Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Rational U.S. Viking

Pages: [1]
1
Suggestions & Concerns / Sticky Topics
« on: February 15, 2010, 08:31:49 PM »
I understand that a locked topic is one to which we can no longer post, but how does a sticky topic differ from a normal topic?

2
Flat Earth General / Valentines Day Astronomy Video
« on: February 15, 2010, 06:56:15 PM »
Some of my fellow RE'ers, and maybe even some of the "Devils Advocate" Fe'ers might appreciate and enjoy this little video from the Bad Astronomy Website.  I'm sure some of you have already seen it, but here it is for those who haven't.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/14/happy-valentines-day-love-60-symbols/

And please, let's not get into an acrimonious argument about whether or not this video proves anything one way or the other about FET vs RET.  Just enjoy it for what it is.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Good-bye
« on: August 16, 2009, 12:21:44 PM »
Recent threads like the Yes! thread, and perusal of other older threads have dispelled any remaining doubts in my mind about this merely being a sophisticated joke site and that even its owners and moderators are insincere in their claims of truly believing in FET.  In addition, the frequent use of profanity, especially by FE'ers, who have should have a primary interest in establishing and promoting the respectability and credibility of this site, is totally unacceptable and has no place in any legitimately scientific debate or discussion.  I don't plan to be back, and if the moderators want to permanently delete my account, that is perfectly OK with me.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / What is my Dish TV antenna aimed at?
« on: August 12, 2009, 07:37:35 PM »
Recently I subscribed to Dish TV.  I watched as the technician installed and aimed the parabolic dish antenna.  It had to be aimed quite precisely in both azimuth and elevation to pick up the signal.  In fact, as he was tightening the bolts that held it in place, he accidently moved it off just enough to lose the signal and had to loosen the bolts and reposition it again.  This happened twice. 

It is aimed well above the visible horizon, and it is picking up a signal from something up there.  It is obviously not a tower of any kind, because if it were, it would have to be a massive structure many miles high that I could hardly miss seeing (unless it were made out of some magical, invisible material). 

I can't see any sign of an aircraft of any kind in that direction, even with powerful binoculars.  Besides, what kind of aircraft could remain so precisely in position 24/7 so that I can receive such excellent and reliable reception 24 hours a day, every single day?  An airplane or helicopter would have to come down frequently for re-fueling and/or crew replacement while being seamlessly and precisely replaced by another with identical broadcasting equipment. 

Any aircraft, especially a blimp or balloon (which would have to be even larger and more easily visible) would have difficulty maintaining so precise a position constantly while contending with variable winds and weather.  Besides, for so many people all over the world to have reliable "satellite" TV service would require an enormous fleet of aircraft, costing an incredible amount of money in fuel, maintenance, wages for the crews, etc.  Hypothetical "stratellites," would also be adversely affected by variable air currents and winds, and if anything, have even more difficulty maintaining a constant position so precisely.

If my dish antenna is not picking up signals from a geosynchronous satellite poised 22,400 miles above the equator, as claimed by the Dish TV company, what would motivate them to lie to me and tell me that it is?  I am paying monthly for the service anyway; how would their revenues be adversely affected by telling me the truth about the source of the signals rather than lying about it?

5
Flat Earth Debate / Lighthouses (with apology)
« on: July 24, 2009, 12:12:50 AM »
I apologize for merely giving a link to the Round Earth Site; I guess I got a bit lazy, but I would like to get your reactions to this post.  Things seem to be a bit slow at the moment on the Round Earth Site.  It almost seems as if FE'ers lack the courage to confront RE'ers on their own turf.  Here is what I posted there:

I ran into this little gem by Robert J. Schadewald while perusing the Internet that I thought might be of interest.  It shows the inherent dishonesty of FE'ers and Samuel Birley Rowbotham in particular.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/litehous.htm

Schadewald relates how Rowbotham cited the book Lighthouses of the World to "prove" FET by showing how various lighthouses could be seen from much farther away than would be expected if RET were true.  According to Rowbotham:

"This conclusion [that the Earth is flat] is greatly confirmed by the experience of mariners in regard to certain lighthouses. Where the light is fixed and very brilliant it can be seen at a distance, which the present doctrine of the Earth's rotundity would render altogether impossible. For instance, at page 35 of ?Lighthouses of the World,? the Ryde Pier Light, erected in 1852, is described as a bright fixed light, 21 feet above high water, and visible from an altitude of 10 feet at the distance of 12 nautical or 14 statute miles. The altitude of 10 feet would place the horizon at the distance of 4 statute miles from the observer. The square of the remaining 10 statute miles will give a fall or curvature downwards from the horizon of 66 feet. Deduct from this 21 feet, the altitude of the light, and we have 45 feet as the amount which the light ought to be below the horizon!"

Shadewald pointed out that soon after Rowbotham made that claim, a Reverend M. R. Bresher decided to check Rowbotham's veracity by reviewing the same book Rowbotham used as his source and found that:

"I have carefully looked over the book alluded to, and find that out of above 2000 cases, the few selected by ?Parallax? are nearly the whole that do not verify the truth of the doctrine in question. And what do these few, about thirty out of upwards of 2000, prove?"

and that:

[W]hile ?Parallax? was attentively scanning the ?Lighthouses of the World? to find out some that could be seen farther than they ought to be seen, on the supposition that the earth is a globe of about 25,000 miles in circumference; he could not but find many more which cannot be seen as far as they ought to be, on the above supposition...

"The proper conclusion from the above facts is, that either there is a misprint in the book at these places, or that the localities where these lighthouses are situated possess some peculiarities which, if known, would account for these deviations. For it is a monstrous assertion which 'Parallax' makes ... that one single instance, like the one he mentions, entirely destroys the doctrine of the earth's rotundity."

Schadewald then concluded (and I heartily concur):

"Rowbotham, of course, was neither the first nor last to promote the 1.5% of the data that supported his position while ignoring the 98.5% that contradicted it. This technique is the common property of those determined to convince others of their position by whatever methods they find expedient. Thus, many creationist evangelists comb the scientific literature trying to find things that don't seem to fit the conventional view. Then they present these anomalies to the public as representative, just as Rowbotham presented his anomalous lighthouses."

and also:

"And what about Rowbotham's anomalous lighthouses? Beats me. Perhaps the reported observations were made under unusual conditions. Perhaps, for those lighthouses still operating, new observations would not confirm the reported anomalies. By now, however, some of Rowbotham's lighthouses presumably have been closed, torn down, or destroyed by the elements. For these, we will never know. One thing is certain; those who seek only anomalous lighthouses will never find light."

Not only were Rowbotham's conclusions totally unwarranted in the light of the 98.5% of the evidence he chose to ignore, he violated his supposed Zetetic principles by even relying on Lighthouses of the World as his argument because he did not do the cited experiments and measurements himself, thus exposing himself as a hypocrite!




6
Flat Earth Debate / Lighthouses
« on: July 23, 2009, 08:58:00 PM »
Please see what I posted on the Round Earth Society Forum:

http://theroundearthsociety.net/index.php?topic=195.0

Any comments?

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Yet Another Question for FE'ers
« on: July 22, 2009, 09:52:09 PM »
I have seen at least one post on these forums by a FE'er who confessed that even if the Earth were round, he would rather not believe it.  How many of you FE'ers feel that way?  If the Earth really is round, would you want to know the truth of the matter, or would you be disappointed to find that out?  Please answer honestly!

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Another Question for Flat Earther's
« on: July 10, 2009, 04:29:48 PM »
Please forgive me if this question has already been asked before, but how many of you admit at least the possibility that FET might be mistaken?

Pages: [1]