it
so again, it's NOW a..
non-spherical, non-flat, spherical, flat earth
as far as 'lots of theories' goes, that's definitely one of the most ridiculous
-
You really shouldn't claim that you always do your research!
-
riiiiiiiight..
says little miss no substance, awesome
you've got absolutely nothing to say
-
*sigh*
-
*sigh*
I've made my points clear, she has nothing in way of an argument, I'm not taking shit from a child any more
no reason to hold back with her from now on, double barrelled
-
Oh stop, you're scaring me!
-
you've got nothing to say
-
Such frightening words! I definitely think you should hold back a bit. Please put the double barrel away! Gosh.
What's left to say? You asked what's left now, you were told some things are left, you don't accept them and become upset. You say you've disproved all the things (without disproving anything), and that's fine, you can believe that and be happy with your angry globularist outlook, but you haven't convinced anyone here of anything... well that's not true, plenty of people here are convinced you're a jerk!
Perhaps we should just leave you to this thread. You can reply to it every hour or so and tearfully complain that no one will debate you.
-
I've proved thorough explanations and irrefutable evidence, this is why you've been unable to disprove anything I've said
you simply keep saying 'you've proved nothing', well you're wrong
I've given TESTABLE VISUAL EVIDENCE
you've given nothing, because there IS no disproving irrefutable evidence
feel free to try?
no?
didn't think so
you cannot answer, so you don't even try, that's called 'conceding'
-
You've made reference to tests one could do that make the dome and UA unlikely candidates for a workable FE model. If that was your goal, excellent, you achieved it. But there's no cause for celebration; it's not exactly blazing new territory. It's like disproving denpressure in that I really don't see a lot of people defending it to begin with (although I'll admit to having some entertainment watching scepti cling to it when it comes up) and it's not hard to show counterexamples where the concept fails.
Don't get me wrong, there are some people that support the ideas you are coming out against, to be sure.
But SCG is the one you seem to have a boner about bringing down right now. Are you saying she concedes that dome and UA aren't tenable theories? If so, maybe you could point me towards the post where she took the position that either was one that she subscribes to? Because I totally missed it. And I'm human (quite human, in fact probably the most average and representative example of what a human organism should be, my humanity should not be questioned) so it is not out of the realm of possibilities that I missed something in this thread or a different one.
-
me asking her direct questions since my arrival here weeks ago
she's not answered a single thing with anything noteworthy, she's not even attempting
I'm just pointing that out to her
all she has is insults, no substance, no answers, just bullshit
so fuck it
-
me asking her direct questions since my arrival here weeks ago
she's not answered a single thing with anything noteworthy, she's not even attempting
I'm just pointing that out to her
all she has is insults, no substance, no answers, just bullshit
so fuck it
Calm down! Seriously, stop being so aggressive!
-
aggressive? are you joking?
again, have you also said this to spacecowgirl?
or just me?
double standards.. again
-
aggressive? are you joking?
again, have you also said this to spacecowgirl?
or just me?
double standards.. again
But she is not aggressive. If you told me sandokhan is aggressive or Legba is aggressive, I would agree. Just because she is wrong about the shape of earth it doesn't mean she is aggressive. She's mostly just mocking you because you run around shouting at everyone, flat earthers and round earthers alike. Stop taking everything so seriously! ;)
-
aggressive? are you joking?
again, have you also said this to spacecowgirl?
or just me?
double standards.. again
But she is not aggressive. If you told me sandokhan is aggressive or Legba is aggressive, I would agree. Just because she is wrong about the shape of earth it doesn't mean she is aggressive. She's mostly just mocking you because you run around shouting at everyone, flat earthers and round earthers alike. Stop taking everything so seriously! ;)
ok.. let's see
Srsly, just read the fucking rules. You may think you are the first person to arrive here with all the answers, but you are sadly mistaken.
I just figured we could discuss the flatness while we wait for Johnorbital to demand answers again!
He's gonna cry, tho.
Cry to the mods all you want! I hope you spam the report feature again, you big fucking crybaby.
What was the question again?
Careful, he will report you to the moderators.
yes, she's been an absolute delight
I've only retaliated after it was abundantly clear she's got no knowledge of anything and she just accepts things she's 'told' that she likes the sound of.. she ignores evidence, when you break it down to her so that she can understand, she strangely replies saying she hasn't seen the post
she's impossible to get a straight answer from, she tried for a long time to get a rise out of me (see my only 2 threads here), but only in the past couple of days have I decided to give a little back
surprise surprise, not one person has asked her to calm down, stop acting like a child, stop trying to antagonise others or stop derailing threads..
..but you all jump on me???
so I'll respectfully not take advice from you guys, I'll say what I like, if the mods deem it offensive, THEY can request I calm down
-
..because you run around shouting at everyone, flat earthers and round earthers alike.
feel free to quote when I've 'shouted at' anyone
I was very passive until a few days ago, purposely, DESPITE the attempted incitement from quite a few angles
I was firm and opinionated, as the evidence I presented is irrefutable, I gave thorough explanations as to why it's irrefutable too.. but I was NOT offensive and definitely NOT aggressive to ANYONE
-
..because you run around shouting at everyone, flat earthers and round earthers alike.
feel free to quote when I've 'shouted at' anyone
Pretty much the entire thread.
SCG was never aggressive, until she started mocking you for your actions. She may have been right, you seem very jumpy. Also, quite a bit of your evidence wasn't "irrefutable", and you merely implied it rather than actually stating it in this thread. Just take it easy, don't be so angry.
-
again, feel free to quote me
also, as you have now ALSO stated that some of my evidence is NOT irrefutable..
how about a discussion on that?
that's what I've been asking for since day 1
are you going to have a discussion or merely do what many others have done; claim my evidence doesn't work, but refuse to tell me why not with any substantial reply or any willingness to listen to my reply after yours
an almost impossibility on this forum
-
If you want quotes, you have to wait. I'm on a smartphone right now.
You said you want a discussion on why some of your evidence is not irrefutable. Was our discussion on crepuscular rays not good enough? They don't prove either model.
-
yes, I agreed originally
they do disprove the flat earth model's location of the sun though
any more?
lunar eclipse?
constellation positions?
landmarks from too far away?
anything else?
-
yes, I agreed originally
they do disprove the flat earth model's location of the sun though
any more?
lunar eclipse?
constellation positions?
landmarks from too far away?
anything else?
I told you, crepuscular rays don't prove anything about the position of sun.
-
it proves flat earthers wrong about their explanation of a localised sun using crepuscular rays as their evidence
of course it geometrically looks like it's just above the clouds, but simply walking to the side disproves that theory, as the 'localised' sun follows you.. if you see a shine hitting the water, get on a boat, head towards it..
there's a good reason you'll not reach it ;)
-
anyone else have anything substantial to say about my points?
-
anyone else have anything substantial to say about my points?
Yeah, shut up going on all the time.
-
anyone else have anything substantial to say about my points?
Yeah, shut up going on all the time.
What's with the attitude?
I'm asking for a discussion, in a forum, relative to the board
people are having half a conversation then disappearing when the going gets tough
well I don't disappear mid-conversation, not sure why others do
I love how everyone makes out I've got a bad attitude, by antagonising me over and over and over, then if there's ANY type of retaliation from me then it's me that's in the wrong?
I treat everyone with respect until they don't return it, then and only then do they lose respect from me
there's people like intikam who refuse to answer
spacecowgirl who does nothing but antagonise everyone, claims to have knowledge but refuses to share anything with anyone
and most of the rest just ignore evidence with words like 'no' or 'you're wrong' with no backup
shut up going on?
I'm trying to have ONE substantial discussion, I'm yet to have one with an actual flat earther, they claim up and disappear if they hear something they don't like
why come to a forum if you're not open to discussion?
-
Regarding the disappearing: I suspect they are leaving because it became apparent that you had a very small window of acceptable FE concepts you were willing to discuss, and further, ones that have been discussed at length in other threads. Also, with the rare PL-style exception, on a public forum where they can choose whether they want to engage with you or not, there's only so much hostility people are going to take before they decide to spend their time elsewhere.
Regarding your statement of being antagonized: You are misremembering how you introduced yourself to the forum.
Regarding treating everyone with respect until they don't return it: You are misremembering how you introduced yourself to the forum.
Regarding Intikam: Go into the FE Believers section and read all about his thoughts on FE
Regarding SCG: Learn to lighten up a little bit. See above, about misremembering how you introduced yourself to the forum. If you're gonna dish it out, you're gonna get it back.
Regarding evidence: Allusions to evidence and actual evidence are two different things. Your lists were allusions to evidence. More work needs to be done to find the actual evidence that your lists referenced. Granted, a lot of supporting information was already in the forum (or just a click away on Google) and could be found by searching, but then, so could FE replies to a lot of the questions you posed, so the search function works both ways. But that's tangential. Allusions to evidence != evidence.
Regarding trying to have ONE substantial discussion: You keep bumping your own thread when it seems like it's reached a much-needed conclusion. You are trying too hard.
Full disclosure, I'm not a life coach or anything, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
-
or is it going to be the usual, divert, avoid, belittle, divert, avoid, belittle
Quoted for extreme irony.
If you show up uninvited at a party and immediately start criticizing the music and food and the people who like it, you don't also get to complain that no one at the party seems interested in talking to you.
-
@boydster
you love making out that I was first to antagonise people but you know full well that you're wrong..
you were among the people who took my first thread off topic, going on about Hitler for some strange reason
I ASKED POLITELY for you all to take your chit chat elsewhere
instead of my polite request being accepted, and an apology issued, I was treated as though I shouldn't have expected anything else.. so I showed the 'strictly enforced' forum rules to you all, and was told to 'go cry to the mods'
so to cover your own back, you're making out like I started it.. well I didn't, it was you and your FE crew
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67182.0
there is my first thread, please see my replies on there, I WAS RESPECTFUL AND THANKFUL until you lot came in
I'm misremembering nothing
@Ski
I'm not criticising music after gatecrashing a party, I'm in a FORUM, titled Flat Earth DEBATE
so, unironically, I'm trying to DEBATE the flat earth theory
- VERY ironically though, you've failed to reply to my comment to you previously, then quoted me saying people divert ignore and avoid
poor show
-
You were baiting people... ??? You wanted people to discuss points that you had already stated were "irrefutable disproven." Your questions were loaded ones. I said as much when I first replied to you. And that IS antagonizing. You asked questions that you already knew the answer to, with the intention of making those who provided the answer you expected sound ridiculous.
And it was a FEer that brought up Hitler. I called him out for how ridiculous that was right off the bat. "You lot?" Really??
-
no, I asked for my points to be discussed, I gave my opinions as a starting point
that's not baiting, it's how a forum works ffs
-
can you guys please take your chit chat elsewhere
Shoot. Sorry, I thought I was on a public forum. Must have gotten lost somewhere... ???
Anyway, I just took the time to read the "Dear Friend" letter, which was basically asking Hitler not to be a jerkface but in a nice way. Honestly, it was new to me so I won't pretend to be an expert on the special relationship they may or may not have had. Thanks for the link, SCG!
yes, 'you lot', you might claim to not be a flat earther, but you definitely have the same traits
-
boydster, join us on the flat side. You know you want to.
-
"You lot?" Really??
Over the years I've learnt that the less educated a globularist is, the more likely he is to assume that any point of correction in their misunderstanding comes from the evil "other". The same neurosis and hubris that leads them to post indignantly here refuses self-inspection or to let them see any other view point without demonizing it. It's a reflexive protection from self-doubt: a pattern repeated time and again.
To be sure, I think this is probably true of human nature and not the sole property of globularists, but it is y experience in this context that has revealed the pattern.
-
incorrect
in this context, boydster was involving himself in the chit chat that was purposely orchestrated to derail my thread
it was a group of people, of which he was 'a part of', I know full well he claims not to be a flat earther, but contextually, I was correct
uneducated?
fortunately not
-
@Ski
I've asked you twice previously what your take on the lunar eclipse is
you've chosen, for some reason, not to reply, even though you've previously implied I'm wrong
is there any valid (or at the very least, truthful) reason for that?
-
@Ski
I've asked you twice previously what your take on the lunar eclipse is
you've chosen, for some reason, not to reply, even though you've previously implied I'm wrong
Young man, I am not a performing monkey to dance to your bidding. Neither are other zetetics. I have answered thst question many, many times over the years. I answered it as recently as this week. I'm sorry if I don't reward your rude presumptive behaviour with immediate answers. This website has seen many more able globular champions. Perhaps your hubris prevented you from reading before posting or using the search feature because of course you had something uniquely intelligent to add to the conversation.
is there any valid (or at the very least, truthful) reason for that?
Yes. You are a rude and needlessly belligerent guest. Noone has the time to answer every quest wandering globularists pose on this forum. I needn't spend my precious time responding to the rude ones who seem to have a poor grasp on fundamentals. Particularly when I have discussed the topic scores of times with erudite globularists who were both interesting and polite. Feel free to spend time reading/learning. Even fellow globularists aren't taking you seriously. Why do you think that is?
-
my attitude is far better than most of your 'regulars', I was polite and respectful, took a lot with a pinch of salt BEFORE I retaliated, and even then I've not been rude
you cannot answer my questions, therefore you don't, instead, you have done exactly the same as 99% of others on here.. avoid, divert, belittle..
terrible forum moderation
- none of this is because I've been rude, because I've clearly not
- all of this is because I've been CORRECT, I've done exactly what should be done in a debate:
made claims
thoroughly explained claims
given testable evidence
asked for substantial responses
that's it..
how about I challenge you:
to quote ANY of these times I've been 'rude' that hasn't been in direct response to someone saying something moderators would deem worse than what I've said
you're worse than politicians when it comes to wriggling out of answering direct questions
never a straight answer? THERE'S your irony
-
It is abundantly clear someone is just looking for attention. Another freaking thread about the same exact thing showed up.
"Orchestrated" he says. LOL. As if we have meetings to discuss how to get under his skin.
JO, here's your very first post in that thread you linked to:
new joiner - first post
I'm sick of getting conflicting information from places like Facebook and YouTube, flat earthers don't seem to agree with each other's theories
so I'm here for a more detailed debate
I've been looking into the flat earth theory for around 3yrs, in detail for over 12 months, I'm no beginner
I've firstly got a few basic questions just to see how your answers compare with the rest of the internet
then I will move on to my findings
1 - after reading the welcome post I have an observation: if a ball falling back to earth is caused by us moving upwards, smoke should travel downwards
(the usual reply from MOST flat earthers is "we're not travelling upwards", then I ask what causes the ball to fall, then I'm usually attacked, blocked or ignored, it's really difficult sometimes to get a direct answer)
2 - do you guys use angular sun rays as evidence of a localised sun?
3 - I get conflicting answers for a lunar eclipse, what is the current flat earth explanation?
4 - I also get conflicting answers for meteors, again, what is the current flat earth explanation?
I've MANY more points, I just want to get a feel for the people and the extent of the research in this forum
thanks
You started with loaded questions, you just stated it in different terms when you requested people answer these questions that you had already seen other FEers answer, and you specifically said you were going to wait until you got the FE answer before revealing your opinion. That is, most certainly, NOT giving your opinions as a starting point. Within the first page, you had several answers to those questions and also had been told that there is no one-size-fits-all Flat Earth explanation because the people that believe in FE have so many different personal beliefs.
How can you say you haven't been rude? Your delusional if you believe that. And you are just begging for attention every which way. It's sad. You got the conversation you earned. I'm not playing any more.
-
exactly, my points were clear from the start, I gave a few points and awaited what I thought was going to be a 2 way conversation.. how wrong I was
and yes another thread has come up because 8 pages into this one and god knows how many in the other one I've still yet to receive any substantial replies that were anything close to a 2 way conversation
its pretty much gone like this
me: I think this, because of this, and here's an explanation why
others: you're wrong, and not everyone thinks that
me: ok so what do you think, and why is THAT PART wrong
others: you're rude and we're not answering you anymore, if you've got all the answers then why are you here, we've already answered your questions, you've not got any evidence
its a bit rich being called rude and unwilling to discuss things by others on here.. yes I've got answers because I've done research, that's why I'm here, to explain to those that haven't seen the research how evidence has already proven the globe WITHOUT citing nasa and without mentioning gravity in any great detail
I've asked questions that people simply haven't got answers for.. so I've been belittled and made fun of
you know, like the FE's say happen to anyone who comes out with information about a flat earth
for the millionth time.. DOUBLE STANDARDS AND COGNITIVE DISSONANCE ARE RIFE IN HERE
yeah you'd all love it if I just went, with all my evidence, logic and common sense
I've provided evidence, it's not been challenged
I've provided testable proof, it's not been challenged
I've explained other people's mistakes, I've not been challenged
how am I supposed to feel, WITHOUT a sense of accomplishment?
there's a much easier way to shut me up and make me look like I'm uneducated..
BY CHALLENGING MY POINTS!!
no one's done that at all, it's simple to work out why
-
OK this is seriously the last time I'm writing to you in this thread, but it was just too much to ignore.
I've provided evidence, it's not been challenged
I've provided testable proof, it's not been challenged
I've explained other people's mistakes, I've not been challenged
Do you want a gold star and a cookie or something? Also, BS!
I challenged some of your evidence.
I challenged some of your testable proof.
I explained some of your mistakes to you.
Your ego is showing.
I actually put some time into responding to you on this very thread not that long ago. But all that is just forgotten about in Johnorbitalland as soon as you are challenged again. Now Little John hasn't had ANYONE answer ANY of his questions and he's the ONLY one even trying to have a conversation. It's all just SO UNFAIR YOU GUYS!
...Wait, I forgot to get out my tiny violin when I said that. Oh, darn, the moment's over now.
Your points were NOT clear from the start. That's why I shared your OP from that thread, so you could have a chance to recall exactly what you said. You asked questions without divulging your thoughts. YOU SAID AS MUCH IN YOUR FIRST FREAKING POST. Your questions were clear, and you clearly already had canned answers ready for when someone took the bait. That is what a loaded question is. Do you not get that? You asked a question with the presumption that you already knew the answers you would receive and the presumption that you would get those answers from a FEer that you could then use to make them look silly.
Get some humility. You're not nearly as awesome as you think you are.
-
no
my only fault was expecting ANY answers
the only thing you jumped on was the only thing I admitted I didn't have much knowledge on and said was an off the cuff remark.. coincidence?
If you see my first replies to the people who answered respectfully, I was thankful and respectful..
but yeah, keep on making out the problem was instigated by ME
of course they were rhetorical questions as I HAVE done the research and I DO know the answers, I wasn't coming in pretending I didn't know
ALL I WANTED WAS A 2 WAY CONVERSATION
I respect that you've took a lot of time out for me boydster, really I do..
but making out I'm the problem is just not right
take your violin, am I supposed to give a shit?
-
The smoke, the camera experiment, the eclipse & celestial movement on a FE model you refused to discuss. I offered things for discussion. "The only thing you jumped on." Whatever dude, you can't have an honest conversation. Bye.
-
the discussion you wanted wasn't about the flat earth theory, THAT'S why I refused to discuss with you
this is the flat earth forum, not the non-spherical, non-flat, spherical, flat earth forum, so I'm after discussing the flat earth theory
also, I explained, again, very politely, WHY I didn't want to discuss that other theory, I'm unsure why you've brought that back up as we cleared that up at the time
-
@John
Your 1st thread you started was what many could consider demanding answers.
I admit it could have not been your intent.
After that your post seem to be aggressive and demanding.
If this is not your intent I would suggest looking at how you communicate with other people.
Edit: I would also recommend reviewing replies to you and what others are saying. Who here is saying you are being friendly? It could be myself and others have difficulty understanding what we read and lack the social faculties to judge. It also could be you come off as aggressive and a bit of an ass hat.
-
yeah, admittedly, after taking a load of shit, I retaliated, there's only so much ANYONE would take
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67182.0
there's my first thread, I asked politely, and replied respectfully and thankfully until the bad attitudes started towards me
treat others how you'd like to be treated.. I'm not giving respect to those being a dick, simple
say what you like, the evidence is there, I was polite and respectful to those that deserve it, I still am now
-
@boydster
I don't need a reply but here's a screenshot from a John Davis youtube video, see the comment at the bottom..
(https://thumb.ibb.co/jJWEka/Screenshot_2016_07_24_09_59_22_256.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jJWEka)
flat earthers give no respect to John Davis OR this forum
I'm clearly in the wrong place
-
ooh.. Look what I just found
anyone heard of Andrea Barnes?
http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/guides/searchguide.pdf
it was a school project!
-
bump
still waiting for an intelligent 2 way debate
has ANYONE got enough belief in the flat earth theory to actually have a DEBATE in the 'flat earth debate' section of the 'flat earth society forum'?
please only people who are WILLING TO DISCUSS their beliefs (not just tell me I'm wrong with no explanation)
thanks
-
anyone else have anything substantial to say about my points?
Yeah, shut up going on all the time.
I think this is the only time I can remember actually supporting anything CrabbyJim has said. Me and Jimbo are best buds for ever now.
-
anyone else have anything substantial to say about my points?
Yeah, shut up going on all the time.
I think this is the only time I can remember actually supporting anything CrabbyJim has said. Me and Jimbo are best buds for ever now.
avoid, divert and belittle
in other words, no, you've no argument.. pointless posting if you haven't anything with any substance to comment
looks like NO ONE can disprove my points.. and in turn, have accepted my points as truth
I gave you all ample chances to discuss.. but clearly there's nothing to discuss
fuckin amateurs
-
Precious snowflake, allow me to do you the service of disabusing your notion of entitlement. Noone owes you anything. If people are more interested in conversing with others who are polite or interesting, they are well within their rights. Many people, several of them globularists have tried to tell you that you are being needlessly abrasive.
For my part, I promise you whatever question it is you think you are cleverly posing, I have answered at some point in my eight some odd years here. Quite probably the poster asking was polite. One of them I know I answered mere days before you decided you were entitled to my time.
If I choose to use my free time at a park, playing sports, or reading rather than answer yet another time some question you think is snowflake precious and unique, it is my prerogative. Given the fact that you don't know whether smoke should rise or fall because balls fall to the earth, I can tell I will have to handhold you through any given subject. I choose not to spend my time that way. Mostly because of your ridiculous behaviour and attitude.
Take a hint from the other roundies. My advice is to adjust your expectations of those around you, to be polite to others (even if you think they are dumber than you), and to spend more time reading than typing. You may possibly learn a great deal.
-
I was nice from the off.. I was respectful and thankful.. see my first thread.. I STILL got no answers, just the same old shit
The mere fact you've ignored EVERYTHING ELSE I've said, apart from the smoke thing, which I CLEARLY ADMITTED was an off the cuff remark.. shows your only available angle......
..AVOID, DIVERT AND BELITTLE!!
You're all exactly the same
- constellation positions prove we're a globe
- the lunar eclipse proves we're a globe
- meteors disprove the dome
- crepuscular rays disprove a localised sun
(for thorough explanations, see my other threads, I've explained about fifty times, with no attempt of rebuttal)
you too, personally refuse to even TRY to take me on, it's abundantly clear why
you, like every single other flat earther on this forum, haven't got ANY answers, instead you just try to sound intelligent and call names
erm yeah great, have fun, you'll still sound like just another amateur who doesn't cross examine evidence
-
Here is a link where you can find answers I've given to all of those issues (excepting the crepuscular rays, which I've never propounded as evidence for a localized sun): link
Happy reading (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search)
-
very funny.. empty link..
I'm willing to discuss, why aren't you? I don't post links, use photos, show you videos, draw pictures, or tell you what my grandma said once..
I use visual, testable evidence that cannot be dismissed.. instead, VERY unsurprisingly, you just ignore my points completely
..again
amateur
-
I'm willing to discuss, why aren't you? I don't post links, use photos, show you videos, draw pictures, or tell you what my grandma said once..
Nobody here is obliged to debate you. If you would like them to then try to engage them in a reasonable way.
I'm reminded of this:
-
I tried that at first.. like I've already said..
the regular FE's are petty and argumentative, they avoid questions and divert people's threads away from the initial topics
they've not done anything to deserve me to keep treating them with respect.. I live by "treat how you want to be treated".. They want to be treated that way, that's fine
as for expecting a debate.. if you forgot, this is the Flat Earth Society Debate section
of course I expect a debate!
I've not met anyone on here that can do that
-
lol *tumbleweeds*
Ski you're all mouth and no trousers
-
lol *tumbleweeds*
Ski you're all mouth and no trousers
I am sorry that forum users are not here 24/7 to amuse you. Kind of funny how some of us have lives and do other things. We should all be here non-stop for your entertainment, if I am reading your sarcastic post correctly.
-
Precious snowflake, allow me to do you the service of disabusing your notion of entitlement. Noone owes you anything. If people are more interested in conversing with others who are polite or interesting, they are well within their rights. Many people, several of them globularists have tried to tell you that you are being needlessly abrasive.
For my part, I promise you whatever question it is you think you are cleverly posing, I have answered at some point in my eight some odd years here. Quite probably the poster asking was polite. One of them I know I answered mere days before you decided you were entitled to my time.
If I choose to use my free time at a park, playing sports, or reading rather than answer yet another time some question you think is snowflake precious and unique, it is my prerogative. Given the fact that you don't know whether smoke should rise or fall because balls fall to the earth, I can tell I will have to handhold you through any given subject. I choose not to spend my time that way. Mostly because of your ridiculous behaviour and attitude.
Take a hint from the other roundies. My advice is to adjust your expectations of those around you, to be polite to others (even if you think they are dumber than you), and to spend more time reading than typing. You may possibly learn a great deal.
-
Since the previous post was from jroa, I must assume that since you did not "Quote" anybodt in particular that
;D you are calling jroa "Precious snowflake"! ;D
etc, etc. No-one could ever call jroa "precious" or "snowflake".
Your criticism may be quite justified, but surely you should identify that person.
You never seem to name your victim! In some cases it is obvious, but why should we (or the target) have to wade through previous posts.
I know that I now run the risk of being accused of "memberating", so be it - guilty as charged, your honour!
Precious snowflake, allow me to do you the service of disabusing your notion of entitlement. Noone owes you anything. If people are more interested in conversing with others who are polite or interesting, they are well within their rights. Many people, several of them globularists have tried to tell you that you are being needlessly abrasive.
For my part, I promise you whatever question it is you think you are cleverly posing, I have answered at some point in my eight some odd years here. Quite probably the poster asking was polite. One of them I know I answered mere days before you decided you were entitled to my time.
If I choose to use my free time at a park, playing sports, or reading rather than answer yet another time some question you think is snowflake precious and unique, it is my prerogative. Given the fact that you don't know whether smoke should rise or fall because balls fall to the earth, I can tell I will have to handhold you through any given subject. I choose not to spend my time that way. Mostly because of your ridiculous behaviour and attitude.
Take a hint from the other roundies. My advice is to adjust your expectations of those around you, to be polite to others (even if you think they are dumber than you), and to spend more time reading than typing. You may possibly learn a great deal.
-
Jroa is precious to me.. You take that back!
-
Ski do you have a degree in literature?
Genuinely curious just the way you speak.
-
Ski do you have a degree in literature?
Genuinely curious just the way you speak.
Precisely, his posts are practically prose.
-
Ski do you have a degree in literature?
Genuinely curious just the way you speak.
Precisely, his posts are practically prose.
A nifty bit of alliteration I must say :-).
-
;D ;D ;D
-
a not so cleverly disguised attempt to cover the fact he's got no actual answers if you ask me
I've met FE's WITH things to say, Ski is definitely not one