1

Flat Earth General / Re: These are pictures that I personally took

« on: August 30, 2010, 04:09:21 PM »

Still avoiding the images, I see.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: These are pictures that I personally took

« on: August 30, 2010, 12:58:50 PM »

I love how this hasn't been answered yet.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just a Question

« on: August 30, 2010, 12:57:58 PM »

Not here to be judgmental, just simply curious about your beliefs.  If the world is indeed flat, how do you explain transatlantic AND trans pacific flights to get to the same land mass?

Just a couple quick questions for clarification.  I see you are stressing the conjunction "AND".  So there is an importance to simultaneous landings from the two locations for the purposes of your study? Where is the destination land mass? Thanks!

I think you're over-analysing. If one man leave's North America to the west, and another leaves to the east (for the sake of argument, let's say to Cairo), why do they both happen to reach their destinations?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 10:41:27 PM »

I have expressed no personal fears

I fear

Ah, yet another contradiction. You're setting new standards right there!

Way to place a quote out of context. You're setting new standards right there!

Do explain how it is out of context. Clocktower said "I fear" and then proceeded to talk about his fears.

EDIT: Lol at the delete.

Yeah, sorry about that. It's two in the morning here. Completely misread the posts.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 09:00:21 PM »

The extraordinary claim here is that the Earth is round.  That's what requires extraordinary evidence.

Perhaps, in your view; but the fact remains that you were making a positive claim, whereas I was making a negative.

So you're going to blindly trust somebody else's opinion?  Why don't you try judging its methods for yourself instead of pointing to an obviously biased review?

I think you talk quicker than you read. Misread the post, thus eating my own words, ironically. I have enough confidence in my views of the shape of our planet to be able to safely take this "biased" review seriously. I'm not saying that I'm close-minded either; only that I have other priorities.

Most people don't seem interested in doing that.

Unfortunately. That's the main problem with society; no opinion on anything other than their own lives.

But scientists strive to keep everything as factual as possible, so that people don't have to look for an answer to something. FET is simply not credible enough to be placed at par.

I fully agree.

Good. I was beginning to think that most FETists were blind followers of the Bible. I'm glad to find out I was wrong.

6

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Another post your desktop thread

« on: August 29, 2010, 08:51:33 PM »

Found the image about a week ago; sure beats the Windows 7 slide show I had before.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 08:18:17 PM »

Just to clarify, Roundy believes that the Earth is round.

Pardon?

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process.

I must be incompetent, because I don't see how devil's advocate applies.

Roundy (at least appears to) argue for a position that he does not necessarily believe.  What's so hard about that to understand?

I'm confused as to where this applies. I don't see where he is playing devil's advocate.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 08:14:04 PM »

Whoa, you're the one making a positive claim; don't turn the table and make a negative one until you properly prove your positive.

No I'm not.  You're the one claiming the world is round.  Show the proof that my senses are deceiving me.

The topic (between you and I) has always been that you made a positive claim that there is evidence to support the fact that the Earth is flat. You've given me a controversial book accused of using primitive techniques to reach a conclusion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, said the wise Carl Sagan.  

So what makes this book great?

I never said it was great.  But it is a book with purported evidence that the Earth is flat.  

That wasn't the point of the review. The point of the review was that the methods used to reach the conclusions laid out in the book are flawed.

Argh, the default position doesn't change according to one's opinion. In modern science, the default position is that the Earth is round. If you want to change the default position, you have to provide evidence.

The default position is what our own regular experience tells us.  Just because you've been indoctrinated to be sure that the Earth is round despite the observable evidence to the contrary doesn't necessarily mean it is.

Indoctrination is not synonymous with reading the factual evidence and possible stances, to confirm my stance on the subject. You want examples of indoctrination? Religious adherents are chock full of them.

Sure, the default position can change when placed in reference to your own conclusions on a subject, but not in reality.

Edit: Fixed quote tags.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 08:02:41 PM »

Just to clarify, Roundy believes that the Earth is round.

Pardon?

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process.

I must be incompetent, because I don't see how devil's advocate applies.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Prosecution of Wistleblowers

« on: August 29, 2010, 07:57:32 PM »

I can't help but think that the only reason they refused to help Wikileaks redact those documents was so they can attempt to politically smear them by claiming that they recklessly put lives in danger.  There are reportedly 15,000 more secret documents about to be released, which Wikileaks has made available to the pentagon to review, hopefully they do the right thing this time around.

The Pentagon never accepted the documents, if they were sent at all. They're redacting names which could cause a backlash, but nevertheless, there is a reason for which the 15,000 documents are being delayed.

As a side note, I've downloaded the insurance file a while ago, which I find to be a sign of danger for Wikileaks. But the risk, in this case, seems to be well worth the reward.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 07:47:08 PM »

And yes, it is unsubstantiated until you provide concrete evidence to render it substantiated. Otherwise it remains a claim. An unsubstantiated claim.

Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham aka Parallax is an excellent starting point.  Google it, it's available for free online.

Now, I'd like to see some concrete evidence of a round Earth.

lurk moar. There are plenty of posts of concrete evidence of a round Earth. Try the search feature.

I've never seen anything that proves that the Earth is round.  Until such evidence is presented, it's only right that the default position is considered.

Argh, the default position doesn't change according to one's opinion. In modern science, the default position is that the Earth is round. If you want to change the default position, you have to provide evidence.

Just to clarify, Roundy believes that the Earth is round.

Pardon?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 07:39:22 PM »

And yes, it is unsubstantiated until you provide concrete evidence to render it substantiated. Otherwise it remains a claim. An unsubstantiated claim.

Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham aka Parallax is an excellent starting point.  Google it, it's available for free online.

Now, I'd like to see some concrete evidence of a round Earth.

lurk moar. There are plenty of posts of concrete evidence of a round Earth. Try the search feature.

I've never seen anything that proves that the Earth is round.  Until such evidence is presented, it's only right that the default position is considered.

Argh, the default position doesn't change according to one's opinion. In modern science, the default position is that the Earth is round. If you want to change the default position, you have to provide evidence.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 07:35:14 PM »

And yes, it is unsubstantiated until you provide concrete evidence to render it substantiated. Otherwise it remains a claim. An unsubstantiated claim.

Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham aka Parallax is an excellent starting point.  Google it, it's available for free online.

Now, I'd like to see some concrete evidence of a round Earth.

Whoa, you're the one making a positive claim; don't turn the table and make a negative one until you properly prove your positive.

As for your book, I'm sceptical when seeing the following review:

"Some books are truly great because they have been carefully researched, verified and contain deep truths that can change your understanding of this world forever. This is not one of these books; in fact, it is as far as it gets from one of these books. Basically, this is a work of one man who started out with an assumption -- namely, that the Earth is flat -- and then picked some things that seem to support this assumption, completely ignoring the vast amount of evidence against it.

So what makes this book great? It is charming in the same way an Ed Wood movie is -- so unbelievably sloppy and amateurish that it is quite hilarious. The basic assumption is just so laughable and unbelievable that you can fully appreciate the depth -- or lack thereof -- of the evidence and reasoning. Basically, the main body of evidence is some experiments that the author has conducted. He looked at objects from great distance, they did not disappear, therefore the Earth must be flat. As simple as that! As an additional bonus, he threw in some carefully selected data about lighthouses that could be seen from a longer distance than would be possible if the Earth was round (ignoring the majority of data that does not fit in his theory).

And just about the best thing about the book is the fact that it is still relevant today. We still have people who use the very same methods -- carefully selected data, sloppy research and loud statements -- to prove all sorts of things. We have people who believe that Earth was created 6000 years ago, we have people who say that global warming is not really happening, we have people who claim that smoking is not really that bad for you -- using the very same kind of reasoning, that is, starting with an assumption and then picking evidence to support it. This book is so blatantly wrong that it serves as a nice and safe training tool -- when you understand what is wrong with this book, it is easier to see what is wrong with the other claims. And that is the greatest strength and value of this book."

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question to Infinite Plane Believers

« on: August 29, 2010, 07:21:25 PM »

Oh dear. I guess we know another FEer troll has a closed mind outwitted us all! ZOMG!.

Fxied.

These are the diatribes I spoke of.  The notion that you think you've won ground here is astonishing.  You've gleaned no information that I haven't divulged freely.  Do I strike you as the type of writer that often makes verbal mistakes?

Regardless, it is a meaningless allegation to label me a troll.  I suppose I could be, I cannot conclusively exonerate myself of these accusations.  However, you are forgetting one inescapable fact; attacking my integrity does nothing to weaken my arguments.  So you continue to dance around your hollow victories if it helps you.  I don't mind all that much.

Considering all evidence of this theory has been debunked, there's not much more to do on these boards apart from act as immature as those who believe in this fantasy.

Like I said, it is immature, but at least it makes for good laughs.

Quite addicting actually. I can see why some have amassed over hundreds of posts.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 07:05:29 PM »

What I belive is irrelevant.

I find that the word "irrelevant" is oft-used in the FET vocabulary. Are your statements so ambiguous to the point where people are going off-topic?

No.  I think people tend to go off-topic because they don't take the topic seriously.

Haha, well that's a given. What else do you expect when trying to disprove centuries-old knowledge, replacing it with this pseudo-science?

See?  Case in point.

Subject hasn't gone off-topic in relation to your comment, therefore I fail to see what you're pointing out. But yes, we don't take the topic seriously, because as I said, it's unsubstantiated.

It's substantiated enough to be worthy of discussion.

Anything is worthy of being discussed. The FET is not worthy of being taken seriously because it's unsubstantiated.

If it's worthy of being discussed, it's worthy of being taken seriously.  It is not unsubstantiated.

I can discuss the likelihood of a of an invisible pink unicorn being the creator of the universe, but that doesn't make it substantiated.

And yes, it is unsubstantiated until you provide concrete evidence to render it substantiated. Otherwise it remains a claim. An unsubstantiated claim.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: i want both sides to present evidence of their respective theories

« on: August 29, 2010, 07:00:46 PM »

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Interesting response for losing a debate.  Note to myself: laughter is the best medicine.

Would you care to explain your conclusion that I lost the debate about Tom Bishop's position about the size of the Earth, or is this just another one of your rambling posts?

I will allow you to figure it out.  No rambling needed.

So you can't answer the challenge.  I guess we shouldn't expect that much of you.

You lived the exchange. If you really can't see it for yourself then I really can't help you.

Sure you can. You made the conclusion. Tell us how you reached it.

If you must, reread. I am not your instructor.

Hmm, I suppose FETists regularly follow this reasoning; you know, because you won't give us any evidence for anything you say.

ZING!

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 06:58:01 PM »

What I belive is irrelevant.

I find that the word "irrelevant" is oft-used in the FET vocabulary. Are your statements so ambiguous to the point where people are going off-topic?

No.  I think people tend to go off-topic because they don't take the topic seriously.

Haha, well that's a given. What else do you expect when trying to disprove centuries-old knowledge, replacing it with this pseudo-science?

See?  Case in point.

Subject hasn't gone off-topic in relation to your comment, therefore I fail to see what you're pointing out. But yes, we don't take the topic seriously, because as I said, it's unsubstantiated.

It's substantiated enough to be worthy of discussion.

Anything is worthy of being discussed. The FET is not worthy of being taken seriously because it's unsubstantiated.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 06:53:49 PM »

What I belive is irrelevant.

I find that the word "irrelevant" is oft-used in the FET vocabulary. Are your statements so ambiguous to the point where people are going off-topic?

No.  I think people tend to go off-topic because they don't take the topic seriously.

Haha, well that's a given. What else do you expect when trying to disprove centuries-old knowledge, replacing it with this pseudo-science?

See?  Case in point.

Subject hasn't gone off-topic in relation to your comment, therefore I fail to see what you're pointing out. But yes, we don't take the topic seriously, because as I said, it's unsubstantiated.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Predicted Shape of the Sunlit Area under FET

« on: August 29, 2010, 06:50:54 PM »

There has never been an undertaking to create an accurate map of the world.

Sure, when you can't refute the fact that the general RE map is sufficiently accurate then go to the details. There is always some place which isn't exactly like it is described in the map and you can always nag about it.

I would say that the whole "California is not an island" thing is a pretty major detail to miss.

If it took three hundred years for explorers and colonists to figure out that California wasn't an island, why should we trust them on anything else?

You have failed to support your premise that "it took three hundred years to figure out that California wasn't an island". Please do so, or yield.

Aside from that, I fail to see the reasoning in taking the example of a cartographer centuries in the past to reflect on what we should rely upon today. A is wrong once, therefore A is always wrong. What's the name of that fallacy?

20

Flat Earth General / Re: i want both sides to present evidence of their respective theories

« on: August 29, 2010, 06:35:59 PM »

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Interesting response for losing a debate.  Note to myself: laughter is the best medicine.

Since when is ending a debate due to ignorance from the opposing party synonymous with losing it?

Edit: Baaaaad typo.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 06:16:36 PM »

What I belive is irrelevant.

I find that the word "irrelevant" is oft-used in the FET vocabulary. Are your statements so ambiguous to the point where people are going off-topic?

No.  I think people tend to go off-topic because they don't take the topic seriously.

Haha, well that's a given. What else do you expect when trying to disprove centuries-old knowledge, replacing it with this pseudo-science?

22

Announcements / Re: I'm sending out press releases on Monday. Any suggestions?

« on: August 29, 2010, 06:10:50 PM »

The Globe

How ironic.

Hmm, quite.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 06:07:47 PM »

What I belive is irrelevant.

I find that the word "irrelevant" is oft-used in the FET vocabulary. Are your statements so ambiguous to the point where people are going off-topic?

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 06:05:59 PM »

It seems likely that there was no conspiracy before spaceflight.

Then tell me what was the motivation and what was so compelling about thinking that the Earth is round? It has been properly established long before Galilei's time (the oldest-known spherical globe dates a few years before Columbus' renowned journey), so taking into account of your claim that there was, in fact, no conspiracy present at the time, all evidence brought up in that era cannot have been maliciously intended (i.e., there was no motivation to make such evidence false).

So why are you all denying it? It's right there in front of your faces. It's been peer reviewed and examined by hundreds and thousands of scientists since its inception. The "theory" (for lack of better words, of course) remains consistent with all scientific findings since the 1600s. And you come to tell us that it's wrong, without peer reviewed and properly analysed "evidence"?

Listen to me: if you all had some basis, scientists would have taken much more interest in the FET. Because believe it or not, our species is bent on knowledge and truth. We've depended on it to get to where we are now. To think that we would abandon this crucial pillar of our character for CAPITALISTIC GAIN is completely absurd.

...but where you seek that knowledge and truth (and evidence) will be key to your understanding.

The source of information does not change whether or not the information is correct or not. As I've said twice, the information remains consistent with every scientific experience known to post-16th century humans. I really don't care if the theory of everything is found by a surfer in Hawaii, as long as it remains consistent with other scientific knowledge.

25

Announcements / Re: I'm sending out press releases on Monday. Any suggestions?

« on: August 29, 2010, 05:47:58 PM »

You could try The Globe, or perhaps The National Enquirer. They'd probably like to take your story.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 05:40:33 PM »

It seems likely that there was no conspiracy before spaceflight.

Then tell me what was the motivation and what was so compelling about thinking that the Earth is round? It has been properly established long before Galilei's time (the oldest-known spherical globe dates a few years before Columbus' renowned journey), so taking into account of your claim that there was, in fact, no conspiracy present at the time, all evidence brought up in that era cannot have been maliciously intended (i.e., there was no motivation to make such evidence false).

So why are you all denying it? It's right there in front of your faces. It's been peer reviewed and examined by hundreds and thousands of scientists since its inception. The "theory" (for lack of better words, of course) remains consistent with all scientific findings since the 1600s. And you come to tell us that it's wrong, without peer reviewed and properly analysed "evidence"?

Listen to me: if you all had some basis, scientists would have taken much more interest in the FET. Because believe it or not, our species is bent on knowledge and truth. We've depended on it to get to where we are now. To think that we would abandon this crucial pillar of our character for CAPITALISTIC GAIN is completely absurd.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Why don't you flat earthers

« on: August 29, 2010, 05:27:05 PM »

Raise the funds and go on a trip to space? Maybe live aboard the ISS for a few days and see the earth properly? This would be a better thing to do than to argue that all pictures taken by NASA or any other space organisation for that matter is photo shopped. Or maybe you guys should fly over the Antarctica and see for yourself that there is no such thing as an ice wall that prevents the oceans from leaking into space?

wait you can live inside the ISS? Just sign yourself up? Gee thnx ill do that right away (even tho im an Earth Shape Agnostic and not a FE'er).

How can anyone be an Earth Shape Agnostic? This isn't like God. We can determine if the Earth is flat or if it is not flat.

Pshaw. All valid evidence pointing to a scientifically-sane conclusion is part of a conspiracy to further the profits of the rich. Therefore all evidence is immediately unsubstantiated. Therefore agnosticism is possible. In their minds of course.

I have no idea how you and other "RE-ists" manage to properly converse with FE theorists... this is almost as bad as debating materialism with a solipsist.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 05:17:16 PM »

i am new here so what i dont get is what is the reason the conspiracy exists at all, i mean what does anyone gain over misleading people about the shape of the planet 

Once again, the FAQ and lurking will help you a lot.

In short, there is great monetary benefits to faking space flights.

Err, okay...  So, what was their motivation for this conspiracy in the years before space flight?

You'll never get a logical or rational response to that question.

I'm aware of that, but it's always nice to have a nice laugh with my night snack. It brightens up one's day -- or night, for that matter.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

« on: August 29, 2010, 04:27:12 PM »

i am new here so what i dont get is what is the reason the conspiracy exists at all, i mean what does anyone gain over misleading people about the shape of the planet 

Once again, the FAQ and lurking will help you a lot.

In short, there is great monetary benefits to faking space flights.

Err, okay...  So, what was their motivation for this conspiracy in the years before space flight?

30

The Lounge / Re: The REAL Truth

« on: August 29, 2010, 04:16:46 PM »

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

So you saw the experiments going on in research facilities? Is this what is convincing you of a flat earth model?