The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: zarg on April 26, 2012, 06:50:56 PM

Title: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on April 26, 2012, 06:50:56 PM
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png)

Tom Bishop claims (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52374.msg1300878#msg1300878) that this, the "official" FES map depicted in the FAQ, was designed by Flat Earthers and that all maps which resemble it were stolen from the FES, and even that the geometrical transformation formulae which project the globe into this configuration were actually concocted after the fact (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52374.msg1301815#msg1301815).

Is this a prevailing view around here, or is Tom the only one making these bold claims?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 26, 2012, 09:23:49 PM
Are you asking if that map was created here?  Yes.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on April 26, 2012, 10:10:05 PM
No, I'm asking if it was designed by Flat Earthers and that all maps which resemble it were stolen from the FES, and even that the geometrical transformation formulae which project the globe into this configuration were actually concocted after the fact.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Rushy on April 26, 2012, 10:57:25 PM
No, I'm asking if it was designed by Flat Earthers

This was just answered.

that all maps which resemble it were stolen from the FES,

No one here or in the links you posted ever made that claim.

even that the geometrical transformation formulae which project the globe into this configuration were actually concocted after the fact.

After what fact? Purposely being vague to try and squeeze "gotcha!" answers out of someone is quite silly.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on April 26, 2012, 11:38:42 PM
No, I'm asking if it was designed by Flat Earthers

This was just answered.

It was answered with an apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the question.


No one here or in the links you posted ever made that claim.

Certainly Tom has.

Read Earth Not a Globe, please. The same model was used 150 years ago.
All of those originate from the Flat Earth maps in the 1800's.



even that the geometrical transformation formulae which project the globe into this configuration were actually concocted after the fact.

After what fact? Purposely being vague to try and squeeze "gotcha!" answers out of someone is quite silly.

I was trying to be succinct, not vague. It's a common idiom, at least in my experience, and I didn't think it would cause any confusion. What I mean is that Tom claimed that the map in the FAQ was not produced by -- nor based on something produced by -- the formula which produces a map that looks exactly like it. Rather, they invented it from scratch on their own, and then after it already existed, Round Earthers cleverly devised a formula to transform the globe into that configuration.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Rushy on April 27, 2012, 07:37:15 AM
No one here or in the links you posted ever made that claim.

Certainly Tom has.

Read Earth Not a Globe, please. The same model was used 150 years ago.
All of those originate from the Flat Earth maps in the 1800's.

www.rif.org  Tom said "all of those." He did not say all maps.



I was trying to be succinct, not vague. It's a common idiom, at least in my experience, and I didn't think it would cause any confusion. What I mean is that Tom claimed that the map in the FAQ was not produced by -- nor based on something produced by -- the formula which produces a map that looks exactly like it. Rather, they invented it from scratch on their own, and then after it already existed, Round Earthers cleverly devised a formula to transform the globe into that configuration.

The map and the formula is based on the original flat earth map.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on April 27, 2012, 08:01:05 AM
www.rif.org  Tom said "all of those." He did not say all maps.

There's no difference in meaning there.

The map and the formula is based on the original flat earth map.

...this is exactly the claim zarg is taking issue with.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 27, 2012, 08:19:32 AM
I was trying to be succinct, not vague. It's a common idiom, at least in my experience, and I didn't think it would cause any confusion. What I mean is that Tom claimed that the map in the FAQ was not produced by -- nor based on something produced by -- the formula which produces a map that looks exactly like it. Rather, they invented it from scratch on their own, and then after it already existed, Round Earthers cleverly devised a formula to transform the globe into that configuration.

Yes, that's correct. The Flat Earth map was popularized in the mid 1800's. If anyone later came up independently with that map layout, it's still the Flat Earth map from popular culture. It's just as if someone came up independently with a bat in an oval symbol. It's still the Batman symbol.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on April 27, 2012, 08:32:08 AM
So you're saying Rowbotham invented the azimuthal equidistant projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection)?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Rushy on April 27, 2012, 08:41:58 AM
www.rif.org  Tom said "all of those." He did not say all maps.

There's no difference in meaning there.

You need this too, apparently:

www.rif.org
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: iwanttobelieve on April 27, 2012, 12:02:18 PM
we really need to update the map to Master Willmore's Zetetic map.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: The Knowledge on April 27, 2012, 12:07:47 PM
we really need to update the map to Master Willmore's Zetetic map.

Use its correct title - the Magic Jumping Sun map. Furthermore it is in no way zetetic by any meaning of the word.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on April 27, 2012, 03:40:22 PM
You need this too, apparently:

www.rif.org

I'm sorry that you write nonsense that doesn't make any sense.  I'm sure that you're well aware of that fact, though.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again -- your trolling is getting very weak.  Maybe it always was and I didn't notice, but you're clearly putting zero effort into it here.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on April 27, 2012, 06:59:16 PM
Tom said "all of those." He did not say all maps.

Check the context. What I said, and what he said, mean the same thing. You'll notice that I didn't say "all maps", full stop, either.


The map and the formula is based on the original flat earth map.

Alright, then there's your vote. Glad that's settled.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on April 27, 2012, 07:05:35 PM
So you're saying Rowbotham invented the azimuthal equidistant projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection)?

That's basically what he's saying, except there's more: the result of the projection was designed by Flat-Earthers, without mathematically transforming the globe, and then someone invented the mathematics to make it look like it's based on a globe. To which my response (which received no answer) was:

You seem to be having a hard time grasping why the fact that "your" map perfectly matches this formula is such a ridiculous coincidence.  So let's ignore the math itself for now and look at the practical application of it:

I measure the distance from the center of that map to any other point on it; for example, let's say the southeastern corner of Australia. Now if I take a globe which has a circumference equal to the diameter of your map, and wrap a string from the north pole of that globe to the southeastern corner of Australia, the length of the string will be exactly the same measurement. This will work for a line from the north pole to anywhere else on the map. How do you explain this phenomenon?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on April 28, 2012, 04:31:37 AM
If this is a map of FE, then how do yo explain the southern hemisphere?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: iWitness on April 28, 2012, 07:45:51 AM
Are you guys sure the source wasn't the United Nations logo? Because the two maps look strikingly similar:

(http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/unseal04.gif)
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on April 28, 2012, 07:57:03 AM
There's one thing which is certain: either it's a FE map or a RE map.

It cannot be both at the same time.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on April 28, 2012, 08:24:45 AM
I find some science logos rather unsettling. DARPA use such logos. A globe with an illuminati conspiracy sign next to it. Its not very subtle.

(http://www.information-retrieval.info/docs/tia_logo_large.jpg)
How much are they trying to scream "we're part of the conspiracy"?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on April 28, 2012, 08:30:24 AM
Apparently, they are not.

FE'ers say: there's a conspiracy but we cannot prove it.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on April 28, 2012, 08:33:22 AM
Apparently, they are not.

FE'ers say: there's a conspiracy but we cannot prove it.
Why are you correcting me on what we say? I'm busy saying something else entirely. Conspiracy is a cornerstone of this society and I don't care what any of these newfags like iwanttobelieve say. There is a conspiracy. The proper FErs like Tom Bishop do not give you any of this "we can't prove it" rubbish.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on April 28, 2012, 08:48:54 AM
If there was a conspirace, would the DARPA guys put it so bluntly in a logo?

PS. since you question everything, why don't you question the conspiracy?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: iWitness on April 28, 2012, 08:49:33 AM
Apparently, they are not.

FE'ers say: there's a conspiracy but we cannot prove it.

I'd say the United Nations Logo having the Flat Earth map is a pretty good indication of a conspiracy.

Does no one else find that absolutely hilarious?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: iWitness on April 28, 2012, 08:50:27 AM
If there was a conspirace, would the DARPA guys put it so bluntly in a logo?

PS. since you question everything, why don't you question the conspiracy?


Because people are arrogant idiots that think they are Gods.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on April 28, 2012, 09:05:52 AM
Apparently, they are not.

FE'ers say: there's a conspiracy but we cannot prove it.

I'd say the United Nations Logo having the Flat Earth map is a pretty good indication of a conspiracy.

Does no one else find that absolutely hilarious?

In what way!?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: iWitness on April 28, 2012, 10:07:44 AM
Well you tell me...

Flat Earth society logo:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/FESlogo.gif)


United Nations logo:

(http://s3files.core77.com/blog/images/UN-LOGO%20copy.jpg)

And what you Round Earthers are trying to shove down our throats:

(http://www.planetaryvisions.com/images_new/4121.jpg)
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: iWitness on April 28, 2012, 10:38:07 AM
There is only one explanation for a coincidence of this magnitude ladies and gentlemen... And that is that Republicans WERE, in fact, the founding fathers of The Flat Earth Society. And those same Republicans, just so happen to be great ancestors of Daniel Shenton.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on April 28, 2012, 10:43:51 AM
There is only one explanation for a coincidence of this magnitude ladies and gentlemen... And that is that Republicans WERE, in fact, the founding fathers of The Flat Earth Society. And those same Republicans, just so happen to be great ancestors of Daniel Shenton.

Still devoid of sense.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on April 28, 2012, 12:17:02 PM
And what you Round Earthers are trying to shove down our throats:

Actually, that would be the United Nations logo too.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: hoppy on April 28, 2012, 01:06:35 PM
People are just not going to believe in a conspiracy, it is so huge they just won't believe it. It seems like it almost takes an act of God to see what is going on in the world. It is like"Men in Black" movie.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on April 28, 2012, 01:18:06 PM
People are just not going to believe in a conspiracy, it is so huge they just won't believe it. It seems like it almost takes an act of God to see what is going on in the world. It is like"Men in Black" movie.
Tom Bishop is our Tommy Lee Jones, Irushwithscvs is his apprentice Will Smith, cos he's still learning and cos he's black. I'm one of the aliens mooching through the airport with duty free cigarettes and Wilmore is the talking dog.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on April 28, 2012, 01:35:26 PM
People are just not going to believe in a conspiracy, it is so huge they just won't believe it. It seems like it almost takes an act of God to see what is going on in the world. It is like"Men in Black" movie.

It's so huge that it CANNOT exist.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on April 28, 2012, 01:50:38 PM
People are just not going to believe in a conspiracy, it is so huge they just won't believe it. It seems like it almost takes an act of God to see what is going on in the world. It is like"Men in Black" movie.

It's so huge that it CANNOT exist.
Now you are just speculating. Kindly refrain from rubbishing this society with idle musings.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on April 28, 2012, 03:08:57 PM
People are just not going to believe in a conspiracy, it is so huge they just won't believe it. It seems like it almost takes an act of God to see what is going on in the world. It is like"Men in Black" movie.

It's so huge that it CANNOT exist.
Now you are just speculating. Kindly refrain from rubbishing this society with idle musings.

"NO SPECULATING ABOUT CONSPIRACIES!" - Thork

 Got it Thork, thanks for the sound reasoning there.  I am sure you are not a troll. . .
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on April 28, 2012, 04:05:39 PM
People are just not going to believe in a conspiracy, it is so huge they just won't believe it. It seems like it almost takes an act of God to see what is going on in the world. It is like"Men in Black" movie.

It's so huge that it CANNOT exist.
Now you are just speculating. Kindly refrain from rubbishing this society with idle musings.

I'm not the one speculating about a conspiracy... I happen to know there's none.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on April 28, 2012, 04:22:28 PM
If we're going to talk about conspiracies here, can we at least confine it to whether the creation of the azimuthal equidistant projection was a conspiracy to plagiarize and discredit FES? Thork's post about DARPA and illuminati came out of left field; he hasn't even answered my question yet.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on April 29, 2012, 03:12:46 AM
Well you tell me...

Flat Earth society logo:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/FESlogo.gif)


United Nations logo:

(http://s3files.core77.com/blog/images/UN-LOGO%20copy.jpg)

And what you Round Earthers are trying to shove down our throats:

(http://www.planetaryvisions.com/images_new/4121.jpg)

Gotta FE map that really WORKS? Be my guest!
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: iwanttobelieve on April 29, 2012, 05:52:16 AM
Well you tell me...

Flat Earth society logo:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/FESlogo.gif)


United Nations logo:

(http://s3files.core77.com/blog/images/UN-LOGO%20copy.jpg)

And what you Round Earthers are trying to shove down our throats:

(http://www.planetaryvisions.com/images_new/4121.jpg)





According to the bible the only map that has four corners is the last one.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on April 30, 2012, 10:39:46 PM
Alright, so apparently at least 3 others besides Tom Bishop claim that the map originates from the FES. Interesting. Who created it? How did it come about? Tom Bishop posted a similar map (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.0); is he the mystery designer, perhaps?

Well, actually, with the help of another user here, I was able to find the tools used to create these maps:

So, here we have the map created by James Hastings-Trew:

(http://i.imgur.com/oGBhd.png)

(full size) (http://i.imgur.com/87HR9.jpg)


And, when loaded into GProjector and re-projected as azimuthal equidistant, we get an exact replica of the "Flat Earth" map:

(http://i.imgur.com/r9lHg.png)

(full size) (http://i.imgur.com/OrnLx.png)


Tweaking the variables a little, we get the version posted by Tom (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.0):

(http://i.imgur.com/OzXG8.png)

(full size) (http://i.imgur.com/eVr0u.png)


Care to explain, anyone?

By the way, James Hastings-Trew is clearly not a member of the Flat Earth Society. If this is your map, why don't you file a copyright dispute against him?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: canofpepsi on May 01, 2012, 04:18:10 AM
How does the method in which these particular renderings of the maps were created affect the fact that they were created by FES members?

How did you establish that James Hastings-Trew is not and was not a member of FES?

Thanks for the cool tool. It's fun to play with. I particularly like the Bacon Globular projection, because of the name.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on May 01, 2012, 10:50:34 AM
Except map-makers were using the projection hundreds of years before Rowobotham and the FES.

(http://i50.tinypic.com/t8opqc.jpg)

This is a map by Louis de Mayerne Turquet, made in 1648.  He wasn't a flat-earther, this was specifically a way of mapping the globe of the earth.

http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/24149?view=print (http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/24149?view=print)
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 01, 2012, 06:07:17 PM
How does the method in which these particular renderings of the maps were created affect the fact that they were created by FES members?

The method by which they were created is the whole point.  You evidently have not been following this thread:

Tom claimed that the map in the FAQ was not produced by -- nor based on something produced by -- the formula which produces a map that looks exactly like it. Rather, they invented it from scratch on their own, and then after it already existed, Round Earthers cleverly devised a formula to transform the globe into that configuration.
The map and the formula is based on the original flat earth map.
Yes, that's correct.



How did you establish that James Hastings-Trew is not and was not a member of FES?

If you had bothered to refer to the sources I provided, you would not be asking this question for any reason other than to troll. Look at his website (http://planetpixelemporium.com/earth.html).
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: canofpepsi on May 02, 2012, 09:18:50 AM
The method by which they were created is the whole point.
No, the method in which this particular image has been produced has nothing to do with it. Tom's original claim was regarding Voliva's map (Judging by the fact that he posted a picture of it in the link provided in the OP), which is not the map from the FAQ. The map from the FAQ just happens to be a re-rendering of the original map, and it may have been generated in numerous ways. Quite possibly in a way similar to what you've described.

Generally, what you've done here is you decided to be wilfully obtuse (I'm following your own definition of this term here) and misinterpret what Tom said. What he did say is: "We came up with the map and we don't care if someone else created a formula that lets you obtain a similar map." In other words, I CAN fire up an IDE of my choice and write an application that will generate a brand new animation of nyan cat, but that doesn't make me the creator of nyan cat. It's an incredibly simple concept

How did you establish that James Hastings-Trew is not and was not a member of FES?

If you had bothered to refer to the sources I provided, you would not be asking this question for any reason other than to troll. Look at his website (http://planetpixelemporium.com/earth.html).
I had bothered to do that. His website (including, but not limited to the web page you have linked us to) contains absolutely no mention of FES, his allegiance to FES or lack thereof, be that in the present, past, or even the future. To make this simpler: You have absolutely no reason to speculate that he is, or is not, a member of FES.

P.S. The quotes you have provided are taken out of context and distort the conversation massively. Please refrain from being dishonest in the future - it won't work.

EDIT:
So you're saying Rowbotham invented the azimuthal equidistant projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection)?
No. Look closely:

Rowbotham:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Rowbotham%27s_flat_Earth_map.jpg)

The azimuthal equidistant projection:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/480px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg)
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2012, 09:29:09 AM
Except map-makers were using the projection hundreds of years before Rowobotham and the FES.

http://i50.tinypic.com/t8opqc.jpg

This is a map by Louis de Mayerne Turquet, made in 1648.  He wasn't a flat-earther, this was specifically a way of mapping the globe of the earth.

http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/24149?view=print (http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/24149?view=print)

Firstly, that's a northern azimuthal projection, but it's not the map we use.

Secondly, I question how a map purported to be from the mid 1600's depicts Antarctica when it wasn't even discovered until the mid 1800's. This seems especially fishy.

Thirdly, the illustrator of that map probably IS a Flat Earther. He has the four angles of the winds stationed at the four corners of the earth, exactly as described in the biblical flat earth model.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: canofpepsi on May 02, 2012, 09:34:36 AM
To further support my point, I have superimposed Rowbotham's map on top of Cat Earth's Theory picture of the azimuthal equidistant projection.

(http://i.imgur.com/EL2sK.png)

Similar? Maybe, if you're not paying attention. Identical? Well, nope.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on May 02, 2012, 09:35:10 AM
Except map-makers were using the projection hundreds of years before Rowobotham and the FES.

http://i50.tinypic.com/t8opqc.jpg

This is a map by Louis de Mayerne Turquet, made in 1648.  He wasn't a flat-earther, this was specifically a way of mapping the globe of the earth.

http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/24149?view=print (http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/24149?view=print)

Firstly, that's a northern azimuthal projection, but it's not the map we use.

Obviously, just as the map used by the UN isn't Rowbotham's.

Secondly, I question how a map from the mid 1600's depicts Antarctica when it wasn't even discovered until the mid 1800's.

No, so wrong.  You'll notice it's quite hazy down there, and that what we now know is Australia appears to be part of Antarctica.  There hadn't been any expeditions but there was awareness of a southern continent.

Thirdly, the illustrator of that map probably IS a Flat Earther. He has the four angles of the winds stationed at the four corners of the earth, exactly as described int he biblical flat earth model.

You could speculate wildly, or you could actually click on the link and see the title is La Nouvelle maniere de representer le Globe terrestre.

Don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs, though.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: canofpepsi on May 02, 2012, 09:40:59 AM
Secondly, I question how a map from the mid 1600's depicts Antarctica when it wasn't even discovered until the mid 1800's.

No, so wrong.
Well, it was 1773, which is still considerably later than 1648.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on May 02, 2012, 09:42:46 AM
Secondly, I question how a map from the mid 1600's depicts Antarctica when it wasn't even discovered until the mid 1800's.

No, so wrong.
Well, it was 1773, which is still considerably later than 1648.

Read the edit.  As for the rest of your posts, they're obviously not the same exact map.  The claim has been made that the azimuthal equidistant projection is based on Rowbotham's map when it is in fact quite older.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_de_Castilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_de_Castilla)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Australis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Australis)
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2012, 09:50:46 AM
Quote
Secondly, I question how a map from the mid 1600's depicts Antarctica when it wasn't even discovered until the mid 1800's.

No, so wrong.

Perhaps you should read up on your history.

http://www.south-pole.com/p0000052.htm

The Antarctic continent was not even seen until 1820.

1773 is the year James Cook crossed the Antarctic Circle.

Quote
Thirdly, the illustrator of that map probably IS a Flat Earther. He has the four angles of the winds stationed at the four corners of the earth, exactly as described int he biblical flat earth model.

You could speculate wildly, or you could actually click on the link and see the title is La Nouvelle maniere de representer le Globe terrestre.

Don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs, though.

But what does that mean in 1600's itallian? As far as we know it says "an alternative to the terrestrial globe."

The four angles at the four corners of the earth clearly suggests that this is a flat earth map.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on May 02, 2012, 09:57:25 AM
Perhaps you should read up on your history.

http://www.south-pole.com/p0000052.htm

The Antarctic continent was not even seen until 1820.

1773 is the year James Cook crossed the Antarctic Circle.

Irrelevant, considering "antarctica" extends into the tropics.  It clearly wasn't drawn with solid information.

But what does that mean in 1600's itallian? As far as we know it says "an alternative to the terrestrial globe."

The four angles at the four corners of the earth clearly suggests that this is a flat earth map.

...

First, it's French.  Second, it roughly means new manner for representing the terrestrial globe.  This isn't moon speak, Tom.  I know the depths of your laziness know no bounds but you could exert even a small amount of effort.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: canofpepsi on May 02, 2012, 12:15:24 PM
Read the edit.  As for the rest of your posts, they're obviously not the same exact map.  The claim has been made that the azimuthal equidistant projection is based on Rowbotham's map when it is in fact quite older.
If that's what has been claimed, I am not going to defend it. That would be a silly thing to do.

However, reading through Tom's post, he seems to claim that the azimuthal equidistant projection was developed independently from Rowbotham's map.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 02, 2012, 03:17:44 PM
Why do FE'ers stick to this map or any RE map?

It is trying to transform a ball into a circle. It is impossible; the azimuthal equidistant projection is still a RE map, a projection of a sphere, it cannot be the representation of a flat surface.

And what's the use of latitudes on FE maps!?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 02, 2012, 07:25:05 PM
Tom's original claim was regarding Voliva's map (Judging by the fact that he posted a picture of it in the link provided in the OP), which is not the map from the FAQ.

Actually, he did make a claim about the map in the FAQ, as well as many others, not just Voliva's, and not just Rowbotham's. I don't understand why you're pursuing this, as Tom has already had the opportunity to correct my interpretation of his claim and he instead confirmed it. Your speculation on that matter is moot.


The map from the FAQ just happens to be a re-rendering of the original map, and it may have been generated in numerous ways. Quite possibly in a way similar to what you've described.

... Except the exact opposite was claimed to be the case. I thought I spelled this out very plainly. Again, read closely:

Tom claimed that the map in the FAQ was not produced by -- nor based on something produced by -- the formula which produces a map that looks exactly like it. Rather, they invented it from scratch on their own, and then after it already existed, Round Earthers cleverly devised a formula to transform the globe into that configuration.
The map and the formula is based on the original flat earth map.
Yes, that's correct.


The quotes you have provided are taken out of context and distort the conversation massively.

This accusation is made without any support. Please show us how you came to a different conclusion from these quotes than what I'm presenting them as. I really don't see how you could have unless you didn't consider the whole context.


... I CAN fire up an IDE of my choice and write an application that will generate a brand new animation of nyan cat, but that doesn't make me the creator of nyan cat.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be paraphrasing this argument that Tom made:

I can make a mathematical formula to draw swastikas on graphic calculators. It doesn't mean that I invented the swastika.

Are you supporting the assertion that a formula could have been fabricated to produce an existing human-invented map layout, and it's just a coincidence that said design was a mathematically perfect representation of the globe in the first place? The nyan-cat comparison doesn't even come close to representing the ludicrousness of this claim.


I had bothered to do that. His website (including, but not limited to the web page you have linked us to) contains absolutely no mention of FES, his allegiance to FES or lack thereof, be that in the present, past, or even the future. To make this simpler: You have absolutely no reason to speculate that he is, or is not, a member of FES.

What?  ???  Are you serious? Yes, I do have a very strong reason to speculate that he doesn't subscribe to FET: How about the fact that the entire website is devoted to Round-Earth astronomy and geography? If you're playing devil's advocate, I'm afraid you're not very good at it.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 02, 2012, 07:44:36 PM
And what's the use of latitudes on FE maps!?

I think they help Tom brainstorm plot devices for his made-up Flat Earth stories. For instance, he noticed that the lines on the equatorial aspect, shown here:

(http://i.imgur.com/HJWoY.gif)

... bear some resemblance to magnetic field diagrams, like this one:

(http://i.imgur.com/6bZzx.gif)

... which got the creative juices flowing and resulted in this quality bullshit:

The magnetic field lines blossom outwards from the North Pole as well as the South Pole. Imagine that the distorted longitude lines on the above map are magnetic field lines which the compass aligns with. In the North the compass will align with the field lines and take the user around the North Pole while traveling Eastwards or Westwards. Likewise, in the South the compass will align with the field lines and take the user around the South Pole while traveling Eastwards or Westwards.

Well, that's my guess anyway. :)
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: canofpepsi on May 02, 2012, 08:17:27 PM
Tom claimed that the map in the FAQ was not produced by -- nor based on something produced by -- the formula which produces a map that looks exactly like it. Rather, they invented it from scratch on their own, and then after it already existed, Round Earthers cleverly devised a formula to transform the globe into that configuration.
The map and the formula is based on the original flat earth map.
Yes, that's correct.
Perhaps you've been reading too closely. Try moving your eyes away from the screen so that you can distinguish letters. You have posted people's quotes in a sequence that suggests they're replying to each other. They're not. You are attempting to shove distortion down our throats, even after I called you out on it. Clearly you do not wish to be taken seriously.

Are you supporting the assertion that a formula could have been fabricated to produce an existing human-invented map layout, and it's just a coincidence that said design was a mathematically perfect representation of the globe in the first place? The nyan-cat comparison doesn't even come close to representing the ludicrousness of this claim.
No, I have already shown that Rowbotham's map and RE'ers' azimuthal projections are different maps. Again, eyes farther from the screen so that you can actually see:

(http://i.imgur.com/EL2sK.png)

What?  ???  Are you serious? Yes, I do have a very strong reason to speculate that he doesn't subscribe to FET: How about the fact that the entire website is devoted to Round-Earth astronomy and geography? If you're playing devil's advocate, I'm afraid you're not very good at it.
I find it interesting that you found it possible that I'm playing devil's advocate, but haven't even stopped to consider the fact that the website's owner might too. Also, a member of the Flat Earth Society need not be a Flat Earther. See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=66
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on May 02, 2012, 08:24:32 PM
The problem is that the map you identify as the "RE'ers' azimuthal projection" is claimed by Tom Bishop as originating with the FES and based on the basic idea of Rowbotham's map.  The same map is in the FAQ and wiki as a flat-earth map.  If you're arguing against anyone, it's Tom and not zarg.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: canofpepsi on May 03, 2012, 07:28:21 AM
If you're arguing against anyone, it's Tom and not zarg.
I'm arguing against both of them, although much more so against zarg, because he tries to lie to people about what they said in this very thread.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 03, 2012, 11:05:59 PM
Perhaps you've been reading too closely. Try moving your eyes away from the screen so that you can distinguish letters. You have posted people's quotes in a sequence that suggests they're replying to each other. They're not. You are attempting to shove distortion down our throats, even after I called you out on it. Clearly you do not wish to be taken seriously.

You're the only one denying the fact that the claim's been made. Unless you're prepared to answer this question clearly, please stop trolling this thread:

This accusation is made without any support. Please show us how you came to a different conclusion from these quotes than what I'm presenting them as.


No, I have already shown that Rowbotham's map and RE'ers' azimuthal projections are different maps.

Um, I know they're different. Tom is the one who's claiming that they are similar enough that Rowbotham gets credit for both.  I really don't understand why you're pointing out the fact that the two are different maps as if it's not something I'm already supporting. If I thought they were the same, what case would I have that Flat Earthers were not the original source? In fact, I even said the very same thing that you're saying in the original thread. Behold:

Read Earth Not a Globe, please. The same model was used 150 years ago.

I have, and this:

(http://i.imgur.com/FHX6e.jpg)

is not the same map at all.

To which Tom replied:

Yes it is. With the exception of Australia and New Zealand it's nearly exactly the same.

Are you still going to accuse me of not paying attention? ::)



I find it interesting that you found it possible that I'm playing devil's advocate, but haven't even stopped to consider the fact that the website's owner might too. Also, a member of the Flat Earth Society need not be a Flat Earther. See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=66

To whom might he be playing devil's advocate? He is not involved in a debate. He makes maps. Globular ones. That's pretty much the only data we have on the man. Now tell me: Based on this data, which speculation about his beliefs, RE vs FE, is most reasonable to presume?



If you're arguing against anyone, it's Tom and not zarg.
I'm arguing against both of them, although much more so against zarg, because he tries to lie to people about what they said in this very thread.

Oh, really? You're arguing against both me and Tom, are you? ;D So if I'm lying about Tom's stance, what stance of Tom's is it that you are arguing with? You can't have it both ways, my carbonated friend.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: James on May 04, 2012, 02:58:49 AM
These disputes over intellectual ownership are not useful - nobody owns these maps, they are representations of the actual Earth.  One can no more claim dominion over the idea or form of these maps than one can do for the Earth.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 04, 2012, 04:49:17 AM
These disputes over intellectual ownership are not useful - nobody owns these maps, they are representations of the actual Earth.  One can no more claim dominion over the idea or form of these maps than one can do for the Earth.

It still remains to be proved that they are FE maps.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 04, 2012, 05:27:50 PM
These disputes over intellectual ownership are not useful - nobody owns these maps, they are representations of the actual Earth.  One can no more claim dominion over the idea or form of these maps than one can do for the Earth.

That's not really what I'm getting at, and my comment about disputing IP with James Hastings-Trew was meant mostly as a joke.

What I'm trying to determine is the evolution behind the map in the FAQ. It's clearly a pixel-perfect copy of a modern Round Earth map. The question is, did the FES copy that map out of laziness, or did you invent it before it was discovered by RE'ers that by pure coincidence it fits their ideas perfectly?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: James on May 04, 2012, 07:41:11 PM
Our cartography is derived from the actual shape and form of the Earth.  Round Earth maps must try as best as possible to match observable data (lest they be revealed as spurious lies and drivel), so it is not surprising there are similarities.

Yet however, Gauss' theorem proves that the surface of a sphere can never be perfectly imputed to two dimensional representations.  Thus, the Round Earther's empirical maps can never quite add up to his spherical model. He must distort either the true size, shape or spacing of the continents to accommodate his faulty sphere. A flat empirical map which does not presuppose that the Earth is a globe is not subject to such constraints and can therefore be 100% accurate.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 04, 2012, 08:46:47 PM
it is not surprising there are similarities.

But we're talking more than mere "similarities" here, Jim. This is blatant ripping off.

(http://i.imgur.com/WA7KV.jpg)

I personally produced the map on the left using a tool from NASA that works based on spherical geometry.

The map on the right is the one on display in your FAQ.


the Round Earther's empirical maps can never quite add up to his spherical model. He must distort either the true size, shape or spacing of the continents to accommodate his faulty sphere. A flat empirical map which does not presuppose that the Earth is a globe is not subject to such constraints and can therefore be 100% accurate.

Utterly false. When viewed as a representation flat surface, the above map is not accurate. If it were a 2D projection, then it could be relied on for distances between any two points, but it can't. It can however be relied on for any path that crosses through the center.

In Flat Earth terms, only one of these two maps can be correct (this one (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png) or this one (http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/3735/trueearthpu3.png)). In reality, both are correct when measuring through the center. They have been successfully relied on for years.

Refer to my still-unanswered challenge:

I measure the distance from the center of that map to any other point on it; for example, let's say the southeastern corner of Australia. Now if I take a globe which has a circumference equal to the diameter of your map, and wrap a string from the north pole of that globe to the southeastern corner of Australia, the length of the string will be exactly the same measurement. This will work for a line from the north pole to anywhere else on the map. How do you explain this phenomenon?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: canofpepsi on May 05, 2012, 04:34:53 AM
Actually, now that you've made this:

(http://i.imgur.com/WA7KV.jpg)

We can clearly see that the map you've "personally produced" is of significantly lower quality. Perhaps this is because it has been re-shaped so many times?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 05, 2012, 07:59:23 AM
Actually, now that you've made this:

(http://i.imgur.com/WA7KV.jpg)

We can clearly see that the map you've "personally produced" is of significantly lower quality. Perhaps this is because it has been re-shaped so many times?

Re-shaped or not, it is still a RE map.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 05, 2012, 01:53:01 PM
We can clearly see that the map you've "personally produced" is of significantly lower quality. Perhaps this is because it has been re-shaped so many times?

Actually, no it's not lower quality, it's higher. The original can be viewed here (http://i.imgur.com/OrnLx.png). The only reason it's lower quality in the side-by-side shot is because I had to shrink the screenshot to match the size of the FAQ map. Here it is again, this time with my version unmodified and the FAQ's enlarged to fit:

(http://i.imgur.com/UB0CX.jpg)

And what exactly are you trying to say? That I've deceptively modified the output? You can easily do this in 2 minutes and see for yourself. You can download the texture here (http://i.imgur.com/87HR9.jpg), and download the tool here (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/gprojector/). All you need to do is load the file, set the projection to "Azimuthal Equidistant", set the long/lat to 0 degrees east / 90 degrees north, and radius to 180 degrees. Boom, instant FES merchandise. No tricks here.

When will you tire of making baseless accusations of my motives and sincerity? This is really getting old.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 05, 2012, 02:48:35 PM
We can clearly see that the map you've "personally produced" is of significantly lower quality. Perhaps this is because it has been re-shaped so many times?

Actually, no it's not lower quality, it's higher. The original can be viewed here (http://i.imgur.com/OrnLx.png). The only reason it's lower quality in the side-by-side shot is because I had to shrink the screenshot to match the size of the FAQ map. Here it is again, this time with my version unmodified and the FAQ's enlarged to fit:

(http://i.imgur.com/UB0CX.jpg)

And what exactly are you trying to say? That I've deceptively modified the output? You can easily do this in 2 minutes and see for yourself. You can download the texture here (http://i.imgur.com/87HR9.jpg), and download the tool here (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/gprojector/). All you need to do is load the file, set the projection to "Azimuthal Equidistant", set the long/lat to 0 degrees east / 90 degrees north, and radius to 180 degrees. Boom, instant FES merchandise. No tricks here.

When will you tire of making baseless accusations of my motives and sincerity? This is really getting old.

So you're saying that this FE map is based on a FE map and you can prove it?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: canofpepsi on May 05, 2012, 05:49:51 PM
When will you tire of making baseless accusations of my motives and sincerity? This is really getting old.
As soon as you stop being insincere, of course. I agree, it's quite boring by now. So you could just stop.
Oh, and I never questioned your motives. So that's you being insincere again. Oh my, oh my.

Also, your "original" map is still of visibly worse quality. In the last picture, where you intentionally lower the FAQ map's quality (not accusing you of anything here, you said that's what you're doing), they look pretty much the same. As you're constantly unable to produce a map of comparable quality from the rectangular map you propose as the "source" of this rendition, I'm afraid that it simply can't be the source.

Now, back to the point - this rendering was something made from illustrative purposes. I don't know how, and I don't know by whom. However, it has little to do with Rowbotham's/Voliva's/other historic FE'ers' maps, which are what Tom was originally talking about. As you can see, it's not only that you're wrong/lying about how the particular picture was produced, but also the fact that it's of no relevance at all.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 05, 2012, 10:31:52 PM
So you're saying that this FE map is based on a FE map and you can prove it?

Did you mean "based on a RE map"? Yes, I would say that's thoroughly self-evident at this point.



I never questioned your motives.

Yes, you did. Earlier you accused me of purposefully distorting Tom's claim, and now you are insinuating that I have "re-shaped" the map "many times" to make it match. These are accusations of premeditated deception. Please defer your attacks on my character until you have a shred of evidence to support them.


Also, your "original" map is still of visibly worse quality. In the last picture, where you intentionally lower the FAQ map's quality (not accusing you of anything here, you said that's what you're doing), they look pretty much the same. As you're constantly unable to produce a map of comparable quality from the rectangular map you propose as the "source" of this rendition, I'm afraid that it simply can't be the source.

Good grief, what a load of rubbish. Stop wasting everyone's time whining about jpeg compression artifacts or whatever it is you're seeing. The quality of my screenshot is perfectly fine for the purpose of demonstrating how blindingly obvious it is that the Hastings-Trew texture is the source of the FAQ map. But since you insist on being a weenie about this, I'll export one to the exact specifications of the FAQ map. Observe:

(http://i.imgur.com/E5KcA.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/NyPEf.png)

And here is the resulting file uncompressed: http://i.cubeupload.com/itgM2C.png (http://i.cubeupload.com/itgM2C.png)

Compare with the FAQ: http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png)


Now, back to the point - this rendering was something made from illustrative purposes. I don't know how, and I don't know by whom. However, it has little to do with Rowbotham's/Voliva's/other historic FE'ers' maps, which are what Tom was originally talking about. As you can see, it's not only that you're wrong/lying about how the particular picture was produced, but also the fact that it's of no relevance at all.

For what I sincerely hope will be the last time, "how the particular picture was produced" is the whole point of this thread, and your insistence that Tom has not made these claims remains unfounded. If you aren't interested in the topic, kindly leave the thread rather than telling me that it's of no relevance.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: canofpepsi on May 05, 2012, 10:36:49 PM
And here is the resulting file uncompressed: http://i.cubeupload.com/itgM2C.png (http://i.cubeupload.com/itgM2C.png)

Compare with the FAQ: http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png)
Still nowhere near. It's even missing some islands!

Yes, you did.
Nope. Oh well, I guess you insist on still being dishonest. Enjoy being called dishonest.

For what I sincerely hope will be the last time, "how the particular picture was produced" is the whole point of this thread, and your insistence that Tom has not made these claims remains unfounded.
It remains founded by the OP. The OP is titled "The source of FES's map", and the quotes provided refer to maps significantly older than the one in the FAQ. In other words, you've just proven yourself wrong... again.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on May 05, 2012, 10:46:10 PM
First response, Roundy says the map in question was created here.  Also, the whole obvious troll niche is already filled to the max.  I'd suggest finding a different area to specialize in.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: canofpepsi on May 05, 2012, 10:50:47 PM
First response, Roundy says the map in question was created here.
It was.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 06, 2012, 02:11:54 PM
Still nowhere near. It's even missing some islands!
Nope.
It remains founded by the OP.
It was.

Incorrect.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 07, 2012, 06:56:43 PM
No, that map was definitely created here.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 07, 2012, 10:34:21 PM
No, that map was definitely created here.

Or so the story goes.  This guy (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=7909) claims to be the creator. From the Wikimedia upload page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png):

Quote
2008-11-14 14:33 Trekky0623 543×543× (405315 bytes) {{PD-self|date=17 August 2007}} I made this map myself by creating an azimuthal projection of the entire Earth.

Yet according to Tom it was invented by FE'ers (which Trekky0623 is not) and without using globular projections (which Trekky0623 claims to have done).

So someone is lying. Who?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 08, 2012, 12:32:25 AM
He did make the map. Using a RE map and RE software.

And the result is a map with the deformation that usually occurs when you project a sphere on a flat surface.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 08, 2012, 05:43:28 AM
No, that map was definitely created here.

Or so the story goes.  This guy (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=7909) claims to be the creator. From the Wikimedia upload page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png):

Quote
2008-11-14 14:33 Trekky0623 543×543× (405315 bytes) {{PD-self|date=17 August 2007}} I made this map myself by creating an azimuthal projection of the entire Earth.

Yet according to Tom it was invented by FE'ers (which Trekky0623 is not) and without using globular projections (which Trekky0623 claims to have done).

So someone is lying. Who?


Trekky0623 is an Official Member and Friend of the Flat Earth Society. No-one is lying, you're just wrong (as usual).
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 08, 2012, 06:42:43 AM
No, that map was definitely created here.

Or so the story goes.  This guy (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=7909) claims to be the creator. From the Wikimedia upload page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png):

Quote
2008-11-14 14:33 Trekky0623 543×543× (405315 bytes) {{PD-self|date=17 August 2007}} I made this map myself by creating an azimuthal projection of the entire Earth.

Yet according to Tom it was invented by FE'ers (which Trekky0623 is not) and without using globular projections (which Trekky0623 claims to have done).

So someone is lying. Who?

Trekky0623 is an Official Member and Friend of the Flat Earth Society. No-one is lying, you're just wrong (as usual).

He did a FE map using a RE map? Could be true.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 08, 2012, 02:50:02 PM
Trekky0623 is an Official Member and Friend of the Flat Earth Society.

So is squevil. Your point? A review of Trekky's post history quickly demonstrates that he's a RE advocate.


No-one is lying, you're just wrong (as usual).

Yes, someone is certainly lying. On the one hand we have Tom Bishop saying that the FAQ's map was designed by FE'ers from scratch and the azimuthal projection was later derived from their map. On the other, we have a FE denier claiming that it's a RE azimuthal projection from its inception.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 08, 2012, 02:57:14 PM
Trekky0623 is an Official Member and Friend of the Flat Earth Society.

So is squevil. Your point? A review of Trekky's post history quickly demonstrates that he's a RE advocate.


No-one is lying, you're just wrong (as usual).

Yes, someone is certainly lying. On the one hand we have Tom Bishop saying that the FAQ's map was designed by FE'ers from scratch and the azimuthal projection was later derived from their map. On the other, we have a FE denier claiming that it's a RE azimuthal projection from its inception.

I doubt there's a single FE'er here capable of drawing a FE map.

Even if they tried, they couldn't.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 08, 2012, 03:06:19 PM
No, that map was definitely created here.

Or so the story goes.  This guy (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=7909) claims to be the creator. From the Wikimedia upload page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png):

Quote
2008-11-14 14:33 Trekky0623 543×543× (405315 bytes) {{PD-self|date=17 August 2007}} I made this map myself by creating an azimuthal projection of the entire Earth.

Yet according to Tom it was invented by FE'ers (which Trekky0623 is not) and without using globular projections (which Trekky0623 claims to have done).

So someone is lying. Who?

Well, I never claimed that it was created by FEers.  My sole claim was that the map was created here, and indeed, it was.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Kendrick on May 08, 2012, 03:06:30 PM
If the very REPRESENTATION of the flat earth, indeed - idea that this proud society STANDS FOR - was created using tainted globularist propaganda and not direct observations it is a dark day for Zeteticism.

But seriously you would think that there would be a record of how Rowbothams map was changed over time - modified as a result of the direct observations of Zeteticists to (one of the) maps in the FAQ.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 08, 2012, 06:44:05 PM
Trekky0623 is an Official Member and Friend of the Flat Earth Society.

So is squevil. Your point? A review of Trekky's post history quickly demonstrates that he's a RE advocate.


His post-history prior to joining, or his post-history since joining?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 08, 2012, 07:21:16 PM
His post-history prior to joining, or his post-history since joining?

Actually, the point at which he "joined" the Society doesn't enter into the equation; what's relevant is the time at which he actually produced the map. You will find RE sentiments both before and after the posts wherein he refers to his map. Thus he, at the very least, was a RE'er at the time that he produced the map; ergo, your map was produced by a RE'er.


Well, I never claimed that it was created by FEers.  My sole claim was that the map was created here, and indeed, it was.

Of course, which is why I had to clarify the question for you. This is not about who was directly responsible for bringing this particular image file into being, it's about the lineage of its development:

The question is, did the FES copy that map out of laziness, or did you invent it before it was discovered by RE'ers that by pure coincidence it fits their ideas perfectly?

James tells me "Our cartography is derived from the actual shape and form of the Earth." From this statement and Trekky0623's statement, we can infer three possibilities: Trekky0623 lied about his authorship or method of producing the image; James is telling us that the actual shape and form of the Earth is a globe; or James lied about what their cartography is derived from.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 08, 2012, 07:28:21 PM
His post-history prior to joining, or his post-history since joining?

Actually, the point at which he "joined" the Society doesn't enter into the equation; what's relevant is the time at which he actually produced the map. You will find RE sentiments both before and after the posts wherein he refers to his map. Thus he, at the very least, was a RE'er at the time that he produced the map; ergo, your map was produced by a RE'er.


Well, I never claimed that it was created by FEers.  My sole claim was that the map was created here, and indeed, it was.

Of course, which is why I had to clarify the question for you. This is not about who was directly responsible for bringing this particular image file into being, it's about the lineage of its development:

The question is, did the FES copy that map out of laziness, or did you invent it before it was discovered by RE'ers that by pure coincidence it fits their ideas perfectly?

James tells me "Our cartography is derived from the actual shape and form of the Earth." From this statement and Trekky0623's statement, we can infer three possibilities: Trekky0623 lied about his authorship or method of producing the image; James is telling us that the actual shape and form of the Earth is a globe; or James lied about what their cartography is derived from.

So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 08, 2012, 07:40:25 PM
His post-history prior to joining, or his post-history since joining?

Actually, the point at which he "joined" the Society doesn't enter into the equation; what's relevant is the time at which he actually produced the map. You will find RE sentiments both before and after the posts wherein he refers to his map. Thus he, at the very least, was a RE'er at the time that he produced the map; ergo, your map was produced by a RE'er.


First of all, can we see some evidence substantiating the bolded claim?


Secondly, this shift in goalposts is frankly laughable. The poll in the OP, which you created, presents the following options: 1) FES, and 2) Elsewhere. Either way, you're wrong - as usual.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 08, 2012, 09:02:17 PM
His post-history prior to joining, or his post-history since joining?

Actually, the point at which he "joined" the Society doesn't enter into the equation; what's relevant is the time at which he actually produced the map. You will find RE sentiments both before and after the posts wherein he refers to his map. Thus he, at the very least, was a RE'er at the time that he produced the map; ergo, your map was produced by a RE'er.


First of all, can we see some evidence substantiating the bolded claim?

Of course.

May 4th, 2007: Trekky posts the original version his map. [link (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13322.msg199219#msg199219)]

October 1st, 2007: Trekky argues against FET. [link (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17229.msg297120#msg297120)] Refers to RET as "our theory".

March 31st, 2008: More arguing against FET. [link (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20211.msg380378#msg380378)] "Flat Earth Theory has NO PROOF"; "The Earth is not special, it is like all other planets.  The sun is not special, it is like all other stars, etc."

December 28, 2008: He clarifies that his pro-FE posts are devil's advocacy. [link (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25731.msg574952#msg574952)]


Secondly, this shift in goalposts is frankly laughable. The poll in the OP, which you created, presents the following options: 1) FES, and 2) Elsewhere. Either way, you're wrong - as usual.

Yes. The poll answers are and always were what I am looking for: Does the map design originate from within or without?

Please show me where I moved the goalposts. What I'm saying now is in line with my OP, which remains unedited:

designed by Flat Earthers and that all maps which resemble it were stolen from the FES, and even that the geometrical transformation formulae which project the globe into this configuration were actually concocted after the fact

Funny how Cat Earth Theory, Tom Bishop, and Emperor Zhark all understood where I was coming from before I supposedly moved the goalposts -- did they see into the future? If you were too lazy to read anything beyond the thread title and and the poll choices, that's your problem.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 08, 2012, 09:16:24 PM
May 4th, 2007: Trekky posts the original version his map. [link (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13322.msg199219#msg199219)]


Funny, that isn't the map you posted in the OP. Did you make a mistake?


Moreover, the only post you provide that was made after he created the map used in the OP in no way indicates belief in a RE. Meaning you're wrong again.


Yes. The poll answers are and always were what I am looking for: Does the map design originate from within or without?

Please show me where I moved the goalposts. What I'm saying now is in line with my OP, which remains unedited:

designed by Flat Earthers and that all maps which resemble it were stolen from the FES, and even that the geometrical transformation formulae which project the globe into this configuration were actually concocted after the fact

Funny how Cat Earth Theory, Tom Bishop, and Emperor Zhark all understood where I was coming from before I supposedly moved the goalposts -- did they see into the future? If you were too lazy to read anything beyond the thread title and and the poll choices, that's your problem.


Uh... the map in question was created here, at tFES, for tFES, by someone who is an Official Member of tFES, and a long-time defender of FET. Now you're saying he has to have been a FE'er at the time of the map's creation, which is neither in your poll nor your OP.


Hence goalpost-shifting, ergo you lose. Come up with a more worthwhile argument next time, zarg. That way you'll at least lose in pursuit of something worth winning.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 08, 2012, 09:23:46 PM
So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.  The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".  Why ask this question, then ignore it in favor of a completely different discussion in the thread itself?  I can see using a simple poll question as a springboard for discussion, of course; it just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to make that question completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question).
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 08, 2012, 09:32:10 PM
Yeah, I think it's clear a this point that having not got the answer he wanted, zarg decided to ask a different question. Indeed, aside from being a clear strawman to begin with, zarg's  position not only fails on its own terms, but does not even carry weight in its new, restated terms. It's a nothing argument, going nowhere.


And you have to wonder, what point of value did he aim to make anyway?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on May 08, 2012, 11:12:04 PM
Wilmore, did you even read the OP?  It's unedited.

Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 08, 2012, 11:56:36 PM
May 4th, 2007: Trekky posts the original version his map. [link (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13322.msg199219#msg199219)]


Funny, that isn't the map you posted in the OP. Did you make a mistake?

No, you did. Please try to pay attention.

edit: If you want to get really picky, we can look at the upload date on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.jpg): August 17, 2007, by user Trekky0623. Which still falls prior to the other three links I posted. Nice try.


Moreover, the only post you provide that was made after he created the map used in the OP in no way indicates belief in a RE. Meaning you're wrong again.

Elaborate, with evidence.


Uh... the map in question was created here, at tFES, for tFES, by someone who is an Official Member of tFES, and a long-time defender of FET. Now you're saying he has to have been a FE'er at the time of the map's creation, which is neither in your poll nor your OP.

First of all, yes he obviously does need to have been a FE'er at the map's creation. If he was not, then it is a false statement that the map was created by a FE'er. This is extremely basic logic.

Secondly, again, whether it was produced here and/or by a FE'er does not fully address the question. Again, this is from the OP, not something new I pulled out of my ass. The Original Post:

Quote
designed by Flat Earthers and that all maps which resemble it were stolen from the FES, and even that the geometrical transformation formulae which project the globe into this configuration were actually concocted after the fact

So, let's pretend that Trekky0623 is/was a die-hard FET proponent. How would that even address the above? Why is he using / claiming to use a globular map for FET? Why is Tom Bishop telling me that this map was developed independently from the azimuthal projection formula? Where is the lineage between this map and Rowbotham's (see Kendrick's post)? If you are going to stand by the claims of Tom Bishop / James etc., there are many, many unanswered questions.



So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.

No it doesn't.

Yes. The poll answers are and always were what I am looking for: Does the map design originate from within or without?


The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".

Again, read the freaking OP. You gave a knee-jerk answer in your first reply, having only paid attention to the thread title, which I immediately corrected by quoting the OP. Regarding your reply, I said, quote: It was answered with an apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the question.


I can see using a simple poll question as a springboard for discussion, of course; it just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to make that question completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand

It's not irrelevant, however I will concede that if people answered without paying close attention to the question, as you did, then the results aren't meaningful. That said however, we still have at least 3 who explicitly stand by the allegation: Tom Bishop, Irushwithcvs, and James.


and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question

Please show me where in this thread I concluded specifically that one person in particular was lying. You'll find that I said "someone is lying -- who?". It's basic inference -- when you have two mutually exclusive claims, at least one of them is clearly not the truth.



And you have to wonder, what point of value did he aim to make anyway?

Originally, it was merely a question, to find out if Tom was on his own. I'm also trying to encourage the claimants to either provide evidence or admit that they were making shit up. If you read carefully, you'll notice I have avoided actually making any positive claims in this thread. All I'm doing is asking for explanations.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 09, 2012, 12:28:34 AM
So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.  The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".  Why ask this question, then ignore it in favor of a completely different discussion in the thread itself?  I can see using a simple poll question as a springboard for discussion, of course; it just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to make that question completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question).

Nice poll! 14 people answered it.
What does this number tell us? That we cannot draw any conclusions from such a small group of people.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 09, 2012, 06:44:30 AM
So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.  Saying "They are about the same thing!" when they so clearly aren't doesn't address the question, it handwaves it.  Also interesting that instead of choosing to give a real answer to my post you shorten it to its bare bones and handwave its central point again.  Whatever you're discussing in the body of this thread, it remains a fact that the source of that map is the FES.

So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.  The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".  Why ask this question, then ignore it in favor of a completely different discussion in the thread itself?  I can see using a simple poll question as a springboard for discussion, of course; it just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to make that question completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question).

Nice poll! 14 people answered it.
What does this number tell us? That we cannot draw any conclusions from such a small group of people.


Wait, you mean a poll on an internet message board is meaningless?  Shocking!
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 09, 2012, 08:34:01 AM

So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.  The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".  Why ask this question, then ignore it in favor of a completely different discussion in the thread itself?  I can see using a simple poll question as a springboard for discussion, of course; it just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to make that question completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question).

Nice poll! 14 people answered it.
What does this number tell us? That we cannot draw any conclusions from such a small group of people.


Wait, you mean a poll on an internet message board is meaningless?  Shocking!

Yep! It's called statistics.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 09, 2012, 10:48:47 AM
May 4th, 2007: Trekky posts the original version his map. [link (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13322.msg199219#msg199219)]


Funny, that isn't the map you posted in the OP. Did you make a mistake?

No, you did. Please try to pay attention.

edit: If you want to get really picky, we can look at the upload date on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.jpg): August 17, 2007, by user Trekky0623. Which still falls prior to the other three links I posted. Nice try.


That is not the map used in our FAQ. You didn't even use it in your OP. The map you used in the OP, and which is in the FAQ, was not uploaded until the 11th of November, 2008 (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png).


So you did make a mistake.



Elaborate, with evidence.


How am I supposed to provide evidence of what isn't in there? You posted a link to the post - have you read it? It does not contain "RE sentiments" as you claimed.


First of all, yes he obviously does need to have been a FE'er at the map's creation. If he was not, then it is a false statement that the map was created by a FE'er. This is extremely basic logic.


This is nonsense. Most people would agree that the Theory of Special Relativity was created by the scientist, Albert Einstein. This is not a controversial statement. But of course he was not a scientist at the time, so by your reasoning, the above statement is false. This is a classic case of you making an argumentative mountain out of a semantic molehill.


Moreover, Tom's claim was not that FE'ers created the map. He claimed that "we" created the map, referring to "FES" in your original post:


So let me get this straight. You're saying that it's more likely that the UN stole this (http://i.imgur.com/FHX6e.jpg) to produce this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png) than it is likely that the FES stole this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg) to produce this (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png).

Those are all versions of the FE map. We came up with the design


This whole thread is predicated on a misrepresentation of what Tom actually said. The simple fact is that his description aligns with the facts.


Secondly, again, whether it was produced here and/or by a FE'er does not fully address the question. Again, this is from the OP, not something new I pulled out of my ass. The Original Post:

Quote
designed by Flat Earthers and that all maps which resemble it were stolen from the FES, and even that the geometrical transformation formulae which project the globe into this configuration were actually concocted after the fact

So, let's pretend that Trekky0623 is/was a die-hard FET proponent. How would that even address the above? Why is he using / claiming to use a globular map for FET? Why is Tom Bishop telling me that this map was developed independently from the azimuthal projection formula? Where is the lineage between this map and Rowbotham's (see Kendrick's post)? If you are going to stand by the claims of Tom Bishop / James etc., there are many, many unanswered questions.


Again, this is a total misrepresentation of what Tom actually said. When did Tom make the bolded claim with respect to the map Trekky created? As for the lineage between them, it's simple: Trekky came here, saw the map from Earth Not a Globe (and possibly others such as Voliva's), and decided to create a similar representation of the continents.


All Tom is claiming is that the map from Earth Not a Globe inspired Trekky to create the map in the FAQ, and to replicate the geographic layout seen in Earth Not a Globe. You're trying to get one over on Tom by distorting what he actually said, but unlike you, he hasn't made claims that cannot be backed up.




The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".

Again, read the freaking OP. You gave a knee-jerk answer in your first reply, having only paid attention to the thread title, which I immediately corrected by quoting the OP. Regarding your reply, I said, quote: It was answered with an apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the question.


The questions in the OP have also been dealt with. Moreover, you are responsible for creating the poll. The poll is part of your OP. Clearly, the answer to your poll is 'FES', and not 'Elsewhere'. The scope of your OP has nothing to do with what is the appropriate response to the poll.



It's not irrelevant, however I will concede that if people answered without paying close attention to the question, as you did, then the results aren't meaningful. That said however, we still have at least 3 who explicitly stand by the allegation: Tom Bishop, Irushwithcvs, and James.


It is not a matter of us not paying attention. Simply put, you asked one question in the poll and another in the OP. The correct answer to the question posed in the poll is 'FES'.


and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question

Please show me where in this thread I concluded specifically that one person in particular was lying. You'll find that I said "someone is lying -- who?". It's basic inference -- when you have two mutually exclusive claims, at least one of them is clearly not the truth.


Sorry, what? All I said is that you "claim[ed] LIES", which you did. Is this another strawman under construction?



Originally, it was merely a question, to find out if Tom was on his own. I'm also trying to encourage the claimants to either provide evidence or admit that they were making shit up. If you read carefully, you'll notice I have avoided actually making any positive claims in this thread. All I'm doing is asking for explanations.


Sorry, but you haven't just been asking for explanations. Rather, you've been distorting the claims made by others in order to claim they've been "making shit up". The trouble is, you're the one whose been "making shit up", namely the claims you have attributed to others.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 09, 2012, 02:20:36 PM
Did I do a quote-fart? If so, thanks for fixing it up, Ski!
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 09, 2012, 07:16:28 PM

So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.  The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".  Why ask this question, then ignore it in favor of a completely different discussion in the thread itself?  I can see using a simple poll question as a springboard for discussion, of course; it just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to make that question completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question).

Nice poll! 14 people answered it.
What does this number tell us? That we cannot draw any conclusions from such a small group of people.


Wait, you mean a poll on an internet message board is meaningless?  Shocking!

Yep! It's called statistics.

Do you have trouble recognizing sarcasm?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 09, 2012, 10:19:46 PM
If you want to get really picky, we can look at the upload date on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.jpg): August 17, 2007, by user Trekky0623. Which still falls prior to the other three links I posted. Nice try.

That is not the map used in our FAQ. You didn't even use it in your OP. The map you used in the OP, and which is in the FAQ, was not uploaded until the 11th of November, 2008 (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png).

;D Let's take a real good look here. Tell me what differences you see between Flat_earth.jpg and Flat_earth.png. It's utterly laughable that you are pursuing this argument; if you were any other than the Lord Willmire I would think you were trolling. What exactly are you trying to say? That Trekky was a lost RE'er when he uploaded Flat_earth.jpg, and a year later he had reformed and uploaded a True Zetetic rendering, Flat_earth.png?

Tell me, why does he use the exact same description from 2007 for the new file?
Quote
Original upload log

The original description page is/was here. All following user names refer to en.wikipedia.
2008-11-14 14:33 Trekky0623 543×543× (405315 bytes) {{PD-self|date=17 August 2007}} I made this map myself by creating an azimuthal projection of the entire Earth.
The reason for the change is given on the original page:
Quote
Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."
He reformatted it to PNG for a transparent background. And added some graticules. That's it. It's the same map.



How am I supposed to provide evidence of what isn't in there? You posted a link to the post - have you read it? It does not contain "RE sentiments" as you claimed.

Ah, a copout. Of course. Do you or do you not claim that he was not a RE believer at the time that he produced his map? If you do, provide evidence. I have provided strong evidence to the contrary, and all you have are excuses.



First of all, yes he obviously does need to have been a FE'er at the map's creation. If he was not, then it is a false statement that the map was created by a FE'er. This is extremely basic logic.

This is nonsense. Most people would agree that the Theory of Special Relativity was created by the scientist, Albert Einstein. This is not a controversial statement. But of course he was not a scientist at the time, so by your reasoning, the above statement is false. This is a classic case of you making an argumentative mountain out of a semantic molehill.

Actually, I'll give you that. Indeed there are two ways to interpret a sentence like "X was done by a Y". I tend to take it literally and look at Y in the context where/when X was done, but you could say for instance, "Mrs. X married Mr. X" while she of course didn't exist as Mrs. X at the time.

However, in this particular case, the distinction matters a great deal. We are dealing with the claim that the map is a Flat-Earth design. We are talking about polar opposite schools of thought, so we certainly must consider which side motivated it. For example, it would be misleading to say that superstition is endorsed by science if someone who dabbled with it in his youth later became a scientist.



Moreover, Tom's claim was not that FE'ers created the map. He claimed that "we" created the map, referring to "FES" in your original post:

Yes, exactly -- Tom's "we" did not refer to himself or the forum, but the FES in general spanning back to Rowbotham. It's this distinction that I refer to when I say:

This is not about who was directly responsible for bringing this particular image file into being, it's about the lineage of its development

Tom's claim is that the lineage of its development traces back to Rowbotham, and that others that resemble it (RE maps) are imitations; plagiarism from the FES. However, as yet, we have no evidence of this claim, only evidence of the opposite -- that your current map is an imitation/plagiarism of RE material.



Why is Tom Bishop telling me that this map was developed independently from the azimuthal projection formula?

When did Tom make the bolded claim with respect to the map Trekky created?

Read closely:

Quote
Because that map is a direct result of the formula. It's not traced or adapted from a drawing, it's constructed mathematically by applying a distortion formula to a globe. Therefore, when you claim that they based it off of your "design", you must be claiming at least one of the following:
  • You created the globe.
  • You created the distortion formula.
If you can't back up either of these, then you're lying.

I didn't make any claims about a formula. If someone made a formula for turning a Mercator map into our Northern Azimuthal map, then they made a formula to do that. It's still our map. We're the ones who published and popularized it.

Tom, this is the result of applying that formula to a globe:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg)

And this is the map that you claim the FES "designed":

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png) <-- Trekky's map

You're telling me this is a coincidence?

I can make a mathematical formula to draw swastikas on graphic calculators. It doesn't mean that I invented the swastika.

A Mercator map can be turned into a Northern Azimuthal map, and it doesn't matter. It's our map. We came up with it. We published it. We popularized it. End of story. I'm right on the "Flat Earther" subject, and I'm right on this one. My time here is done.



All Tom is claiming is that the map from Earth Not a Globe inspired Trekky to create the map in the FAQ, and to replicate the geographic layout seen in Earth Not a Globe.

Wrong. As you can see above, he claimed that the mainstream azimuthal projection was stolen from the FES, not the other way around. He clearly refers to the northern azimuthal equidistant projection as "ours" multiple times and suggests that the formula which produces the same map was manufactured specifically to copy the FES design much like graphing calculators can produce swastikas.

Tom makes his position very clear in that thread, and has confirmed my interpretation of it in this one. If you don't agree with Tom's bold accusations, you can say so (that was the original point of this thread), but it'll do you no good to sit in denial that they occurred.



The scope of your OP has nothing to do with what is the appropriate response to the poll.

::) Good grief, you're really reaching. The whole point of the OP was to ask the question. What would you have me do -- cram the whole post into the title? The OP has everything to do with the poll. Did you forget what you were trying to prove here? I supposedly moved the goalposts, remember? Unless you're trying to say that the moving of goalposts happened sometime in between me writing the title and poll answers, and in writing the OP (which for all you know happened in the reverse order ;D), what is your point?



It is not a matter of us not paying attention. Simply put, you asked one question in the poll and another in the OP. The correct answer to the question posed in the poll is 'FES'.

The fact that you jumped to conclusions before reading the OP doesn't make it two different questions! I have always been asking the same question: the source of the map. I ask if it's derived independently from Rowbotham and co., (FES), or if it is a RE map (elsewhere). Merriam-Webster defines source as a firsthand document or primary reference work. If the primary reference work were FES material (the works of Rowbotham or Voliva or pure zeteticism), how do we have a RE projection as a result?



and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question

Please show me where in this thread I concluded specifically that one person in particular was lying. You'll find that I said "someone is lying -- who?". It's basic inference -- when you have two mutually exclusive claims, at least one of them is clearly not the truth.

Sorry, what? All I said is that you "claim[ed] LIES", which you did. Is this another strawman under construction?

Fair enough, I suppose. I presumed Roundy thought I was directly levelling an accusation against someone of lying. I don't know why you're saying "I said you claimed lies..." when it was never you who said it. Perhaps you should let Roundy speak for himself. Or have we just uncovered an alt? ;D
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 14, 2012, 08:25:27 AM
;D Let's take a real good look here. Tell me what differences you see between Flat_earth.jpg and Flat_earth.png. It's utterly laughable that you are pursuing this argument; if you were any other than the Lord Willmire I would think you were trolling. What exactly are you trying to say? That Trekky was a lost RE'er when he uploaded Flat_earth.jpg, and a year later he had reformed and uploaded a True Zetetic rendering, Flat_earth.png?

Tell me, why does he use the exact same description from 2007 for the new file?
Quote
Original upload log

The original description page is/was here. All following user names refer to en.wikipedia.
2008-11-14 14:33 Trekky0623 543×543× (405315 bytes) {{PD-self|date=17 August 2007}} I made this map myself by creating an azimuthal projection of the entire Earth.
The reason for the change is given on the original page:
Quote
Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."
He reformatted it to PNG for a transparent background. And added some graticules. That's it. It's the same map.


It looks different, is in a different format, and was uploaded at a different time. It's a different map, and was uploaded shortly before Trekky became an official member of TFES, and after he made any posts in support of RET. You were wrong.


Ah, a copout. Of course. Do you or do you not claim that he was not a RE believer at the time that he produced his map? If you do, provide evidence. I have provided strong evidence to the contrary, and all you have are excuses.


No you haven't! Several of the posts you linked to are dated prior to the uploading of the above map, and the only one that came after does not express support for RET. I mean, it just isn't in there.


However, in this particular case, the distinction matters a great deal. We are dealing with the claim that the map is a Flat-Earth design. We are talking about polar opposite schools of thought, so we certainly must consider which side motivated it. For example, it would be misleading to say that superstition is endorsed by science if someone who dabbled with it in his youth later became a scientist.


But the only relevant point is that it was created here, at FES, which is all that Tom originally claimed. And it was.



Moreover, Tom's claim was not that FE'ers created the map. He claimed that "we" created the map, referring to "FES" in your original post:

Yes, exactly -- Tom's "we" did not refer to himself or the forum, but the FES in general spanning back to Rowbotham. It's this distinction that I refer to when I say:

This is not about who was directly responsible for bringing this particular image file into being, it's about the lineage of its development

Tom's claim is that the lineage of its development traces back to Rowbotham, and that others that resemble it (RE maps) are imitations; plagiarism from the FES. However, as yet, we have no evidence of this claim, only evidence of the opposite -- that your current map is an imitation/plagiarism of RE material.


But Tom did not claim that. He simply made the claim that the maps you originally linked to were created by FES. And they were all created by FES. You've distorted his claims, but that's all he said.



Read closely:


Read more closelier:


So let me get this straight. You're saying that it's more likely that the UN stole this (http://i.imgur.com/FHX6e.jpg) to produce this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png) than it is likely that the FES stole this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg) to produce this (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png).

Those are all versions of the FE map. We came up with the design, not the UN, and not some guy in the 1970's. There have been intermittent maps we've made between Rowbotham's time and the creation of the UN, which has Australia and New Zealand in proper proportions. See this one (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flatmap.jpg) we made in the 1930's for instance, published in Modern Mechanics, 1931.


This is the "we" that was under discussion from the beginning - the FES. This is the FES. Right here. Trekky posts here, created the map for here, and is even an official member. So yes, "we" created that map.



All Tom is claiming is that the map from Earth Not a Globe inspired Trekky to create the map in the FAQ, and to replicate the geographic layout seen in Earth Not a Globe.

Wrong. As you can see above, he claimed that the mainstream azimuthal projection was stolen from the FES, not the other way around. He clearly refers to the northern azimuthal equidistant projection as "ours" multiple times and suggests that the formula which produces the same map was manufactured specifically to copy the FES design much like graphing calculators can produce swastikas.

Tom makes his position very clear in that thread, and has confirmed my interpretation of it in this one. If you don't agree with Tom's bold accusations, you can say so (that was the original point of this thread), but it'll do you no good to sit in denial that they occurred.


Where did he say it was stolen from us? All he did was deny your accusations that we stole it from someone else. You're just distorting his position.


::) Good grief, you're really reaching. The whole point of the OP was to ask the question. What would you have me do -- cram the whole post into the title? The OP has everything to do with the poll. Did you forget what you were trying to prove here? I supposedly moved the goalposts, remember? Unless you're trying to say that the moving of goalposts happened sometime in between me writing the title and poll answers, and in writing the OP (which for all you know happened in the reverse order ;D), what is your point?


My point is that you're moaning about people saying that the correct response the poll is 'FES'. Now you're saying we have to include all the stuff in your OP, which in addition to not being in any way obvious or necessary, makes a nonsense of the options you've given us.


The correct response to the poll is 'FES'. If you think picking the correct option misses the point of your post, write a better poll next time.


The fact that you jumped to conclusions before reading the OP doesn't make it two different questions! I have always been asking the same question: the source of the map. I ask if it's derived independently from Rowbotham and co., (FES), or if it is a RE map (elsewhere). Merriam-Webster defines source as a firsthand document or primary reference work. If the primary reference work were FES material (the works of Rowbotham or Voliva or pure zeteticism), how do we have a RE projection as a result?


Goalpost shifting. Nobody claimed 'FES' exclusively meant Rowbotham or Voliva. Rowbotham wasn't even a member of the UZS, which in any case was not called the FES. You're defining 'FES' in unduly (and indeed inaccurate) terms.


Fair enough, I suppose. I presumed Roundy thought I was directly levelling an accusation against someone of lying. I don't know why you're saying "I said you claimed lies..." when it was never you who said it. Perhaps you should let Roundy speak for himself. Or have we just uncovered an alt? ;D


I did so because you attributed the quote to me, and this being a long exchange, I simply assumed I had said it:


and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question

Please show me where in this thread I concluded specifically that one person in particular was lying. You'll find that I said "someone is lying -- who?". It's basic inference -- when you have two mutually exclusive claims, at least one of them is clearly not the truth.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 14, 2012, 05:48:32 PM
;D Let's take a real good look here. Tell me what differences you see between Flat_earth.jpg and Flat_earth.png. It's utterly laughable that you are pursuing this argument; if you were any other than the Lord Willmire I would think you were trolling. What exactly are you trying to say? That Trekky was a lost RE'er when he uploaded Flat_earth.jpg, and a year later he had reformed and uploaded a True Zetetic rendering, Flat_earth.png?

Tell me, why does he use the exact same description from 2007 for the new file?
Quote
Original upload log

The original description page is/was here. All following user names refer to en.wikipedia.
2008-11-14 14:33 Trekky0623 543×543× (405315 bytes) {{PD-self|date=17 August 2007}} I made this map myself by creating an azimuthal projection of the entire Earth.
The reason for the change is given on the original page:
Quote
Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."
He reformatted it to PNG for a transparent background. And added some graticules. That's it. It's the same map.


It looks different, is in a different format, and was uploaded at a different time. It's a different map, and was uploaded shortly before Trekky became an official member of TFES, and after he made any posts in support of RET. You were wrong.

You haven't addressed any of the above.



that it was created here, at FES ... is all that Tom originally claimed

Incorrect.



Read more closelier:


So let me get this straight. You're saying that it's more likely that the UN stole this (http://i.imgur.com/FHX6e.jpg) to produce this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png) than it is likely that the FES stole this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg) to produce this (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png).

Those are all versions of the FE map. We came up with the design, not the UN, and not some guy in the 1970's. There have been intermittent maps we've made between Rowbotham's time and the creation of the UN, which has Australia and New Zealand in proper proportions. See this one (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flatmap.jpg) we made in the 1930's for instance, published in Modern Mechanics, 1931.

I have read that. Now you read it again, as well as the other parts I highlighted. Pay particular attention to the first sentence.



Where did he say it was stolen from us?

Quote
He clearly refers to the northern azimuthal equidistant projection as "ours" multiple times and suggests that the formula which produces the same map was manufactured specifically to copy the FES design much like graphing calculators can produce swastikas.

How about you stop digging yourself into this hole? Ask Tom if he believes the northern azimuthal formula was designed to copycat FES material. Ask him if he believes the UN stole their design from the FES. Stop embarrassing yourself by falsely proclaiming what he believes. You have already upset him at least once for doing so (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=54432.msg1345616#msg1345616).



The fact that you jumped to conclusions before reading the OP doesn't make it two different questions! I have always been asking the same question: the source of the map. I ask if it's derived independently from Rowbotham and co., (FES), or if it is a RE map (elsewhere). Merriam-Webster defines source as a firsthand document or primary reference work. If the primary reference work were FES material (the works of Rowbotham or Voliva or pure zeteticism), how do we have a RE projection as a result?

Goalpost shifting. Nobody claimed 'FES' exclusively meant Rowbotham or Voliva. Rowbotham wasn't even a member of the UZS, which in any case was not called the FES. You're defining 'FES' in unduly (and indeed inaccurate) terms.

"Unduly terms"? Typical Wilmorian pseudointellectual nonsense. ::)

Reading comprehension, Wil. I never meant FES exclusively meant Rowbotham or Voliva either. Focus. Primary reference work. For the source to be within, the map would need to be either a completely original work or the next iteration directly derived from past internal original works.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 14, 2012, 06:12:29 PM
It looks different, is in a different format, and was uploaded at a different time. It's a different map, and was uploaded shortly before Trekky became an official member of TFES, and after he made any posts in support of RET. You were wrong.

You haven't addressed any of the above.


Because it's irrelevant. I've bolded what is relevant.


Incorrect.


Another substantial argument. ::)


I have read that. Now you read it again, as well as the other parts I highlighted. Pay particular attention to the first sentence.


We (as in FES) did come up with that layout. The fact that someone came up with something that looked similar afterwards is of no consequence. You're inflating his claims.


Where did he say it was stolen from us?

Quote
He clearly refers to the northern azimuthal equidistant projection as "ours" multiple times and suggests that the formula which produces the same map was manufactured specifically to copy the FES design much like graphing calculators can produce swastikas.


Sorry, did you miss the bolded pronoun above?


How about you stop digging yourself into this hole? Ask Tom if he believes the northern azimuthal formula was designed to copycat FES material. Ask him if he believes the UN stole their design from the FES. Stop embarrassing yourself by falsely proclaiming what he believes. You have already upset him at least once for doing so (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=54432.msg1345616#msg1345616).


I'm not claiming that he believes anything. All I'm doing is pointing out what he has or hasn't said. You're the one making claims about what he has said, and as that is a positive claim it's up to you to substantiate it, which you have failed to do. If Tom comes here and substantiates all the claims you have made about him, well and good, but he hasn't and neither have you.


"Unduly terms"? Typical Wilmorian pseudointellectual nonsense. ::)


Congratulations, you have discovered a missing word. It was 'narrow'. Now, I have supplied my missing word. Would you care to supply the missing quotes that substantiate the various claims you have made throughout this thread?


Reading comprehension, Wil. I never meant FES exclusively meant Rowbotham or Voliva either. Focus. Primary reference work. For the source to be within, the map would need to be either a completely original work or the next iteration directly derived from past internal original works.


Why? Who says? And Trekky's map is derived from Rowbotham and Voliva's maps. Why have you only mentioned this ultra-narrow concept of what is or isn't made by the Flat Earth Society now, and why do you think Tom or anyone else here is retroactively bound by it?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 15, 2012, 06:03:06 AM
FE'ers say that the UN logo looks like a lot a map of a FE, therefore... Wait a minute, isn' there a conspiracy trying to force us to think that the Earth is round!?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: hoppy on May 15, 2012, 06:46:12 AM
FE'ers say that the UN logo looks like a lot a map of a FE, therefore... Wait a minute, isn' there a conspiracy trying to force us to think that the Earth is round!?
It is hidden in plain sight from you.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 15, 2012, 07:25:34 AM
FE'ers say that the UN logo looks like a lot a map of a FE, therefore... Wait a minute, isn' there a conspiracy trying to force us to think that the Earth is round!?
It is hidden in plain sight from you.

The conspiracy brainwashes us to think that the Earth is round therefore they put a FE map on the UN flag?

That's your logic?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Pongo on May 15, 2012, 09:51:54 AM
I doubt there's a single FE'er here capable of drawing a FE map.

Even if they tried, they couldn't.

What's your point? I doubt a RE'er could draw a RE map either. Cartography is a highly complex discipline and as far as I know, no one here possesses the required skills. It's like saying, "I doubt there is a single FE'er here capable of creating a hadron collider. They couldn't if they tried."
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 15, 2012, 11:17:13 AM
I doubt there's a single FE'er here capable of drawing a FE map.

Even if they tried, they couldn't.

What's your point? I doubt a RE'er could draw a RE map either. Cartography is a highly complex discipline and as far as I know, no one here possesses the required skills. It's like saying, "I doubt there is a single FE'er here capable of creating a hadron collider. They couldn't if they tried."

Cartographers are RE'ers!

It's a pity to have a theory without a map, it makes all the concept more or less useless.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 15, 2012, 11:24:36 AM
I doubt there's a single FE'er here capable of drawing a FE map.

Even if they tried, they couldn't.

What's your point? I doubt a RE'er could draw a RE map either. Cartography is a highly complex discipline and as far as I know, no one here possesses the required skills. It's like saying, "I doubt there is a single FE'er here capable of creating a hadron collider. They couldn't if they tried."

Cartographers are RE'ers!

It's a pity to have a theory without a map, it makes all the concept more or less useless.

Do you have a map of the sun? If not, that makes the concept of a big round sun more or less useless.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 15, 2012, 11:47:42 AM
I doubt there's a single FE'er here capable of drawing a FE map.

Even if they tried, they couldn't.

What's your point? I doubt a RE'er could draw a RE map either. Cartography is a highly complex discipline and as far as I know, no one here possesses the required skills. It's like saying, "I doubt there is a single FE'er here capable of creating a hadron collider. They couldn't if they tried."

Cartographers are RE'ers!

It's a pity to have a theory without a map, it makes all the concept more or less useless.

Do you have a map of the sun? If not, that makes the concept of a big round sun more or less useless.

Do you have a map of FE? (not you 2 bogey ones which are debunked as RE maps)
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: The Knowledge on May 15, 2012, 11:58:27 AM
Do you have a map of the sun? If not, that makes the concept of a big round sun more or less useless.

John Davis and Wilmore are the people to ask, as they think they are flat discs.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 15, 2012, 12:27:18 PM
Do you have a map of the sun? If not, that makes the concept of a big round sun more or less useless.

John Davis and Wilmore are the people to ask, as they think they are flat discs.
I'll take that as a 'no' then.

Do you have a map of FE? (not you 2 bogey ones which are debunked as RE maps)
Look at any map you like. Its a map of the flat earth usually stretched into some format like a Mercator or polar azimuthal projection. All maps of earth represent its features. Distortions are supposedly added to explain how a flat map can represent a round earth, but frankly that tenuous excuse is RET's charge to answer. Earth's flat, maps are flat, QED. Occam's razor etc etc.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 15, 2012, 01:01:45 PM
Do you have a map of the sun? If not, that makes the concept of a big round sun more or less useless.

John Davis and Wilmore are the people to ask, as they think they are flat discs.
I'll take that as a 'no' then.

Do you have a map of FE? (not you 2 bogey ones which are debunked as RE maps)
Look at any map you like. Its a map of the flat earth usually stretched into some format like a Mercator or polar azimuthal projection. All maps of earth represent its features. Distortions are supposedly added to explain how a flat map can represent a round earth, but frankly that tenuous excuse is RET's charge to answer. Earth's flat, maps are flat, QED. Occam's razor etc etc.

So show us a FE maps with no distorsion.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: The Knowledge on May 15, 2012, 04:05:46 PM
Do you have a map of the sun? If not, that makes the concept of a big round sun more or less useless.

John Davis and Wilmore are the people to ask, as they think they are flat discs.
I'll take that as a 'no' then.

Do you have a map of FE? (not you 2 bogey ones which are debunked as RE maps)
Look at any map you like. Its a map of the flat earth usually stretched into some format like a Mercator or polar azimuthal projection. All maps of earth represent its features. Distortions are supposedly added to explain how a flat map can represent a round earth, but frankly that tenuous excuse is RET's charge to answer. Earth's flat, maps are flat, QED. Occam's razor etc etc.

Distortion is necessary to render a map of a three dimensional object into two dimensions. However, it's not necessary for a flat earth. You have no excuse for inaccuracy. Start with the south pole at the centre, why don't you?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 15, 2012, 09:40:17 PM
Because it's irrelevant.

No it isn't. Answer this question:

What exactly are you trying to say? That Trekky was a lost RE'er when he uploaded Flat_earth.jpg, and a year later he had reformed and uploaded a True Zetetic rendering, Flat_earth.png?



I'm not claiming that he believes anything. All I'm doing is pointing out what he has or hasn't said.

How predictably weasely of you.



Trekky's map is derived from Rowbotham and Voliva's maps.

Thanks for your vote!
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 15, 2012, 09:43:51 PM
Distortions are supposedly added to explain how a flat map can represent a round earth, but frankly that tenuous excuse is RET's charge to answer. Earth's flat, maps are flat, QED. Occam's razor etc etc.

Hey, ever seen a globe?

Learn geometry. Distortion is a tool, not an excuse.

Explain this:

I measure the distance from the center of that map to any other point on it; for example, let's say the southeastern corner of Australia. Now if I take a globe which has a circumference equal to the diameter of your map, and wrap a string from the north pole of that globe to the southeastern corner of Australia, the length of the string will be exactly the same measurement. This will work for a line from the north pole to anywhere else on the map. How do you explain this phenomenon?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 08:45:13 AM
Below is a nice map of the earth. Feel free to click on it for the original source.

(http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/139989/large/C0077033-Earth,_satellite_image-SPL.jpg) (http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/139989/enlarge)
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 08:54:31 AM
Below is another map. That was crafted by a brilliant young FE cartographer called Thork. (I made it.)

The earth at night. Click it for high def version.
(http://i56.tinypic.com/qnaeqs.png) (http://i56.tinypic.com/qnaeqs.png)

I also made a model below.
(http://i56.tinypic.com/slkajc.png)

Why FErs are always accused of never doing anything I don't know.

In short the answer to the OP is that some of our maps are from various internet sources, and some of them are originals.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 17, 2012, 09:18:36 AM
Doesnt'it bother you to show us do many different maps with so many different distorsions,whereas in  FE, there should be no distorsion but a scale effect?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 11:32:57 AM
Why can't we distort maps as well? If I want to make the polar regions more prominent, I'll use a Mercator. Distorting maps is just an aid to help the reader.

Don't you like my maps? That night one took some time to make.  :(
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Sphere on May 17, 2012, 11:37:26 AM
Below is another map. That was crafted by a brilliant young FE cartographer called Thork. (I made it.)

The earth at night. Click it for high def version.
(http://i56.tinypic.com/qnaeqs.png) (http://i56.tinypic.com/qnaeqs.png)

I also made a model below.
(http://i56.tinypic.com/slkajc.png)

Why FErs are always accused of never doing anything I don't know.

In short the answer to the OP is that some of our maps are from various internet sources, and some of them are originals.
If it works this way, how do other planets have sunlight?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 11:40:36 AM
The sun is 3000 miles above earth. The stars and planets are 3100 miles above. They are all of about the same altitude above earth.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Sphere on May 17, 2012, 11:42:14 AM
The sun is 3000 miles above earth. The stars and planets are 3100 miles above. They are all of about the same altitude above earth.
So you're saying other planets are smaller than Earth?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 11:46:30 AM
The sun is 3000 miles above earth. The stars and planets are 3100 miles above. They are all of about the same altitude above earth.
So you're saying other planets are smaller than Earth?
My God yes. They are tiny. Haven't you ever seen them? Just tiny specks of light in the sky.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 17, 2012, 12:14:26 PM
Of course, the distances from Earth to the Sun, the Moon other planets have been measured and don't mach FE claims.

How dit you calculate those numbers?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 12:18:37 PM
Of course, the distances from Earth to the Sun, the Moon other planets have been measured and don't mach FE claims.
No, because those measuring made the monumental mistake of assuming the earth was round.

How dit you calculate those numbers?
Simple Trigonometry
(http://loveforlife.com.au/files/xlg_globe_3.jpg)
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Sphere on May 17, 2012, 01:33:20 PM
The sun is 3000 miles above earth. The stars and planets are 3100 miles above. They are all of about the same altitude above earth.
So you're saying other planets are smaller than Earth?
My God yes. They are tiny. Haven't you ever seen them? Just tiny specks of light in the sky.
The other planets are millions of miles away, that's why they seem smaller. What are you? From 1492?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 01:36:51 PM
The other planets are millions of miles away, that's why they seem smaller.
That seems a little far fetched to me.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Sphere on May 17, 2012, 01:55:44 PM
The other planets are millions of miles away, that's why they seem smaller.
That seems a little far fetched to me.
How do you explain why planets are only visible in the night sky at certain times of the year?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: The Knowledge on May 17, 2012, 02:09:17 PM
The other planets are millions of miles away, that's why they seem smaller.
That seems a little far fetched to me.

Argumentum ad ridiculum, there.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 02:12:14 PM
The other planets are millions of miles away, that's why they seem smaller.
That seems a little far fetched to me.
How do you explain why planets are only visible in the night sky at certain times of the year?
The same was as RET does. Because they don't have a very high albedo and the sun's light makes it impossible to see them during the day. As for at certain times of the year, I'm going to dispute that. Planets are not only visible at certain times of the year.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: The Knowledge on May 17, 2012, 02:15:16 PM
Planets are not only visible at certain times of the year.

Really? Could you see Saturn in April then?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 02:17:17 PM
Planets are not only visible at certain times of the year.

Really? Could you see Saturn in April then?
Apparently that was the best time to see it this year.
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/give-me-five-minutes-ill-give-you-saturn
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: The Knowledge on May 17, 2012, 02:24:36 PM
Planets are not only visible at certain times of the year.

Really? Could you see Saturn in April then?
Apparently that was the best time to see it this year.
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/give-me-five-minutes-ill-give-you-saturn

Correct. Score a point. And will you be able to see it six months later?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 02:42:26 PM
Planets are not only visible at certain times of the year.

Really? Could you see Saturn in April then?
Apparently that was the best time to see it this year.
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/give-me-five-minutes-ill-give-you-saturn

Correct. Score a point. And will you be able to see it six months later?
Are you suggesting that Saturn disappears from view every October?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 17, 2012, 02:53:03 PM
In short the answer to the OP is that some of our maps are from various internet sources, and some of them are originals.

Which ones are originals?



Why can't we distort maps as well? If I want to make the polar regions more prominent, I'll use a Mercator. Distorting maps is just an aid to help the reader.

"Polar regions"? I thought there was only one pole, you blasphemer. Anyway, what would the purpose of your distortion be? A Mercator's distortion is spherical. How do you reverse-engineer it to result in an equally flat shape? What does a non-distorted map look like?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 03:00:43 PM
Which ones are originals?
If you'd only bothered to read a few posts further back.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=54320.msg1347275#msg1347275

"Polar regions"? I thought there was only one pole, you blasphemer.
The south pole is the rim of the earth. ::)

A Mercator's distortion is spherical. How do you reverse-engineer it to result in an equally flat shape? What does a non-distorted map look like?
It looks like a large disk with the continents laid out on it. If I'd asked you what it looks like, you would have said "a globe" so don't expect any more of a comprehensive answer.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 17, 2012, 03:09:49 PM
Which ones are originals?
If you'd only bothered to read a few posts further back.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=54320.msg1347275#msg1347275

Are those the only two? In what way are they original? Describe your process.


The south pole is the rim of the earth. ::)

No, the rim of the earth is the rim of the earth. A pole is a fixed point.


A Mercator's distortion is spherical. How do you reverse-engineer it to result in an equally flat shape? What does a non-distorted map look like?
It looks like a large disk with the continents laid out on it. If I'd asked you what it looks like, you would have said "a globe" so don't expect any more of a comprehensive answer.

I didn't ask you what the earth looks like. I asked you what a non-distorted map looks like. Read: Do you have one?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 03:20:37 PM
Are those the only two?
No, there are dozens. I have made several, PizzaPlanet did, Trekky has ... lots of us.

In what way are they original?
There is no other version. We created them ourselves. They aren't copies. We made them.

Describe your process.
I sat at my desk and cracked open a chilled bottle of beer. I looked at the time and decided I could draw a map of earth for FES. I opened an art program and made a save file. I then drew a map of earth, uploaded it to an image hosting site and allowed people like you to enjoy my efforts.

I didn't ask you what the earth looks like. I asked you what a non-distorted map looks like. Read: Do you have one?
No. Do you have one? No. We'll call it a draw.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 17, 2012, 03:27:02 PM
There is no other version. We created them ourselves. They aren't copies. We made them.

If they are RE distortions of RE maps, they are not original works.


Do you have one?

Yes, we call it a globe. Your turn.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 03:31:40 PM
There is no other version. We created them ourselves. They aren't copies. We made them.

If they are RE distortions of RE maps, they are not original works.
How dare you? Those maps absolutely do not exist anywhere but on our forum and the hosting sites we uploaded to. They are absolutely original. If an artist makes a collage from other bits of art, is their work not original?

Do you have one?
Yes, we call it a globe. Your turn.
I didn't ask you what the earth looks like. I asked you what a non-distorted map looks like. Read: Do you have one?

What a hypocrite! ::)
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 17, 2012, 03:58:00 PM
There is no other version. We created them ourselves. They aren't copies. We made them.

If they are RE distortions of RE maps, they are not original works.
How dare you? Those maps absolutely do not exist anywhere but on our forum and the hosting sites we uploaded to. They are absolutely original. If an artist makes a collage from other bits of art, is their work not original?

Do you have one?
Yes, we call it a globe. Your turn.
I didn't ask you what the earth looks like. I asked you what a non-distorted map looks like. Read: Do you have one?

What a hypocrite! ::)

A globe is a map.

Quote
"A map is a visual representation of an area"

Many maps are static two-dimensional, geometrically accurate (or approximately accurate) representations of three-dimensional space, while others are dynamic or interactive, even three-dimensional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map

So does FE have a map without distortion?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 17, 2012, 04:05:21 PM
If an artist makes a collage from other bits of art, is their work not original?

You referred to yourself as a cartographer, not an artist. Which is it?



Do you have one?
Yes, we call it a globe. Your turn.
I didn't ask you what the earth looks like. I asked you what a non-distorted map looks like. Read: Do you have one?

What a hypocrite! ::)

Yes. A globe is an undistorted RE map.

Do you have an undistorted FE map?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 04:10:28 PM
A globe is a map.
Yes. A globe is an undistorted RE map.

And a globe has no distortion? How then do you map an oblate spheroid onto a sphere with no distortion?

So does FE RE have a map without distortion?
Do you have an undistorted FE RE map?
GTFO with your double standards.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 17, 2012, 04:22:53 PM
Let me put it this way:

All distorted RE maps are distortions of the globe map. What are your distorted FE maps distortions of?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 04:30:08 PM
Let me put it this way:

All distorted RE maps are distortions of the globe map. What are your distorted FE maps distortions of?
A disk. Look, gather together what is left of your dignity and slip out before more FErs smell your humiliation. You lost. I know you thought you had me, but I lined you up about 10 posts earlier. You both said the exact same thing, it was predictable what you would say.

You don't have an undistorted map. We don't. So that argument clearly doesn't prove earth can't be flat. This thread belongs to FE now.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 17, 2012, 04:32:50 PM
A disk.

I asked you for a map. A globe is a map. "A disk" is not a map. Here are some globes: http://store.randmcnally.com/globes.html (http://store.randmcnally.com/globes.html) - now show me your undistorted disk map.


You lost.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Danth%27s_Law (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Danth%27s_Law)
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 04:36:27 PM
A globe can be a map but a disk can't? Have you been drinking?

You are going around in circles. It is most ungracious. Just acknowledge that despite having the entire weight of the world's scientific community behind you, you still managed to lose another debate to me. Its ok. I think you knew it wouldn't be that easy. Its late here. Good night.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 17, 2012, 04:40:09 PM
A globe can be a map but a disk can't? Have you been drinking?

I didn't say a disk can't be a map. I'm asking you where this mythical disk map is. I have shown you the globe map which is the basis for RE distortions. Can you show me the disk map which is the basis for FE distortions?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 04:42:09 PM
Look in our FAQ. There is a disk map there. It has distortions ... but hey, so does a globe. ;)
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 17, 2012, 04:52:39 PM
No. For the third time, the globe is the base map. It has no distortions in cartographic terms. It is not a projection. You cannot have a distorted map by definition unless you have a non-distorted base. What is your base?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 17, 2012, 04:57:46 PM
No. For the third time, the globe is the base map. It has no distortions in cartographic terms. It is not a projection.
How do you map an oblate spheroid onto a sphere with no distortions? You are wrong. You have no perfect map. Do not demand one from me.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 17, 2012, 05:34:31 PM
No. For the third time, the globe is the base map. It has no distortions in cartographic terms. It is not a projection.
How do you map an oblate spheroid onto a sphere with no distortions? You are wrong. You have no perfect map. Do not demand one from me.

I have an oblate spheroid globe.  Do you have a map without distortion?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 17, 2012, 05:52:18 PM
No. For the third time, the globe is the base map. It has no distortions in cartographic terms. It is not a projection.
How do you map an oblate spheroid onto a sphere with no distortions? You are wrong. You have no perfect map. Do not demand one from me.

You said (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=54320.msg1347338#msg1347338) that you distort maps, not that your maps are imperfect. I am not demanding a perfect map. I am asking for the map upon which your distortions are based. For RE, that is the globe map. What is yours?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: The Knowledge on May 17, 2012, 06:07:28 PM
Planets are not only visible at certain times of the year.

Really? Could you see Saturn in April then?
Apparently that was the best time to see it this year.
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/give-me-five-minutes-ill-give-you-saturn

Correct. Score a point. And will you be able to see it six months later?
Are you suggesting that Saturn disappears from view every October?

I note that you don't answer the question. Your concession that you are wrong about planets being visible all year round is accepted.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: hoppy on May 17, 2012, 06:28:33 PM
Those are good maps Thork. Another FET victory.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 17, 2012, 09:42:35 PM
Answer this question:

What exactly are you trying to say? That Trekky was a lost RE'er when he uploaded Flat_earth.jpg, and a year later he had reformed and uploaded a True Zetetic rendering, Flat_earth.png?


Please work on your chronology, phrasing, etc. You're trying to conflate different claims, and roll the clock back on everything I've said since that quote. Ain't gonna work.


All I am saying is that Trekky can reasonably be construed as part of FES at the time he uploaded the map. That's all I have to say, because it's all Tom actually said.


How predictably weasely of you.


Sorry? ???


Are you suggesting it's somehow less "weasely" to make up stuff, or pretend someone said something they didn't say? With that last statement you're heading into the absurd, zarg.


Trekky's map is derived from Rowbotham and Voliva's maps.

Thanks for your vote!


Glad we agree.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 17, 2012, 11:37:36 PM
Answer this question:

What exactly are you trying to say? That Trekky was a lost RE'er when he uploaded Flat_earth.jpg, and a year later he had reformed and uploaded a True Zetetic rendering, Flat_earth.png?


Please work on your chronology, phrasing, etc. You're trying to conflate different claims, and roll the clock back on everything I've said since that quote. Ain't gonna work.


All I am saying is that Trekky can reasonably be construed as part of FES at the time he uploaded the map. That's all I have to say, because it's all Tom actually said.

Had the file from 2008 been uploaded in 2007, you would not have that case at all. So, indeed, this question is relevant to your claim. You are dodging it, because you know full well that the necessary implication is ludicrous.



Are you suggesting it's somehow less "weasely" to make up stuff, or pretend someone said something they didn't say?

I am not the one doing so. You are, and you were being weasely by suddenly pretending that you're undecided on the matter when confronted with the suggestion to find out the actual truth.

Bottom line:
Do you claim that Tom does not claim that it is likely that the UN stole their map design from the FES? Yes or no.
Do you claim that Tom does not claim that the northern azimuthal formula was designed to copy a FES design? Yes or no.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 17, 2012, 11:46:28 PM
More importantly, how is it day light for roughly 12 hours anywhere on the Earth?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 18, 2012, 01:10:49 AM
Planets are not only visible at certain times of the year.

Really? Could you see Saturn in April then?
Apparently that was the best time to see it this year.
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/give-me-five-minutes-ill-give-you-saturn

Correct. Score a point. And will you be able to see it six months later?
Are you suggesting that Saturn disappears from view every October?

I note that you don't answer the question. Your concession that you are wrong about planets being visible all year round is accepted.
http://www.rif.org/

I didn't say they were visible all year round. I said
Planets are not only visible at certain times of the year.
which is something different entirely. Saturn doesn't always disappear in October. However this thread is about maps, not the solar sytem. Maybe you would like to make an on topic comment next time?

I have an oblate spheroid globe.
Can you link me to the manufacturer's or vendor's website so as I may examine this rare globe for myself?

No. For the third time, the globe is the base map. It has no distortions in cartographic terms. It is not a projection.
How do you map an oblate spheroid onto a sphere with no distortions? You are wrong. You have no perfect map. Do not demand one from me.

I am asking for the map upon which your distortions are based. For RE, that is the globe map. What is yours?
And I have told you several times that there is such a map in the FAQ. Its not perfect. It has distortion. Just like your globes. Not having a perfect map is in no way proof that earth cannot be flat. You don't have a non-distorted version of an oblate spheroid either. Why are you making me repeat myself? Its very simple.

More importantly, how is it day light for roughly 12 hours anywhere on the Earth?
Stop moving the goal posts. Go make another thread if you want to change the topic entirely. Alternatively use the search feature. That subject appears multiple times.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 18, 2012, 08:25:39 AM
Why can't we distort maps as well? If I want to make the polar regions more prominent, I'll use a Mercator. Distorting maps is just an aid to help the reader.

Don't you like my maps? That night one took some time to make.  :(

You can distort maps but distorting a FE map is pointless, there should be only a scale effect. And if there was a distorsion, it should be indicated somewhere how was done the distorsion.

Mercator projection is the projection of a sphere on a plane, why should it be relevant for the projection of a flat Earth on a plane (scale effect)?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 18, 2012, 10:52:14 AM
You can distort maps but distorting a FE map is pointless, there should be only a scale effect. And if there was a distorsion, it should be indicated somewhere how was done the distorsion.

Mercator projection is the projection of a sphere on a plane, why should it be relevant for the projection of a flat Earth on a plane (scale effect)?

Lets assume the earth is a finite flat disc. Then if you want to make it into an oblong map so it fits nicely on an oblong piece of paper, something like a Mercator projection would suit you very nicely. Maybe you are interested in a specific area. A Lambert conical might help. It doesn't matter what shape earth is, maps would be distorted for the users convenience anyway. Equal area, equal distance, maybe enhancing/enlarging the Northern hemisphere if that is the area of interest etc etc.

But you cannot demand a non-distorted map and then cry that without one its proof earth can't be flat, when you are unable to produce a non-distorted map for RET. Can we end this now? There must be something more interesting to talk about. This thread has long over run its useful life. You are just making me repeat everything.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 18, 2012, 01:03:47 PM
No. For the third time, the globe is the base map. It has no distortions in cartographic terms. It is not a projection.
How do you map an oblate spheroid onto a sphere with no distortions? You are wrong. You have no perfect map. Do not demand one from me.

I am asking for the map upon which your distortions are based. For RE, that is the globe map. What is yours?
And I have told you several times that there is such a map in the FAQ. Its not perfect. It has distortion. Just like your globes. Not having a perfect map is in no way proof that earth cannot be flat. You don't have a non-distorted version of an oblate spheroid either. Why are you making me repeat myself? Its very simple.

Again, I am not asking for a perfect map. Distortion does not mean "less than perfect". Distortion is a deliberate tool in cartography. You clearly implied that your maps were deliberately distorted when you said "If I want to make the polar regions more prominent, I'll use a Mercator. Distorting maps is just an aid to help the reader."

In RET, we start with the globe and apply transformations as follows: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MercatorProjection.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MercatorProjection.html)

Now tell me the process for FET. What is the original map and what transformations do you apply to that original to result in your distorted maps?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 18, 2012, 01:09:27 PM
What is the original map and what transformations do you apply to that original to result in your distorted maps?
What transformations do you apply to an oblate spheroid to make a globe? Is that an easy thing to answer? It doesn't even make any sense as a question. What do you want? A complex array of millions of digits? A formula? You provide me with the 'transformations' to get an oblate spheroid mapped to a globe. Otherwise desist this stupid line of questioning.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 18, 2012, 01:13:57 PM
We apply no transformations. It is therefore not distorted, even if it's not a completely flawless rendering of reality. What part of distortion does not mean imperfect do you not understand?

What is your base map and how do you transform it to produce the others?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 18, 2012, 01:15:58 PM

But you cannot demand a non-distorted map and then cry that without one its proof earth can't be flat, when you are unable to produce a non-distorted map for RET. Can we end this now? There must be something more interesting to talk about. This thread has long over run its useful life. You are just making me repeat everything.

This comparison is plain stupid.

If I need a non-distorted map of the Earth, I use a globe.
If I need a non-distorted map of FE, there's none.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 18, 2012, 01:18:48 PM
We apply no transformations. It is therefore not distorted, even if it's not a completely flawless rendering of reality.
You apply no transformations to make an oblate spheroid fit on a globe? Now you are just lying.

What is your base map and how do you transform it to produce the others?
How do you transform an oblate spheroid onto a globe? Please answer. Then I can reply in kind for FE. With a multi-million digit array or a several page formula. I would be interested in seeing your effort. Its obviously an easy thing to conjure as you keep asking. Please show me how you 'transform' and oblate spheroid on to a globe.

If I need a non-distorted map of the Earth, I use a globe.
But of course a globe isn't an oblate spheroid. So it was distorted. ::)
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 18, 2012, 01:26:18 PM
We apply no transformations. It is therefore not distorted, even if it's not a completely flawless rendering of reality.
You apply no transformations to make an oblate spheroid fit on a globe? Now you are just lying.

What is your base map and how do you transform it to produce the others?
How do you transform an oblate spheroid onto a globe? Please answer. Then I can reply in kind for FE. With a multi-million digit array or a several page formula. I would be interested in seeing your effort. Its obviously an easy thing to conjure as you keep asking. Please show me how you 'transform' and oblate spheroid on to a globe.

If I need a non-distorted map of the Earth, I use a globe.
But of course a globe isn't an oblate spheroid. So it was distorted. ::)

If I need a non-distorted map of FE, there's none.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 18, 2012, 01:29:41 PM
You apply no transformations to make an oblate spheroid fit on a globe? Now you are just lying.

No I'm not. Please learn the terminology. We're talking about geometry. You claimed to be a cartographer, remember? Transformation is like the one I showed in the wolfram mathworld link. The Mercator is mathematically derived from the globe. The globe is not mathematically derived from any other map. Thus, it's not a transformation.


How do you transform an oblate spheroid onto a globe? Please answer.

By approximation. We believe the shape of Earth is sufficiently spherical that mapping it onto a sphere is useful for navigation. Any imperfections in the sphere model are transferred to other projections such as Mercator because they are simply distortions.

You claim to use distortion as an aid. In RET we do the same. I have shown you our baseline that we distort and the method we use to distort it. All I'm asking is for the same from you.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 18, 2012, 01:30:51 PM
If I need a non-distorted map of FE, there's none.
If I need an non-distorted RE map, there's none. :'(
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 18, 2012, 01:32:20 PM
Please leave, research, and come back when you learn what distortion is.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 18, 2012, 01:32:59 PM
If I need a non-distorted map of FE, there's none.
If I need an non-distorted RE map, there's none. :'(

With a good approximation, there are some.

And still no FE map.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 18, 2012, 01:39:05 PM
The globe is not mathematically derived from any other map. Thus, it's not a transformation.
So the globe is not derived from an oblate spheroid? How then can you claim that its a map of earth?

By approximation. We believe the shape of Earth is sufficiently spherical that mapping it onto a sphere is useful for navigation.
Well by approximation we think the earth is a flat disk. We believe its sufficiently flat and disk shaped that mapping it as a disk is useful for navigation. Please refer to the FAQ for such a map.

You claim to use distortion as an aid. In RET we do the same. I have shown you our baseline that we distort and the method we use to distort it. All I'm asking is for the same from you.
No, you haven't showed me how you convert an oblate spheroid into a globe.

Are you really this stupid? I mean really? Its several pages later and you still seem to be struggling with the basics.

You don't think earth is a globe. You think its an oblate spheroid. So your 'baseline' or starting point is an oblate spheroid.

Please leave, research, and come back when you learn what distortion is.
please leave, research and come back when you know the difference between an oblate spheroid and a sphere.

With a good approximation, there are some.

And still no FE map.
Please see the FAQ. There is a great approximation of an FE earth mapped out there.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 18, 2012, 01:44:35 PM
The globe is not mathematically derived from any other map. Thus, it's not a transformation.
So the globe is not derived from an oblate spheroid? How then can you claim that its a map of earth?

By approximation. We believe the shape of Earth is sufficiently spherical that mapping it onto a sphere is useful for navigation.
Well by approximation we think the earth is a flat disk. We believe its sufficiently flat and disk shaped that mapping it as a disk is useful for navigation. Please refer to the FAQ for such a map.

You claim to use distortion as an aid. In RET we do the same. I have shown you our baseline that we distort and the method we use to distort it. All I'm asking is for the same from you.
No, you haven't showed me how you convert an oblate spheroid into a globe.

Are you really this stupid? I mean really? Its several pages later and you still seem to be struggling with the basics.

You don't think earth is a globe. You think its an oblate spheroid. So your 'baseline' or starting point is an oblate spheroid.

Please leave, research, and come back when you learn what distortion is.
please leave, research and come back when you know the difference between an oblate spheroid and a sphere.

With a good approximation, there are some.

And still no FE map.
Please see the FAQ. There is a great approximation of an FE earth mapped out there.

Your FE map has got distances and shapes utterly wrong.

Please correct the FAQ with a suitable map.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 18, 2012, 01:46:07 PM
Your FE map has got distances and shapes utterly wrong.
It is perfectly fine to navigate with, so your objection must be incorrect.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 18, 2012, 01:57:26 PM
Your FE map has got distances and shapes utterly wrong.
It is perfectly fine to navigate with, so your objection must be incorrect.

I wonder how people in the Southern hemisphere would travel with your maps!

You shold try following the numerous sail boat races which start in Europe and go round Antartica. Check the times and the distances. Compare with your maps.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 18, 2012, 02:00:07 PM
You shold try following the numerous sail boat races which start in Europe and go round Antartica. Check the times and the distances. Compare with your maps.
You should try making a new thread if you want to talk about southern hemisphere discrepancies. Alternatively you could just use the search feature and read one of dozens of threads with that exact conundrum answered.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 18, 2012, 03:13:26 PM
You shold try following the numerous sail boat races which start in Europe and go round Antartica. Check the times and the distances. Compare with your maps.
You should try making a new thread if you want to talk about southern hemisphere discrepancies. Alternatively you could just use the search feature and read one of dozens of threads with that exact conundrum answered.

None of the things said has ever made a FE map plausible.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 18, 2012, 10:43:15 PM
The globe is not mathematically derived from any other map. Thus, it's not a transformation.
So the globe is not derived from an oblate spheroid? How then can you claim that its a map of earth?

Read what you just replied to again. An oblate spheroid is not a map.


Well by approximation we think the earth is a flat disk. We believe its sufficiently flat and disk shaped that mapping it as a disk is useful for navigation. Please refer to the FAQ for such a map.

Please clarify whether the map in the FAQ is the baseline, or a projection.


You claim to use distortion as an aid. In RET we do the same. I have shown you our baseline that we distort and the method we use to distort it. All I'm asking is for the same from you.
No, you haven't showed me how you convert an oblate spheroid into a globe.

The globe is our baseline that we distort to create projections. Do you understand what these words mean?


So your 'baseline' or starting point is an oblate spheroid.

I'll take that as a no.

The globe is the map that we start from. I am asking which map you start from, how it was developed, and how you transform it to produce your projections.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Thork on May 19, 2012, 02:01:36 AM
For the last two pages I have patiently humoured you both by answering the same question repeatedly reworded again and again. I honestly thought you would get the message and drop the thread. But you haven't. You are going to keep rewording it and asking again and again in the hope I might say "Sorry you were right after all". Its not going to happen, but neither am I going to continue this. If its just about having the last word ... its yours. If you think us leaving an unanswered question makes FET look bad then do it. Ask again for a non-distorted FE map ignoring the fact that you don't have a non-distorted RET one either. But I have had enough. You've nothing new to say on the matter and this is very wearisome.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 19, 2012, 12:57:30 PM
Ask again for a non-distorted FE map ignoring the fact that you don't have a non-distorted RET one either.

The true nature of the earth has nothing to do with whether a map is distorted. Learn a thing or two about cartography and try to wrap your thick head around what is meant by a "distorted map".

The globe is the map that we start from. I am asking which map you start from, how it was developed, and how you transform it to produce your projections.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: The Knowledge on May 19, 2012, 04:58:16 PM
Ask again for a non-distorted FE map ignoring the fact that you don't have a non-distorted RET one either.

The true nature of the earth has nothing to do with whether a map is distorted. Learn a thing or two about cartography and try to wrap your thick head around what is meant by a "distorted map".

The globe is the map that we start from. I am asking which map you start from, how it was developed, and how you transform it to produce your projections.

I understand what you mean. We can goad Thork into answering the question by stating that if I understand it and he doesn't, then I must be more intelligent than him. His ego won't allow that to stand, and he'll have to answer the question.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 20, 2012, 04:52:16 AM
Let's note that Thork cannot provide a FE map, hasn't got a sufficient grasp to understand that all the RE maps and globes (and websites) are sufficient enough and move on.

For instance: why does any FE map has got a grid on it where we could see the distorsions (ie 1 square of the grid represents 1,000 miles x 1,000 miles)?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 20, 2012, 07:45:59 PM
Had the file from 2008 been uploaded in 2007, you would not have that case at all. So, indeed, this question is relevant to your claim. You are dodging it, because you know full well that the necessary implication is ludicrous.


But the map you originally linked to is the one from 2008. It's the one that's been under discussion from the start. You're the one who's trying to shift the goalposts.


I am not the one doing so. You are, and you were being weasely by suddenly pretending that you're undecided on the matter when confronted with the suggestion to find out the actual truth.

Bottom line:
Do you claim that Tom does not claim that it is likely that the UN stole their map design from the FES? Yes or no.
Do you claim that Tom does not claim that the northern azimuthal formula was designed to copy a FES design? Yes or no.


If by "does claim" you mean would claim or does believe, then I have no opinion on the matter. I am not a psychic.


However, if by "does claim" you mean did claim or has stated, then no, he has not, as anyone can see.


Finally, why is the wording above different to what you had in the OP? Your claims are so watered down at this point that I can see through them.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 20, 2012, 07:47:22 PM
Let's note that Thork cannot provide a FE map, hasn't got a sufficient grasp to understand that all the RE maps and globes (and websites) are sufficient enough and move on.

For instance: why does any FE map has got a grid on it where we could see the distorsions (ie 1 square of the grid represents 1,000 miles x 1,000 miles)?


FE maps, created from scracth by FE'ers, exist. I have posted them here before. Please do your research and read Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 20, 2012, 10:11:27 PM
Can you link me to the manufacturer's or vendor's website so as I may examine this rare globe for myself?

I made it, so no.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 21, 2012, 12:11:04 AM
Had the file from 2008 been uploaded in 2007, you would not have that case at all. So, indeed, this question is relevant to your claim. You are dodging it, because you know full well that the necessary implication is ludicrous.

But the map you originally linked to is the one from 2008. It's the one that's been under discussion from the start. You're the one who's trying to shift the goalposts.

Wil, is the 2007 file a RE map, or is it a FE map?



Do you claim that Tom does not claim that it is likely that the UN stole their map design from the FES? Yes or no.
Do you claim that Tom does not claim that the northern azimuthal formula was designed to copy a FES design? Yes or no.

If by "does claim" you mean would claim or does believe, then I have no opinion on the matter. I am not a psychic.

However, if by "does claim" you mean did claim or has stated, then no, he has not, as anyone can see.

As "anyone" can see? Who might those people be? Everyone else seems to understand what I'm saying and agrees with the fact that this is what Tom had claimed -- including Tom. Why don't you ask him what he meant? Hey Tom, what did you mean when you said this:

Has it ever occurred to anyone that FEers were lazy about their map and just colored in the UN flag?

Has it occurred to you that FES was in existence about 100 years before the UN was formed, and it's more likely that the UN stole that map from us?

and this:

You're telling me this is a coincidence?

I can make a mathematical formula to draw swastikas on graphic calculators. It doesn't mean that I invented the swastika.

?



Finally, why is the wording above different to what you had in the OP? Your claims are so watered down at this point that I can see through them.

Actually, for a 10-page thread, this has remained remarkably true to the original topic. The OP remains unedited, and I stand by it. Further clarification is found in the fourth reply. My analysis of Tom's posts in the referenced thread are the same on page 1 as they are on page 10.

You jumped into this thread without having read the background material. That's fine, on its own. The trouble is where you went with it: In true Zetetic tradition, you have crafted a conspiracy theory -- wherein you paint me as a lying malevolent spin doctor who crafted this whole thread to smear Tom Bishop --  to make reality conform to those initial uninformed impressions, rather than modify the impressions to conform to reality.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 21, 2012, 11:42:34 AM
Wil, is the 2007 file a RE map, or is it a FE map?


Why does it matter, when no-one was talking about it?


As "anyone" can see? Who might those people be? Everyone else seems to understand what I'm saying and agrees with the fact that this is what Tom had claimed -- including Tom. Why don't you ask him what he meant? Hey Tom, what did you mean when you said this:

Has it ever occurred to anyone that FEers were lazy about their map and just colored in the UN flag?

Has it occurred to you that FES was in existence about 100 years before the UN was formed, and it's more likely that the UN stole that map from us?

and this:

You're telling me this is a coincidence?

I can make a mathematical formula to draw swastikas on graphic calculators. It doesn't mean that I invented the swastika.

?


Here's my '?': where does Tom say


that all maps which resemble [the map from the FAQ] were stolen from the FES, and even that the geometrical transformation formulae which project the globe into this configuration were actually concocted after the fact (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52374.msg1301815#msg1301815).


any of that? Because he doesn't say it in any of the posts you have quoted. He says some things are possible, and that some things are more likely than other things (without saying either is the case). He does not say the maps were stolen from us, or that the formulae were concocted after the fact. And bear in mind, he was defending us against your false claim that the map in question was not created by the FES.


Actually, for a 10-page thread, this has remained remarkably true to the original topic. The OP remains unedited, and I stand by it. Further clarification is found in the fourth reply. My analysis of Tom's posts in the referenced thread are the same on page 1 as they are on page 10.


Yes, but you want to shift from maps that we were talking about to maps we weren't talking about, and claims Tom has made to claims he hasn't made. You haven't substantiated any of your accusations.


You jumped into this thread without having read the background material. That's fine, on its own. The trouble is where you went with it: In true Zetetic tradition, you have crafted a conspiracy theory -- wherein you paint me as a lying malevolent spin doctor who crafted this whole thread to smear Tom Bishop --  to make reality conform to those initial uninformed impressions, rather than modify the impressions to conform to reality.


 ???


The map you were discussing originally is not the map you're now using to try and make your point. The accusations you've levelled at Tom in the OP are not supported by his posts, and you've since reworded and watered them down in order to make them look justifiable. I have read the background material, which is why it's obvious that you are behaving like a "malevolent spin doctor".
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 21, 2012, 11:56:49 AM
Let's note that Thork cannot provide a FE map, hasn't got a sufficient grasp to understand that all the RE maps and globes (and websites) are sufficient enough and move on.

For instance: why does any FE map has got a grid on it where we could see the distorsions (ie 1 square of the grid represents 1,000 miles x 1,000 miles)?


FE maps, created from scracth by FE'ers, exist. I have posted them here before. Please do your research and read Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood.

Fe maps exist. They are all distorted and got the distances wrong. Unless you use a grid that we don't understand.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 21, 2012, 11:58:44 AM
Fe maps exist. They are all distorted and got the distances wrong. Unless you use a grid that we don't understand.


You're begging the question here. Your original claim is false, as I have shown.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 21, 2012, 12:00:36 PM
Fe maps exist. They are all distorted and got the distances wrong. Unless you use a grid that we don't understand.


You're begging the question here. Your original claim is false, as I have shown.

Nobody here has never ever shown me a workable FE map.
Every attempt has been crushed in the easiest way possible.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 21, 2012, 01:24:42 PM
Nobody here has never ever shown me a workable FE map.
Every attempt has been crushed in the easiest way possible.


Ah, "shown me" is a slightly different claim, no?


In any event, I have told you where to find one. I await your crushing critique.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 21, 2012, 03:04:56 PM
Nobody here has never ever shown me a workable FE map.
Every attempt has been crushed in the easiest way possible.

Ah, "shown me" is a slightly different claim, no?

In any event, I have told you where to find one. I await your crushing critique.

The only fact that 2 FE maps are in the Q&A clearly shows the riduculousness of your theory. All your circonvolutions are a bit pointless.

Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 21, 2012, 04:07:30 PM
Uh, I'm telling you where to find a map. You're ignoring it, because you can't be bothered. I'm not the one guilty of "circonvolutions".
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 22, 2012, 12:02:58 AM
Uh, I'm telling you where to find a map. You're ignoring it, because you can't be bothered. I'm not the one guilty of "circonvolutions".

I looked where to find a map. The FE maps are wrong. In shape and distances.

How does stand a theory of a flat Earth which cannot show a representation of it?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 22, 2012, 05:01:36 PM
you've since reworded and watered them down in order to make them look justifiable.

No, I haven't. This is what watering down to make oneself look justifiable looks like:

He says some things are possible, and that some things are more likely than other things (without saying either is the case).

::)



Wil, is the 2007 file a RE map, or is it a FE map?

Why does it matter, when no-one was talking about it?

Why do you continue to stall -- why not just answer the question?

It matters because you claimed that the map was created by a FE'er. When faced with clear evidence that the creator was a RE'er, you pretended that he could have "switched sides" in the intervening years. You gloss over the fact that the latest map is merely a reformat of the original file.

I understand that you just want to be able to claim that your map is the brainchild of the FE community, rather than admit that you lazily leeched the work of a bored RE'er, but there are easier ways to do this than by blatantly denying the obvious fact that these two files are of the same map.



He does not say the maps were stolen from us, or that the formulae were concocted after the fact.

Yes, he does. Again, if you have trouble following that, refer to the clarification in the fourth reply:

I was trying to be succinct, not vague. It's a common idiom, at least in my experience, and I didn't think it would cause any confusion. What I mean is that Tom claimed that the map in the FAQ was not produced by -- nor based on something produced by -- the formula which produces a map that looks exactly like it. Rather, they invented it from scratch on their own, and then after it already existed, Round Earthers cleverly devised a formula to transform the globe into that configuration.

Now, are you going to continue to broadcast your poor reading comprehension skills, or are you going to take my advice and ask Tom if this is indeed what he meant? I'll even save you some time by just directing you to reply #7.




The FE maps are wrong. In shape and distances.

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't even care whether the distances are wrong. Thork told us that FE'ers use distortion purposefully, to "emphasise" certain regions. What I want to know is which map they used as a starting point and how those distortions, or "emphases", were mapped out from it. I'm especially curious as to how a 2-dimensional circular map is transformed to result in a different 2-dimensional circular map; in my experience the only way to create two different usable maps with the same 2D shape is by starting from a 3D one.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 26, 2012, 03:16:16 PM
you've since reworded and watered them down in order to make them look justifiable.

No, I haven't. This is what watering down to make oneself look justifiable looks like:

He says some things are possible, and that some things are more likely than other things (without saying either is the case).

::)


No zarg, that's what accurately representing someone's claims looks like. You should try it some time.




Wil, is the 2007 file a RE map, or is it a FE map?

Why does it matter, when no-one was talking about it?

Why do you continue to stall -- why not just answer the question?

It matters because you claimed that the map was created by a FE'er. When faced with clear evidence that the creator was a RE'er, you pretended that he could have "switched sides" in the intervening years. You gloss over the fact that the latest map is merely a reformat of the original file.

I understand that you just want to be able to claim that your map is the brainchild of the FE community, rather than admit that you lazily leeched the work of a bored RE'er, but there are easier ways to do this than by blatantly denying the obvious fact that these two files are of the same map.


I have highlighted the two relevant issues. We did not claim a FE'er created the 2007 map. We claimed a FE'er made the map from 2008, which is a different map. They are different claims, and you are trying to conflate them in order to score points. Who created the 2007 map is totally irrelevant, because it's not what was being discussed in the original thread, upon which you have based your outlandish and unsupported claims.



He does not say the maps were stolen from us, or that the formulae were concocted after the fact.

Yes, he does. Again, if you have trouble following that, refer to the clarification in the fourth reply:

I was trying to be succinct, not vague. It's a common idiom, at least in my experience, and I didn't think it would cause any confusion. What I mean is that Tom claimed that the map in the FAQ was not produced by -- nor based on something produced by -- the formula which produces a map that looks exactly like it. Rather, they invented it from scratch on their own, and then after it already existed, Round Earthers cleverly devised a formula to transform the globe into that configuration.

Now, are you going to continue to broadcast your poor reading comprehension skills, or are you going to take my advice and ask Tom if this is indeed what he meant? I'll even save you some time by just directing you to reply #7.


Why is it my job to ask what Tom meant? What's clear is what he said. If you think he meant something other than what he said, you ask him. That way you can post his response here and substantiate your currently baseless claims.


I don't have to prove Tom didn't mean something he didn't say. You have to prove he did mean something he didn't say.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on May 26, 2012, 06:29:43 PM
We did not claim a FE'er created the 2007 map. We claimed a FE'er made the map from 2008, which is a different map.

No, it is not a different map. It's a different file. It's the same map reuploaded in a new format with the same description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.jpg)

Quote
This file has been superseded by File:Flat earth.png. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent.
Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png)

Both files are clearly of the same map. One has transparency and graticules overlaid, the other doesn't; that is the only difference. You are being laughably dishonest by claiming they are unique creations.



... post his response here and substantiate your currently baseless claims

Tom already did confirm my explanation of his view on the first page. If you think that his "yes" meant "no", you're going to have to substantiate that.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 30, 2012, 07:36:05 PM
We did not claim a FE'er created the 2007 map. We claimed a FE'er made the map from 2008, which is a different map.

No, it is not a different map. It's a different file. It's the same map reuploaded in a new format with the same description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.jpg)

Quote
This file has been superseded by File:Flat earth.png. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent.
Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png)

Both files are clearly of the same map. One has transparency and graticules overlaid, the other doesn't; that is the only difference. You are being laughably dishonest by claiming they are unique creations.


Two maps, created a different times, which look different. Yet according to you, they are the same. You are laughably ridiculous by suggesting they are the same. ::)



... post his response here and substantiate your currently baseless claims

Tom already did confirm my explanation of his view on the first page. If you think that his "yes" meant "no", you're going to have to substantiate that.


Tom made those claims about the map from the 1800s. He clearly refers to the map being from the 1800s in his post, and refers exclusively to it. No matter how you interpret his post, it doesn't support your claims, because he's clearly talking about the map from the 1800s in that post.
[/quote]
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 31, 2012, 02:36:07 AM
We did not claim a FE'er created the 2007 map. We claimed a FE'er made the map from 2008, which is a different map.

No, it is not a different map. It's a different file. It's the same map reuploaded in a new format with the same description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.jpg)

Quote
This file has been superseded by File:Flat earth.png. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent.
Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png)

Both files are clearly of the same map. One has transparency and graticules overlaid, the other doesn't; that is the only difference. You are being laughably dishonest by claiming they are unique creations.


Two maps, created a different times, which look different. Yet according to you, they are the same. You are laughably ridiculous by suggesting they are the same. ::)


They are the same in the same in a way that there are both wrong in proportions and distances.
And if you'd bothered superposing the both of them, you would have seen that they are almost identical.

THis whole FE map is ridiculous because the only maps you can provide are very small and the data used to create them are very unlikely to come from FE'ers.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 10, 2012, 08:37:18 PM
They are the same in the same in a way that there are both wrong in proportions and distances.
And if you'd bothered superposing the both of them, you would have seen that they are almost identical.


They are the same because they are both wrong? Even if we assume they are wrong for the sake of argument, this is a terrible piece of reasoning.


Alternatively, they are the same because they're similar? Again, stupid.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on June 11, 2012, 12:37:16 AM
They are the same in the same in a way that there are both wrong in proportions and distances.
And if you'd bothered superposing the both of them, you would have seen that they are almost identical.


They are the same because they are both wrong? Even if we assume they are wrong for the sake of argument, this is a terrible piece of reasoning.


Alternatively, they are the same because they're similar? Again, stupid.

They are both wrong in the same way, on the same grounds.

Insted of bickering, why don't you supply a real FE map?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 11, 2012, 04:26:43 PM
They're not the same. And there are loads of FE maps.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on June 12, 2012, 12:22:49 AM
They're not the same. And there are loads of FE maps.

Yep. Lots of FE maps all wrong. Just a hint:
– mass of land deformed beyond recognition in the southern hemisphere
– distances utterly wrong in the southern hemisphere

Why bother with FET when you don't have a map which depicts clearly what FET is about?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: zarg on June 12, 2012, 08:29:22 PM
Tom made those claims about the map from the 1800s. He clearly refers to the map being from the 1800s in his post, and refers exclusively to it. No matter how you interpret his post, it doesn't support your claims, because he's clearly talking about the map from the 1800s in that post.

Exactly, he says they are all based on that hundreds-year-old FES design. The modern azimuthal equidistant map that the FES now displays as their own supposedly evolved directly from that map, and the fact that it's a RET-based calculation is explained by the concept of people deriving the mathematics backward from the image, rather than the other way around.

This is either true, or it isn't. It's not a complicated question. The purpose of this thread was to determine how many people share Tom's opinion. If they do, I'd like some documentation to support the allegation.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: hoppy on June 19, 2012, 01:34:51 PM
Maplandia.com in partnership with Booking.com offers highly competitive rates for all types of hotels in Fes, from affordable family hotels to the most luxurious ones. Booking.com, being established in 1996, is longtime Europe’s leader in online hotel reservations.

At Maplandia.com you won't be charged any booking fees, cancellation fees, or administration fees – the reservation service is free of charge. The reservation system is secure and your personal information and credit card is encrypted.

We have put together also a carefully selected list of recommended hotels in Fes, only hotels with the highest level of guest satisfaction are included.y
Hi rainsummer, welcome to TFES. If I give you my credit card numer, do tbink you could book me a trip to England. I want the closet room to Buckingham palace. Thank you.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on June 19, 2012, 01:51:04 PM
Maplandia.com in partnership with Booking.com offers highly competitive rates for all types of hotels in Fes, from affordable family hotels to the most luxurious ones. Booking.com, being established in 1996, is longtime Europe’s leader in online hotel reservations.

At Maplandia.com you won't be charged any booking fees, cancellation fees, or administration fees – the reservation service is free of charge. The reservation system is secure and your personal information and credit card is encrypted.

We have put together also a carefully selected list of recommended hotels in Fes, only hotels with the highest level of guest satisfaction are included.y
Hi rainsummer, welcome to TFES. If I give you my credit card numer, do tbink you could book me a trip to England. I want the closet room to Buckingham palace. Thank you.

Or a trip to the Bedford canal.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 19, 2012, 05:30:35 PM
Tom made those claims about the map from the 1800s. He clearly refers to the map being from the 1800s in his post, and refers exclusively to it. No matter how you interpret his post, it doesn't support your claims, because he's clearly talking about the map from the 1800s in that post.

Exactly, he says they are all based on that hundreds-year-old FES design. The modern azimuthal equidistant map that the FES now displays as their own supposedly evolved directly from that map, and the fact that it's a RET-based calculation is explained by the concept of people deriving the mathematics backward from the image, rather than the other way around.

This is either true, or it isn't. It's not a complicated question. The purpose of this thread was to determine how many people share Tom's opinion. If they do, I'd like some documentation to support the allegation.


The modern FES map is based on those 1800s maps. Tom has not made any claims about "deriving mathematics backward from the image". Please quote him doing so.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: EmperorZhark on June 20, 2012, 12:40:30 AM
Tom made those claims about the map from the 1800s. He clearly refers to the map being from the 1800s in his post, and refers exclusively to it. No matter how you interpret his post, it doesn't support your claims, because he's clearly talking about the map from the 1800s in that post.

Exactly, he says they are all based on that hundreds-year-old FES design. The modern azimuthal equidistant map that the FES now displays as their own supposedly evolved directly from that map, and the fact that it's a RET-based calculation is explained by the concept of people deriving the mathematics backward from the image, rather than the other way around.

This is either true, or it isn't. It's not a complicated question. The purpose of this thread was to determine how many people share Tom's opinion. If they do, I'd like some documentation to support the allegation.

Maps derived from RE maps.

Let's face it: you don't have the resources to produce a FE map.


The modern FES map is based on those 1800s maps. Tom has not made any claims about "deriving mathematics backward from the image". Please quote him doing so.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cartog on November 15, 2015, 05:21:48 AM
The map at the beginning of this thread is a Polar Azimuthal Equidistant projection map.  Its principal features are that, FROM the center point (here, the North Pole) the direction and distance to any other place is correctly depicted.  This projection and the mathematics behind it has been in use for centuries.  This one here is centered on the North Pole, but an Azimuthal Equidistant map can be centered on any spot on Earth to show, e.g., how antennae should be turned to maximize radio signals to/from some other location. (Here is an Azimuthal Equidistant map centered on Delhi, India:  [url=http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/poor-mapping-by-military-survey/]http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/poor-mapping-by-military-survey/ (http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/poor-mapping-by-military-survey/) [/url].) This projection is the one used in the UN emblem - originally it was turned so the United States appeared right-side-up as would be extremely familiar to Americans, but after a few years the UN turned the map so that the more neutral spot of Zero longitude is at the middle.  There is more than one Azimuthal Equidistant projection, with very similar but not identical results.

But the Azimuthal Equidistant map is not reliable for shapes or area, especially as the distance from the center point increases, nor are the distances or directions between any two non-center points reliable (esp as distance increases between the two non-center points).  Here in the Polar version, the East-West dimension of Australia seems to be three times the North-South dimension - and Australia, east-west, appears to be much larger than the east-west dimension of the US.  In reality the the ratio of Australia is more like 5:4 and Australia and the US are about equally wide, east-west.

On this Polar map, the trip along the entire coastline of Antarctica appears to be prohibitively long, the longest journey possible on Earth.  Yet, ships and planes (and even birds) have traveled along the entire coastline and the clock and fuel gauge show it was not as arduous as the map makes it appear.   The coastline's 11,165 miles is less than the coastline of South America (19,325 miles) which ships from the east/west of the US had to travel before the building of the Panama Canal.  On the map, the distance between Buenos Aires and Perth appears to be prohibitive but the actual distance (7836 miles) is just slightly more than a NYC/Paris round-trip (7274 miles).

This is an Azimuthal Equidistant map with Mecca as its center, showing the direction and distance FROM Mecca to any non-center point.   https://anyasword.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/mecca-centred-map.jpg  (https://anyasword.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/mecca-centred-map.jpg) Having mentioned the Azimuthal Equidistant map and its characteristics, there is a rather bizarre projection, the Retro-Azimuthal Equidistant, in which the direction FROM any non-center point TO the center point is correct (the accuracy of the distance is somewhat less crucial).  This is sometimes called the Mecca map because very often centered on Mecca to show the reader in which direction he must face when praying wherever (away from Mecca) he may be.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_retroazimuthal_projection  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_retroazimuthal_projection) (unfortunately, this had to replace a more interesting interactive map that vanished from the internet).   (In an interactive Hammer Retroazimuthal Equidistant projection, the distortion becomes extreme as the distance from Mecca increases:  [url=https://www.jasondavies.com/maps/hammer-retroazimuthal/]https://www.jasondavies.com/maps/hammer-retroazimuthal/  (https://www.jasondavies.com/maps/hammer-retroazimuthal/).)

The Polar Azimuthal Equidistant map seems to be popular among FE enthusiasts, in large part because the Antarctic coastline has the appearance of a pie crust and suggests an explanation why ships don't fall off the edge.  But measurements made at Antarctica are very incompatible with the impression made by the map.  Here, for example, is an Azimuthal Equidistant map centered on the South Pole, instead of the more familiar North Pole, ....   http://www.emapsworld.com/images/world-south-pole-azimuthal-equidistant-projection-map.gif     (http://www.emapsworld.com/images/world-south-pole-azimuthal-equidistant-projection-map.gif) ... and, as you can see, Antarctica is much less impressive in size than on most other flat maps where it appears on the outer edges.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: ronxyz on November 17, 2015, 05:16:30 PM
You can not make a determination by using a ball Earth map for comparison. As the Earth is proven to be a flat plane how the land masses actually reside upon it needs to be calculated by removing the ball Earth error factors from any data. The shape of the Earth is not known by common man. It may or may not be a circle. Likely, it does not look the way you think it is.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cartog on November 18, 2015, 05:00:12 PM
Accepting, at least for the sake of this discussion, that the Earth is flat, it should be noted that, for more than a century all sorts of highly technical and recondite arguments have been made to explain away the evidence of a round earth.  Yet, despite all that technical information being available, a reliable flat earth map has yet to appear.  It seems to me that IF the Earth is flat, then a world map which is also flat would be a breeze to draw and, moreover, it would not contain any distortions in representing an equally flat Earth.

Surely the Flat Earth societies can come up with a draftsman who can draw a Flat Earth map, without any of those convoluted math equations used to convert the curved surface to a flat page and without any distortions.  Howcome no such draftsman, or more importantly, no such map has ever materialized?  Lots of highly technical excuses to explain away the satellite photos and the view from the Empire State Building - but not even a low-tech floor plan of the world.

Another issue: The FE movement keeps describing the notion of a round earth as a hoax or fraud perpetuated by governments and important people.  It would be, probably, the one and only hoax that has continued for so long -- well over two thousand years (going back to some ancient Greeks and Romans), and in the last 7 or 8 centuries supported by virtually every government, every nationality, every ethnicity and political stripe.  Somehow the testimony supporting a round earth has come, in all those centuries, from mountain climbers, astronomers, balloonists, aircraft pilots and passengers, and even astronauts.  With not one reliable and persuasive witness to the contrary.  Even children aboard a jet plane; even old folks who were passengers.  Were all those people members of a conspiracy?  Were all these people paid off?  And not one attested to a flat earth for more than a dozen centuries. Many thousands of people, from just about every country and economic status.

By contrast the Watergate conspiracy involved only about 20 people and within 6 months most of them were ratting out the rest of them to the FBI, to Congressional committees, and to major newspapers.  But not the Round Earth hoax. 
Doesn't that seem awfully suspicious.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: FlatOrange on November 19, 2015, 12:31:37 AM
I like thorke's map with 2 saudi arabias
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cartog on December 19, 2015, 01:29:18 PM
One very considerable problem.  FE advocates reject the distances measured by boats and planes (and other vehicles) ... especially when these measurements contradict FE theories.  For example, the Polar Azimuthal Equidistant map (the same as on the UN Flag) is a favorite with FEs, almost (but not quite) the official absolutely final FE description of the flat planet -- but the coastline of Antarctica on that map appears enormous, and the distances between the bottom tips of Africa and South America also enormous.  But boats, planes, even birds, have been able to travel along the entire coast of Antarctica, and/or between the tips of Africa and South America, and their measured distances (or even elapsed time measurements) show that the P.A.E. map is severely out of kilter in depicting those distances - and FEs must deny that result.  To do so, FEs come up with strange and wonderful explanations of how the measurements must be wrong, which tend to violate Newtonian laws of physics.

Also, if the flat earth resembles the P.A.E. map, how does the the daily cycles of daylight and darkness play out on a flat map with the North Pole in the center?  On a flat earth, it is difficult to explain how the sun lights up only half the earth - especially the particular configuration of the daylit half at any moment (which configuration can be documented not only by aerial photography but also by communications using telegraph and telephone and radio), especially if we think of the lit and dark halves of the earth cycling every day.

Another question, never quite answered even in this age of aviation and (if you believe it) space travel:  If the earth is flat, what's underneath it?  Is it that old old joke about "turtles all the way down"?  If the earth is flat on this side, could another side of be flat also - so that it's like a phonograph record or even a cube, with entirely different continents, and possibly very different living things on the other faces?  If so, why are "our" planets and stars always visible on "our" side - what planets and stars are visible from the other sides, and is there anything that actually travels around the whole?  If there is no "other side" then what is this flat earth resting on?
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cartog on May 10, 2016, 07:39:20 PM
Ask again for a non-distorted FE map ignoring the fact that you don't have a non-distorted RET one either.

A page of paper is flat.  If the earth is as flat as a page of paper, then a map of the flat earth on a flat page of paper should have no distortions - it should merely be a reduction in scale, like a floor plan.  But I have not heard so much about a FE map without distortions as much as demands for a map showing something of the actual configuration of the true flat earth, even allowing for proportional problems.  The most popular FE map (the UN flag map) has the North Pole dead center and Antarctica spread all around the circumference and that seems less and less likely to be the actual layout of the flat earth.  So what most of us want is a flat map that more closely and more accurately depicts the layout of the flat earth.

Now the flat paper maps of the Round Earth most assuredly have distortions.  The flat paper depiction of the entire surface of anything spherical will have distortions.  Nobody denies that.  There are many different projections for flat paper maps of the round earth, each claiming different virtues (and weaknesses), such as accurate shapes of continents, accurate comparative sizes of countries, accurate directions or distances from/to specific locations, etc.

But the flat map of a flat earth should be much much easier to create.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cartog on June 07, 2016, 06:48:35 AM
The current unofficial FE map (the UN flag map), being the polar azimuthal equidistant map, has the North Pole dead center and Antarctica spread all the edge like a pie crust.  This bolsters the image and the story of some sort of ice wall that prevents people from exploring the edge of the flat earth - but neither the map nor the ice wall story is official FE data.  Nor, frankly, does it make sense when distances are measured or compared, either by fuel consumed, or by odometers, or by travel time.

Despite unofficial stories about Antarctica being off-limits, there have been aviators and even satellites that have viewed Antarctica and the images tend to confirm the National Geographic maps.
  http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/RadarSat.html    (http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/RadarSat.html)
There have also been ships that have circumnavigated the entire coastline of Antarctica, and their mileage and fuel and time consumption show that Australia has nearly twice as much coastline as Antarctica.

The simple fact is that a flat earth should be, in the 21st century, with airplanes and such, relatively easy to map on flat paper .... and the fact that it hasn't tends to detract from the credibility of the FES.  Talking about vast conspiracies and cover-ups that somehow include just about every nation and civilization since antiquity won't do the trick any more.  It should not be impossible, nor even difficult for the FES to come up with an accurate flat map of the flat earth, showing where the edges really are.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: John Davis on June 08, 2016, 06:18:40 AM
My understanding is the current map dates back to Rowbotham.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 08, 2016, 06:50:29 AM
Samuel aint got shit.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: rabinoz on June 11, 2016, 07:01:56 PM
Samuel aint got shit.
And what is that wonderful constructive statement supposed to convey.

Sorry,
         I forgot that jroa doesn't do "constructive"!
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Stoiss on June 16, 2016, 06:02:21 AM
Well you tell me...

Flat Earth society logo:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/FESlogo.gif)


United Nations logo:

(http://s3files.core77.com/blog/images/UN-LOGO%20copy.jpg)

And what you Round Earthers are trying to shove down our throats:

(http://www.planetaryvisions.com/images_new/4121.jpg)

So South america and Australia is pretty much directly opposite eachother ? Ive asked around but never gotten an explenation for how flights taking just 12 hours can occur given a flat earth. That one seems hard to find anything resonable on
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cartog on June 29, 2016, 03:06:03 PM
I figure the business about South America and Australia being "opposite" means being opposite on the Polar Azimuthal Equadistant (=PAE) map (the UN flag map).  I am not sure of the flight routes from South America to Australia but on a Round globe one might suppose they'd either cross over or skirt the Antarctic Circle to take a short route rather than go over the North Pole (actually, they don't do it quite that short because, among other things, there's a lack of emergency landing airports around the Antarctic Circle).  Using non-FE thinking, namely thinking of the earth as round, the enormous distance between South America and Australia on the UN flag map is the result only of the distortion of trying to depict a round earth on a flat page, and that distance does not exist in a round earth reality..  Using various flight time calculators, which were not always entirely congruent since some airlines or routes are not direct or involve the same airports or comparable jets, etc., Buenos Aires, Argentina to Sydney Australia flight takes 15½ hr, JFK NY to Buenos Aires Arg. takes 12¾ hr,  Moscow Russia to Johannesburg South Africa takes 12½ hr.  So the apparent distances/nearness on the PAE map doesn't work out the same in actual flight times and air distances.

I would like to call attention to an unpleasant pair of characters, Texe Marrs, a prolific shortwave/internet "preacher" with an ugly anti-semitic fixation, and Edward Hendrie, a lawyer who churns out books with anti-Catholic and anti-semitic theories.  Hendries has churned out a book, The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World is Not a Moving Globe, arguing for (1) a flat earth of the UN flag configuration which (2) is the immobile center of the universe, and Marrs featured him on his weekly radio/internet broadcast and is helping sell his book.
   (http://)
It's also been picked up by another notorious anti-semite, so I suppose a round earth is now regarded as Jewish in some way.
  http://henrymakow.com/2016/02/Edward-Hendrie-Flat-Earth-Defense.html   (http://henrymakow.com/2016/02/Edward-Hendrie-Flat-Earth-Defense.html)

The particular bit of fakelore these guys are peddling as part of the UN flag map business is that Antarctica must be the outer edge of the Flat Earth and somehow ALL the govts of the world are blocking people from finding the edge by forbidding visitors to the South Pole, overflights, etc.  This story works - only as long as there have been ABSOLUTELY NO overflights or no circumnavigation of Antarctica.   But, no, there have been explorers, overflights, satellites over the South Pole,  and voyages around the coastline of Antarctica, etc., quite a lot of them.  It turns out that Antarctica has, first, been divvied up among various countries, not always amicably, and ostensibly for scientific research ....
 http://astro.uchicago.edu/cara/vtour/ant.cia.gif    (http://astro.uchicago.edu/cara/vtour/ant.cia.gif)
.... and each research station gets understandably edgy about strangers, especially non-scientists, tramping through their research fields and maybe contaminating their stuff with stuff from other people's research fields.  Also, Antarctica, unlike the North Pole, doesn't have a native human population, and the only people there to stage a rescue are the scientists themselves, who really feel ill-prepared and disinclined to do this for tourists, and since the Antarctic environment and landscape is so very hostile, allowing marginally prepared tourists there is just begging to spend enormous amounts of time thereafter rescuing the same marginally prepared tourists.

Edward Hendrie (who is, believe it or not, a lawyer in the DEA and an expert on criminal evidence!) actually insists that the Earth is flat and immobile - in accordance with his very literal reading of the KJV Bible, that it is configured like that Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection map used in the UN flag {and, by the way, that particular projection, abbreviated PAE, goes back to maps showing only one hemisphere or less in the 16th century including one by Postel in 1581, and a world map by Jacques Cassini in 1691:   http://www.artwis.com/articles/all-the-world-within-a-circle-some-unusual-world-maps-on-a-single-polar-projection/3/  (http://www.artwis.com/articles/all-the-world-within-a-circle-some-unusual-world-maps-on-a-single-polar-projection/3/)}, that the Antarctic ice walls are the edge of the Earth and the various govts are combining to prevent anyone from finding out. 

Further, since the Earth is unique in being both flat and immobile, the sun and all the stars and celestial bodies are spinning around the Earth, no matter how distant they may be, and somehow they always seem to be in the same positions relative to each other.  I will point out that, for a least a few decades in the 16th century there was the geocentric notion that while the Earth was round, and turned at 24 hour intervals, it was the center of the universe and the planets orbited around the Earth (this notion of a turning Earth as the center was associated with Tycho Brahe) - unlike Hendrie's notion that the Earth doesn't even turn and therefore even the sun and all the stars and planets are moving around the immoble Earth in a 24 hour cycle; astronomical calculations could be done with Brahe's theory - but they required incredibly cumbersome "corrections" that were not necessary when heliocentric calculations were made.  Hendrie offers no particular explanation what the Earth is resting on, what might be over the edge, etc.  Proof that you can go to a real college and then a real law school, and associate with other people who have done likewise, and still not quite understand why the Empire State Building observation deck can't see all the way to Europe. 

Hendrie supposes that the "fraud" of a round earth, revolving and rotating in space, is the work of a mostly Jewish conspiracy, which he dates back vaguely about 15 centuries (not supported by anything specifically astronomical, just his extremely bad attitude about Jews) ... except that the notion of a round earth goes back very much farther, and to civilizations that had no Jews, and to periods when Jews were very badly persecuted.  In The Geographical Lore of the Time of the Crusades by John Kirtland Wright (American Geographical Society, Research Series nr. 15, NY, 1925) page 15: "Nearly all scholars of antiquity after the fifth century before Christ thought that the earth was a globe."  - and he names several Greek and Roman scholars such as Aristotle and Pliny. (There are some clues that the  Chinese and Hindus may have tumbled to the realization of a round earth even earlier in history.)  Further, some ancient scholars were willing to accept the notion that the spherical earth was not immobile.  It is not at all clear what advantage comes to Jews, Catholics, Communists, or others for promoting the notion of a round and rotating earth, if false, and there are so many competing scientists and hostile ethnic groups in the world over the centuries that it seems impossible that every last one of them has been, not merely informed but entirely persuaded and convinced to continue the "round earth fraud" when exploding it could undoubtedly win them fame and fortune.
Title: Re: The source of FES's map
Post by: Cartog on August 24, 2016, 08:31:54 PM
The Polar Azimuthal Equidistant (PAE) projection world map goes back about 300 years, with some indications that it was in use for just the Northern Hemisphere even earlier than that.   The FES didn't invent it.  The mathematics for it is somewhat challenging.  And the same projection will work with some spot other than the North Pole at the center.

Frankly, an accurate map of a Flat Earth on an equally flat piece of paper would be quite different and not involve any sort of projection or higher mathematics.  It would simply be a flat floor plan of a flat earth on a flat paper.