1

Flat Earth Q&A / Conspiracy

« on: January 14, 2007, 12:06:06 PM »

If an organization had control over every nation in the world, why would they need to 'make' money? Couldn't they just fabricate it out of thin air, since economics would no longer apply to them, or, better yet, get whatever they wanted without money?

2

Flat Earth Q&A / An Analogy For a Flat Earth/Round Earth Debate

« on: January 14, 2007, 03:46:47 AM »

Person 1: Coca-cola and Pepsi have identicle ingredients.
Person 2: No they don't.
Person 1: Well, they taste the same to me.
Person 2: They don't taste the same. Besides, the ingredients are right on the bottle, and they're clearly not the same.
Person 1: That's a conspiracy. The labels are wrong.
Person 2: Why would there be a conspiracy?
Person 1: Because Pepsi and Coca-Cola have the same ingredients.
Person 2: No, they don't.
Person 1: Then why do they taste the same?
Person 2: They don't. And I have evidence to prove that the ingredients aren't the same, but you don't have have any at all.
Person 1: I think they do, and evidence is part of the conspiracy.
Person 2: *sighs and gives up*

Guess which side is which?

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Overcomplicated

« on: January 13, 2007, 01:39:34 PM »

Some celestial bodies are flat, some are not.

You have proof of this? Oh.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Overcomplicated

« on: January 13, 2007, 01:14:36 PM »

i think i read that they also said that the sun and other celestial objects were flat

They contridict each other on that one. Some FEers say they are flat, some say that they're round, and some switch back and forth depending on the situation.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Please disprove this conclusive evidence of a round earth.

« on: January 13, 2007, 12:39:26 PM »

You can't say 'there is no proof that the earth is round', because there is proof that the earth is round. Just because the FEers say 'lol conspiracy' or 'look at the FAQ' (which provides a bunch of unbacked one-liners that don't prove Flat Earth at all) doesn't mean that it isn't proof - it's just proof that FEers refuse to accept.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / The earth is clearly flat...

« on: January 13, 2007, 12:34:49 PM »

If you want proof of the round earth, just look at the 48 pages of topics in this room already.

No, no, that's been done to death. And the FEers have unbacked and unproved counters to every one of them (about half of these are 'lol conspiracy that I can't prove, but it must be there since the earth is flat!')

You know what I want you to do?
Go on the offensive. This is something that FEers never do. Why?

So, give me photographic or scientifically-backed evidence for that the earth is flat. Not that proves a flat earth could theoretically exist. Proof that we are, infact, on a flat earth right now.
We've done the same for the round earth many times over (just because you deny it doesn't mean it isn't evidence)

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Shock Horror

« on: January 13, 2007, 11:59:51 AM »

Except that the RE and the FE can not exist at one time. We are on either one, or the other (unless you want to add more models into the equation just to complicate things).

No shit the world is either one or the other.

Obviously, you didn't actually read that post.
It's simple, but, then, so is 'the earth is round'.

Way to take the very first sentence out of a long post, take it out of it's context, and insult that one sentence without adressing any of the rest of the post.

Go back and try again.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / ITT: Provide Proof That There Is A Conspiracy

« on: January 13, 2007, 01:20:08 AM »

You don't have anything that would lead you to believe there is a conspiracy. You think there is one, but with no grounds, and you don't even try to make a case for why you believe there is a conspiracy in the first place.

There is one REALLY BIG pointer:  The earth is flat.  The government says it is round.  That points to a conspiracy.

I missed this earlier, so I figured I should address it.

See, this is a logical paradox. For Flat Earth to exist, there has to be a conspiracy. For a conspiracy to exist, there has to be a flat earth. So, if you can't prove flat earth, then there is no conspiracy, and if you can't prove conspiracy, then there is no flat earth.
Either prove one or the other, otherwise, neither exists.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / ITT: Provide Proof That There Is A Conspiracy

« on: January 13, 2007, 01:10:35 AM »

How do you know it was a website that 'converted' me?


To be converted would mean that I felt differently at some point.

Something must have convinced you at some point. Unless you were just born, and suddenly decided, the moment you could first make consious thought, 'The world is flat'.
For this to be true, at some point, before you had ever heard from anyone that the earth was round, some one told you that the earth is flat.
Then, it is still not true that you were never 'converted', as said person converted you from nuetrality to FE.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Shock Horror

« on: January 13, 2007, 01:06:20 AM »

Once again, no one is trying to disprove the RE, but to simply show that the FE could work in the framework.

Except that the RE and the FE can not exist at one time. We are on either one, or the other (unless you want to add more models into the equation just to complicate things). And since the flat earth relys on conspiracy and has no proofs (i.e.; photographical proofs, observational proofs, experimental proofs), it is not possible to prove that the Flat Earth exists, only that it could, theoretically, exist (and this arguement is still shaky), where as the Round Earth has these proofs.

This is the reason the only arguments for Flat Earth are derivitive of the Round Earth model - because there are no direct proofs. However, the Round Earth has many direct proofs that are completely unrelated to Flat Earth model. Which is where people come in trying to disprove the Round Earth, as has been seen over and over again on this forum. Because there is no direct proof of Flat Earth, the only way to defend the theory is to try to show that the proofs of Round Earth are also possible on Flat Earth. Which brings us full circle to the start of this paragraph.

To sum it up: There are no original ways to justify that we are, infact, on a flat earth. All of the ways that the flat earth are justified were created by criticing the round earth model. These critiques are often used as 'proofs', but they don't prove anything other than that, if you look hard enough, you can 'create' holes in any theory by making up shit. Like, 'the reason ships appear to sink is because of refraction. Therefore, it's possible that the world might not be round, so it must be flat.'

To sum it up even more: All of the evidence behind Flat Earth being a possibilty is uneducated bullshit that was made up in order to try to 'disprove' the actual, real proof of Round Earth.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / ITT: Provide Proof That There Is A Conspiracy

« on: January 13, 2007, 12:40:32 AM »

Do you think that an organization more powerful (according to your conspiracy-related theories in other topics) than any organization ever known in the history of man, would even allow a website suggesting a Flat Earth to exist?

Why not?  Are you in any danger of being converted?  Do you know how many people we have converted?  Zero.  If anything, people leave this site with greater knowledge of how the world works and a stronger belief that the earth is round.

Obviously, websites like this one convinced you that the earth is flat.
Unless *gasp* you don't really believe that.

I have you cornered here. Either you have to admit that you were wrong in your last post (about no one being converted), or you have to admit you don't really believe in Flat Earth.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Shock Horror

« on: January 13, 2007, 12:36:13 AM »

It is only being used in this arguement to show an alternate to Gravity, showing a possibility of gravity existing on a Flat Earth, and was created as an alternative to what? Round Earth.

Isn't that what we are arguing here?

It is meant to show an alternative possibility to Round Earth, and is not a direct proof of Flat Earth, but rather dirrivitive of the Round Earth theory.

Now, you have stacked the deck so that I can't provide you what you asked for.

You can't provide what I asked for because such a proof doesn't exist.
Which is what I said in the first place.

The point in the first place was for you to provide a proof of the Flat Earth.
Something like that is not a proof. It is a theory as to why a flat earth might be possible by contridicting the evidence that the earth is Round.
Every single theory for how a Flat Earth might exist is simply dirrivitive of, and in response to, evidence for how the Earth is round. If there was a real proof, such as photographic evidence, observation evidence, or experimental evidence, it would be seperate, clear and distinct, and would not rely on rebuttles to such things (evidence) that indicates that the earth is round.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / ITT: Provide Proof That There Is A Conspiracy

« on: January 13, 2007, 12:26:49 AM »

I think your missing the point. In fact, you purposly avoided the point by nitpicking on tiny details.

What I'm saying is really very simple. Please try to keep up.

Say that this conspiracy is real. And, I already know you do. Do you think that an organization more powerful (according to your conspiracy-related theories in other topics) than any organization ever known in the history of man, would even allow a website suggesting a Flat Earth to exist?
Using this sort of policy, they would never manage to cover up a conspiracy.
No, this site wouldn't exist, and everyone who ever saw it would be dead.
If you do not believe that this organization is powerful enough to have this done, how can you believe they are powerful enough to cover up the fact that 'the earth is flat'?

NOTE: This isn't directed at you, Toothpaste. I should have used the 'quote'. Oops. U_U

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Shock Horror

« on: January 13, 2007, 12:20:05 AM »

I'm not.  The 'force' we feel as gravity is actually acceleration - in either the RE or FE model.

I edited this into my last post, but I was too slow. It's been edited slightly from the original to get the point across more clearly and make it harder for you to 'nitpick'.

Secondly, this isn't a seperate proof, like I requested. It is only being used in this arguement to show an alternate to Gravity, showing a possibility of gravity existing on a Flat Earth, and was created as an alternative to what? Round Earth. It is meant to show an alternative possibility to Round Earth, and is not a direct proof of Flat Earth, but rather dirrivitive of the Round Earth theory.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Shock Horror

« on: January 13, 2007, 12:13:08 AM »

I don't see how any of those disprove the RE.  I see them as simply stating a way for the FE to work.

Name one theory to why the earth is flat that doesn't rely on disputting an opposing theory to why the earth is round.

Do it. Then, your point will be proved, and I will give up on this particular point of arguement. Otherwise, I am right.
It is cut-and-dry - if you provide one, I'm wrong. If you don't, I'm right. End of story. Now, it's your turn.

Gravity as acceleration.

But, what happened to 'Gravity doesn't exist and is some magical force you can't prove, and this is why it's possible the earth is flat'? Don't contridict your own groups theories.

Secondly, this isn't a seperate proof, like I requested. It is meant to show an alternate method of Gravity existing as applied to the Flat Earth, and was created as an alternative to what? Round Earth. And is meant to disprove Round Earth in order to show the possibility of Flat Earth, not a direct proof of Flat Earth.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / ITT: Provide Proof That There Is A Conspiracy

« on: January 13, 2007, 12:10:55 AM »

A little too late now.

So you're claiming that this organization behind the conspiracy that can somehow program into every computer in the world 'wrong' coordinates that say they are traveling in a different direction than they actually are, as well as convince 98% of the developed world that the earth is round, and keep any sort of proof of any kind from being discovered in favor of the flat earth theory from ever being found (see the 'shock' topic), somehow couldn't keep a book from some unknown author from being printed, published and talked about on the internet?

17

Flat Earth Q&A / ITT: Provide Proof That There Is A Conspiracy

« on: January 12, 2007, 11:58:48 PM »

Also, if there was a conspiracy, that book you guys keep pushing, wouldn't exist, would it? :roll:

Why draw attention to it?

But, if whatever is behind this supposed conspiracy is really so all powerful it can stop us from finding that the 'earth is flat', couldn't they just erase this book from existance, thereby not drawing any attention to it at all?
Oh.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Shock Horror

« on: January 12, 2007, 11:54:20 PM »

I don't see how any of those disprove the RE.  I see them as simply stating a way for the FE to work.

Name one theory to why the earth is flat that doesn't rely on disputting an opposing theory to why the earth is round.

Do it. Then, your point will be proved, and I will give up on this particular point of arguement. Otherwise, I am right.
It is cut-and-dry - if you provide one, I'm wrong. If you don't, I'm right. End of story. Now, it's your turn.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / ITT: Provide Proof That There Is A Conspiracy

« on: January 12, 2007, 11:51:05 PM »

It wouldn't be much of a conspiracy if we had a bunch of proof.

Every other conspiracy ever has proofs. Even the 911 conspiracies had 'proof', and we all know what a load of bull that is.

It was proof, but was a bunch of bull?  How does that work?

It wasn't real evidence, as it was all wrong. But the point is that there was something that lead to the belief that there was a conspiracy, real or not. There was something that the believers could point at and say, 'This is why I think that the government attacked their own building. Just look at the video!' And, even though they were wrong, you could perhaps see where their misconceptions were coming from.
You don't have anything that would lead you to believe there is a conspiracy. You think there is one, but with no grounds, and you don't even try to make a case for why you believe there is a conspiracy in the first place.
There just 'is'.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Shock Horror

« on: January 12, 2007, 11:46:33 PM »

The FE theory also has no proofs of it's own, but relies on trying to disprove the proofs for RE.

Who tries to disprove the RE?

... Every FE'er.

Most suposed 'proofs' of FE end up sounding something like this:
'Gravity doesn't really exist', 'the reason ships sink on the horizon is because of refraction', 'how do you know you're traveling in a straight line?', 'the moon just looks like a cirlce to me'. Need I go on?
See, the thing is, these aren't really proofs at all, but just 'disproofs' of RE.
Name one theory to why the earth is flat that doesn't really on disputting an opposing theory to why the earth is round.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / ITT: Provide Proof That There Is A Conspiracy

« on: January 12, 2007, 11:40:50 PM »

It wouldn't be much of a conspiracy if we had a bunch of proof.

Every other conspiracy ever has proofs. Even the 911 conspiracies had 'proof', and we all know what a load of bull that is.
If you can't think of a single reason that leads you to believe there is a conspiracy, why do you think there is a conspiracy?
And, what possible motive would there be for a conspiracy?

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Shock Horror

« on: January 12, 2007, 11:34:01 PM »

people who believe the moon landings were a hoax

To be fair, that theory has a lot more grounds than this one. Which is rather sad.

See, the United States actually had a potential motive, and there are some actual supportable evidence, real or not, as opposed to Flat Earth, which relies completely on, "Well, the Earth could conceivably be flat, so it definitly is." The FE theory also has no proofs of it's own, but relies on trying to disprove the proofs for RE, without providing any substantial arguments for their side other than "RE could be wrong, therefore the world must be flat".

23

Flat Earth Q&A / ITT: Provide Proof That There Is A Conspiracy

« on: January 12, 2007, 11:09:48 PM »

Oh. You can't.

Flat Earth officially fails at this point.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / UNBELIEVABLE

« on: January 11, 2007, 08:06:48 PM »

7 16ths of one inch.

Thats the distance you'd have to move your left pinky in order to not sound like a fraking retard.

Stolen from Maddox.

Wow, this is the second time I've said that in as many days.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Is there a need for the end of the earth in FE?

« on: January 11, 2007, 07:37:33 PM »

You want to know why there's 'no data' for what's at the edge of the flat earth, yet there's plenty of data for what's at the 'edge' of the round earth? Because, *gasp*, the world isn't flat.

Doesn't this even strike you as a possiblity?

26

Flat Earth Q&A / "If you go straight along enough..."

« on: January 11, 2007, 07:33:58 PM »

As far as I know, that's a figure of speech, and has no evidence to back it up, because...it's just a figure of speech. So to prove it wrong, all I need to do is say, "No you won't."

It's a quote. A cookie to anyone who recognizes where it's from.
And, I only used it to put the idea behind it in the plainest terms possible.

But if you want to get to the nitty-gritty, as far as I'm concerned there are no bridges across the oceans, so you'd have a tough time walking in a straight line until you were back where you were.

I never said walk. Directly quoting, I've got 'go' and 'travel', so, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty...

Also, circumnavigation is entirely possible on the flat Earth model. Read the FAQ.

~D-Draw

Wait, so, on this forum, Gravity is disputed as 'crazy magic', but Circumnavigation is just fine and dandy? Way to pick and choose.

Take a coin. Put a pencil in the middle of it, and move the pencil tip to the right. Is the pencil tip now on the left side of the coin? No. Now do the same with a ball or sphere of any sort. You'll notice how the pencil comes back to the point at which it started. Which is most definitly (and I'd like to see you dispute this) how the earth seems to work.
So explain why, instead of everything working in the way that logic and evidence have proved it to many times over, the earth (according to those who believe in FE) definitly works in a completely different way just because it might be a vague possibilty. Maybe.

Compasses point along the magnetic lines. If you weren't on the magnetic equator and you travelled due west on the RE you wouldn't walk in a straight line, but a curve around one of the magnetic poles.

Again, the quote wasn't meant to be perfectly literally, just to get a point across. That is, that there is plenty of physical evidence that the world is round, and if one put their mind to it, anyone could test this themselves.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / "If you go straight along enough..."

« on: January 11, 2007, 04:27:42 PM »

All the FE'ers are either gonna say that you were not walking in a straight line, as has been debated to death the past day.

So, if it's impossible to travel in a straight line, how does anyone ever manage to go from one place to another at all? Aparently, compasses are useless and it's impossible to tell that you're inadvertantly turning around, so wouldn't that make air and sea travel rather difficult?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / "If you go straight along enough..."

« on: January 11, 2007, 04:18:19 PM »

"... you'll end up where you were."

Please, disprove the logic behind this line, by either disproving the fact that it is possible to go in a straight line around the earth or proving that it is somehow possible to do so on a flat surface.

This is real, physical evidence that any person can test themselves by traveling around said world. Please explain.