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 - The Knowledge

Pages: [1] 2
Suggestions & Concerns / Branewave
« on: September 03, 2012, 04:20:35 PM »
Thork made an excellent post in the Lounge section that was effectively a suggestion about changing the forums that belonged up here, so I'll re-post it.

Below is Thork's 10 point guide to fixing FES.

1) Rebrand the site. New theme or something. Make it look new and exciting.
2) Break up the old boys club. Davis, Wilmore, Jack, James etc. They never post any more. We have 4 admins and none of them post. There is no point in them having all the 'power'. Give it to Parsifal, Lord Dave and people who are here. You might not trust them but if the site is dying because the old choices left, its no worse if you pick someone that busts it. I doubt they would at this stage. but anyway.
3) Archive all the old FES forums and start afresh. There is so much low-content crap from muppets like CET and TK. It is a turn off to new-comers. They think everyone must be as hopelessly dumb as they are.
4) New rules. You create a rule. People with over 1000 posts cannot participate in the upper fora unless its for the flat side. By 1000 posts you know what the society is about. You'll either contribute or leave. After that you're a waste of time. Then create a group and add FErs into it. They can then both post in FEB - unmolested by noobs, and in the upper fora to answer questions. If a pest like the knowledge creates an alt after 1000 posts then ban them. We shouldn't be afraid to exclude people who do their damnedest to prevent new people from joining. Its anti-social. All it takes is a couple of ClockTowers and its hard for noobs to get a word in edgeways.
5) Allow all the FErs to create new accounts if they need to. I made a dumb post in my first week here and 2 years later the trolls still quote it, despite not being here when I made it.
6) Get a new president. Shenton has failed. It has to be Bishop at this stage, surely? Just someone who promotes and pushes the site. Not Davis. He's only interested in being president. He doesn't actually want to participate either.
7) No RE mods in the upper fora. Markjo has sucked the enthusiasm out of untold numbers of FErs with his boring bloody questions repeated ad nausium.
8) Favour FErs. They are the reason people come to the site. Be biased, be unfair. This is the flat earth society after all. You don't go to a Manchester United site, slag the team off and expect to last more than 3 posts. The fans (in this case FERs) and club/society are protected. We've not done anything to protect the society. When some dull troll slags off all the FErs ban them. Tough. Helping to maintain integrity of the site's members helps maintain the integrity of the site.
9) Be more welcoming. When I came to this site I made thousands of FE posts. Wasn't allowed into FEB, still aren't in FEB, got held at arms length by the clique of James, Davis, Wilmore, etc. FErs stuck together, but only in that little group. When you get battered with 20 noobs, help is nice. Having someone like John Davis saying "well the earth is a trapezoidal dimensionless portal and Thork thinks differently, but is likely a troll" didn't help in the slightest.
10) Have an FE hidden lounge somewhere. Somewhere FErs can slag of RErs, can argue behind the scenes about things and where it doesn't all bubble onto the open fora for RErs to discredit them. That's all the trolls want to do. Discredit the FErs. So FErs need to stick together and with the mod team ensure that their integrity is maintained, fairly or not. Who cares?. I don't care if we lose a few of the autismals. Better than losing our influx of delicious noobs.


I got muted (by Ski I think) for 3 days for posting this:
FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much, apparently.
...which I was told was inflammatory, despite the many occasions when RE'ers have told FE'ers to go do practical tests and the FE'ers have responded they don't have the funds. Making it pretty much true.
So if I get muted for 3 days just for that, why was no action taken on these posts?

Anyway, your posts are a pain to to read. Please format your sentences properly and try to express your thoughts in paragraphs. Maybe we'll actually read your posts if they're not an assault to our eyes.

It seems when I bring up these points, you simply ignore them because you are intellectually incapable of doing anything else.

For someone who claims that insults are below your conversational abilities, you certainly are passive aggressive. Now you're a hypocrite and a fool. I can't honestly behave as though I'm surprised.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein
Can the mods please ban TK permanently this time?

...your gullibility is outrageous. I even bet you're religious.

And my personal favourite:
No, I didn't see it. In fact, this is the one recorded instance where the Zetetic Method is not relevant, as it simply follows from you making a post that it is awful. No empirical data required.

(and no, most of these are not in fact directed at me.)

Flat Earth General / Very important question...
« on: August 15, 2012, 03:39:39 PM »
Where can I buy John Davis's book? I assume it has been published now, right?

Suggestions & Concerns / I don't like Thork's behavior
« on: August 15, 2012, 03:18:35 PM »
Some of you may remember my complaints about Thork's homophobic hate speech of a few months ago, and how the moderators took no notice of his flagrant breaching of the forum rules.
I come back from my enjoyable bam to find complaints that Thork has now been racist, and again the moderators do nothing, and also discover that Thork is now mocking people with learning and behavioural difficulties.
When will something be done about this sort of thing?

Check out this link:

From this page, you can easily link to your own location to check visible sightings of the International Space Station, which is variously claimed by the weak minded FE'ers on this site to be an aircraft, a ghost, a magic projection, or a figment of the imagination.
I have twice this week checked out the data for my location with my own eyes. (i.e a ZETETIC OBSERVATION). It was 100% accurate regarding the position and duration of the sighting. This shows the data is not fictional, regardless of how much Tom starts babbling that it's based on a mathematical model and therefore a lie. The fact is, the prediction has been shown to match reality.
The astute will be ahead of me already on how this dents FET, but for the simple souls such as Thork, the problem FET is faced with is one of triangulation. If you know where you are, and another observer knows where they are, and they can both see the ISS at the position it's predicted to be in from their location, then simple trigonometry can give you a good estimation of the height of the ISS and how fast it's going. It doesn't take much calculation to show that this thing is higher and faster than an aircraft, and what's more, combine these observations with data from any home astronomy program (I use Redshift) and you can see it pass into the shadow of the earth at exactly the correct place for where the sun is supposed to be located relative to the earth's surface.
We all know FET is made up garbage, but it always satisfies me to toss in yet more disproof.  8)

Suggestions & Concerns / Pathetic, bad, victimising moderation.
« on: May 20, 2012, 09:12:48 AM »
I am being treated unnecessarily harshly whenever I comment on a derailed topic. This is what keeps happening:
1. A thread appears on a subject.
2. At some point, somebody other than me derails the topic and posts appear which are no longer relevant to it. These posts are ignored by the moderators.
3. I contribute a post relevant to the tangent topic, and am immediately threatened with a warning for off-topic posting. Other posters - who have derailed the topic in the first place - receive no warning.

Wilmore is the worst offender. He has already admitted prejudice against my posts in another thread.

Suggestions & Concerns / Unreasonable warning.
« on: May 18, 2012, 01:48:08 PM »
according to your site and other flat earth supporters the erath is essentially a disk.  if you have never seen an edge maybe you haven't travelled/seen far enough.  perhaps you haven't seen an edge is because there isn't one.  how have you come to the conclusion that the earth is flat

I have concluded that the Earth is flat by studying, conducting experiments and recording a great deal of observational data. You are correct that it may not have an edge, and not having observed one does not change the fact that based on the above data, the Earth appears to be flat.

And the moon appears to be spherical but you say otherwise.  :P

I say otherwise because it doesn't. In any event, please post on topic. There's a thread about that, and that's where such discussion belongs. Last warning.

Firstly, my remark was pertinent to the general theme of relying on "observational data" and how it can be interpreted differently.
Secondly, Wilmore should either be this severe with every off topic post by every off topic poster on the forum, or else put a sock in it. Although as I say, I don't consider this remark to be off topic.

Suggestions & Concerns / Ichimaru Gin is a sourpuss
« on: May 17, 2012, 10:24:42 AM »
It's one thing warning about low content. It's another thing to needlessly remove the low content post - most of the time they're left in place unless they are offensive. Make Ichi lighten up a bit.

Flat Earth General / Discard Of The Zetetic Method
« on: May 16, 2012, 07:23:30 AM »
Greetings, fellow Homo sapiens and esteemed readers of other species. As a learned scholar in this collective of grate brains and wunderkinder I feel it is my responsibility - nay, duty - nay, privilege - to open my thoughts on the Zetetic Method to the scrutation of you all.
I am currently working on a book of some 300 pages, which will be published next month, covering this topic, and I delight in affording you a preview of some of its philosophical treats in this post.

1. What is Zeteticism?
According to the FE Wiki: Zeteticism is a system of scientific inquiry. Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved.
According to other sources: The term 'Zetetic' is formally defined as "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker." In modern usage, the term 'inquiry' is understood as 'critical inquiry,' and the zetetic is therefore best considered a 'skeptical seeker.' Zeteticism, then, is the principle and practice of being a zetetic, a skeptical seeker. In plainer terms, it is an open-minded yet realistic approach to matters of truth, philosophy, and religion. It is based in critical thinking.

So far so good, and I feel greatly honoured to hold up this platter of wisdom so you may behold it. But, my brothers, how does this relate to the shape of the earth? Well...
From the FE wiki:
In questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment. Many feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.

Very laudable in its openmindedness, I'm sure you all agree. But what mighty Titan would perform the experiment to find the shape of our world? Step forward the purveyor of only the very finest snake oil, none of this cheap rubbish with bits floating in it - Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
Rowbotham lived in the Victorian era, a time when everyone was either astonishingly rich or dirt poor and everything was in black and white. Science knew nothing, and Rowbotham determined to correct this by wading into a canal with a spyglass and observing things far away. From this practical and pure zetetic observation, Rowbotham discovered that the surface of the canal appeared to be flat. From this, he deduced that the earth was not a globe, but a flat plane.

Now I know what you're thinking. "Praise be for the zetetic method! Through it, Rowbotham has shown the true nature of the earth!"
But not so fast. Let us imagine what had happened if this intellectual giant had instead used the conventional scientific method in his inquiry rather than the truly zetetic one:
First, he would have made a hypothesis: "I hypothesise the earth is XYZ shape."
Then, he would have designed an experiment: "I shall wade into a canal and make observations through a spyglass."
Then, he would have seen if his results confirmed his hypothesis or not. If his hypothesis was that earth was flat, then he would have indeed been led to the same conclusion as by his zetetic enquiry. If his hypothesis was the ridiculous notion that earth was a globe (as if!) he would have been forced to reject this idea and form a new hypothesis - that the earth was flat!

I know this is probably astonishing to you, my fellow philoscientists. To discover that a zetetic enquiry and a conventional scientific one could lead to the same conclusion is mindblowing. Indeed, it is probably only because you are among the most openminded men of the world that you have not fainted away in a swoon. Or swooned away in a faint.

But this leads us to troubling dilemma which creases the brow. "Surely," you cry, "the writings of Lord Wilmore (of Conspiracy Avenue, Hibernia, Cork) tell us to reject the scientific method! Now you have shown how it just leads to the same thing as normal science!"
Yes, my brothers, that is what Wilmore says. However, should you take his word for it, or should you approach it zetetically? Zeteticism teaches you never to start from a fixed opinion - in this case the fixed opinion that Wilmore is correct that the conventional scientific method is worthless. But as I have shown above, in undeniable detail, that is not the case.
And in the next excerpt from Discard Of The Zetetic Method, I shall show you the secret wisdom of how the scientific method can even triumph over zeteticism! But that will wait for another time, as I shortly have a meeting with some snake oil importers.

Flat Earth General / How many people are in The Conspiracy?
« on: April 28, 2012, 06:55:19 PM »
If you believe in it, you'll have an opinion. Post that figure here.

Suggestions & Concerns / Disputing moderation, yadda yadda etc.
« on: April 17, 2012, 08:37:53 PM »
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat.  In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line.  This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).

Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces

In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles.  The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer.  If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight.  Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon.  This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.

Strong magnetic fields keep the light from bending as much as it normally would.

What strong magnetic fields are you referring to?

Strong fields which are caused by magnets, located in or around the Bedford Flat.

I think you should change your name to "ItrollsohardIgorightthroughsupportingFETandcomeouthteothersidemakingitlookalaughingstock".

I believe my last statement there is so accurate that it does not count as a personal attack but instead is a statement of truth.
Rushy does FET more harm than good with his support of it, especially with his sticky-skinned pignose avatar.

Flat Earth Q&A / The Difficult To Answer Thread
« on: April 15, 2012, 12:29:57 PM »
It's time for Tausami and all the others who say "oh, that's been explained already" to put their money where their mouth is.

As I suspected, they're unable to answer this. Add it to the list of things that crush FET straight away, along with rotation of stars round two celestial poles, Romer's measurements of the speed of light, INS, trans-antarctic expeditions and the variability of g.

All of which are either easily explained or non-existent. Nice touch.

In this thread, the Flat Earthers will do the following:
1. Explain rotation of stars round two celestial poles. And I mean explain - shouting "celestial gears" or similar is not an explanation. The explanation should be concise, but must also account for every aspect of the easily observed phenomenon, including non-variability of angular distances between stars. The explanation must also not compromise existing known facts (e.g. things like redrawing the map to put Brazil 30km off the coast of France, that sort of thing). Explanations compromising known facts are an automatic fail. Explanations that don't explain every aspect of the observation are an automatic fail.

2. Explain trans-antarctic expeditions, including why the explorers do not encounter the edge of the earth, and an explanation of the route they follow. Invoking the conspiracy or claiming the expeditions have not happened is an automatic fail. Reality denial is unacceptable.

3. Explain the midnight sun during summer in Antarctica. The explanation should be concise, but must also account for every aspect of the phenomenon. The explanation must also not compromise existing known facts. Mentioning the laughable and already disproved "sky mirror" is an automatic fail.

4. Present a valid refutation of my argument presented in the "INS disproves FE" thread. The refutation should address the argument as laid out in my most recent posts of the thread and explain where the argument is mistaken, and why. It is expected that flat statements of truth or untruth will be backed up with data. Failure to provide adequate referencing for such statements is an automatic fail. Mentioning Schuler tuning is irrelevant.

5. Explain the measurements of Ole Romer regarding the timing of the movements of Io and his subsequent detection of the speed of light. This must be in a flat earth scenario. Levee is requested not to participate. Explanations involving the use of non-standard laws of physics, unknown physical objects  or parameters considered disproved by mainstream science must be backed up with independently verifiable proof. Circular arguments are an automatic fail (e.g. "Chicken aether would cause it, and we know chicken aether exists because we see it causing it" is unacceptable).

6. Explain the variability of g across the earth's surface. And I mean explain - shouting "celestial bodies" or similar is not an explanation. Claims that g does not vary from place to place are expected to be backed up with data proving this is the case. Claims that the data showing variability are false is an automatic fail (unless data demonstrating g to be constant at different locations is provided). Invoking the conspiracy is an automatic fail. Claims involving celestial objects must present numerical data to back them up.

So that's it. A piece of cake, surely. Oh, and other automatic fails include:
(a) Saying that these are explained elsewhere (even if a link is provided) - the explanations must be written out in this thread.
(b) Derailing by counter presenting other phenomena to explain instead.
(c) Using "the Zetetic MethodTM" to deny commonly accepted data.
(d) Other forms of reality denial. The acceptable definition of reality in this thread shall be defined as the view commonly held by the majority of the scientific community today with the exception of a proviso for the possibility of a flat earth and necessary arrangement of the universe to fit observations.
(e) Arguing about the rules laid down in this post.

Flat Earth Debate / How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« on: April 08, 2012, 03:37:37 PM »
Ole Romer made careful observations of the timing of the movements of Jupiter's moons. He noticed variances in the timing of Io's orbit dependent on the relative positions of Earth and Jupiter in their orbits (he of course assumed a heliocentric RE system). He deduced that these variances were caused by the time it takes light to travel the distance across the Earth's orbit, thus providing one of the earliest estimates of the speed of light.

How does FET explain this?

Flat Earth Q&A / Moon features
« on: April 05, 2012, 01:29:01 PM »
If the Moon is a disc, why does it never appear foreshortened from some parts of the world?
If the Moon is a sphere, why do we see the same side of it from everywhere?
Discuss this here.

Suggestions & Concerns / Credit
« on: April 02, 2012, 12:54:10 PM »
Just a quick post to thank Wilmore for his sensible addressing of my recent ban. It would be all to easy to run with the many who just wanted me squashed because I annoyed them, and Wilmore stood up as the voice of reason in my defence. I know I have been critical of him in the past but he has revealed himself to be the very spirit of fairness. Cheers!

Flat Earth Debate / Further disproof of UA.
« on: March 25, 2012, 11:43:39 AM »

Suggestions & Concerns / @ Tausami
« on: March 24, 2012, 03:52:35 PM » you even know what the "troublemaking" was? It was my response to John threatening to bam me for something that isn't against the forum rules, i.e using his post as my signature and assuming that he meant what he posted as it was in S&C.
He didn't like that I did it, so goaded me into complaining about his threats so he could bam me. A bit like one of those cops that pulls you over so they can bash your tail light with their truncheon in order to arrest you for having a busted tail light.

Flat Earth Debate / A thought experiment.
« on: March 21, 2012, 06:31:53 AM »
This is largely aimed at Wilmore and his "direct sensorial evidence" obsession, though all FE'ers are welcome to participate. All theoretical objects and bodies in this thought experiment are just that, entirely theoretical, and no relationship with real world objects can be postulated from it. This is just an intellectual exercise to see what people come up with.
Hypothetical scenario: imagine there is a gigantic sphere 12,756km in diameter. From this there radiates an attractive force that pulls perpendicularly to the tangent of the surface with an acceleration of 12.4m/s, so to someone standing upon it the surface of the sphere always appears to be "down". The sphere rotates on its own axis (which is at a tilt of 23.5 degrees) once every 24 hours and orbits a star 93,000,000 miles away once every 365 days. Beyond this are further stars that have no influence on the sphere.
Now, because of the size of the sphere and the relative closeness of a being on its surface, the curvature to a person standing there is beyond the limit of their normal visual perception. So, as a thought experiment, how would you prove that this was a sphere and not a flat plane?
You are provided with the following equipment:
A theodolite
A powerful laser
A mirror
A powerful telescope
A Jeep Cherokee
Infinite resources of building material
A copy of Earth Not A Globe
A toy model of a dinosaur in a boat
As many other people as necessary.

Other rules: you are NOT allowed to use the following:
Laws of physics not generally accepted by the scientific community
Modifications to the properties of the hypothetical sphere
Semantic arguments
The George Scott Fallacy (either version)
Other celestial bodies than those listed.

Flat Earth Debate / INS disproves FET. Again.
« on: March 16, 2012, 04:25:28 PM »
I'm starting a new thread because Irushtocvs and Clocktower have hopelessly derailed the old one.

Inertial navigation systems, such as those used by aircraft, submarines and so on, are able to detect if you are travelling in a line that does or does not deviate to left or right, thus disproving the FE necessity for everyone to travel in a curve to the right when travelling west and a curve to the left when travelling east. It also would detect the left/right curvature necessary to follow a great circle route in any direction other than north/south on a FE map. Such extra "invisible" path curvature would be perfectly visible to an INS and is therefore disproved.

So far there has been no disproof of this argument posted.

Suggestions & Concerns / Updating the FAQ.
« on: February 27, 2012, 12:55:10 PM »
For once, a thread from me that neither complains about Thork, nor Willmire, nor accuses anyone of being a troll.
Many many people have posted that they would like the FAQ to be updated. Newbies are referred to it, come back with questions about it, and the FE'ers commonly say "oh, that bit of the FAQ is wrong/needs updating/is a guess/delete as applicable".
Why is it never updated? Who has the job of keeping it up to date with the latest advances in FET? There shouldn't be any content in it that FE'ers say is incorrect.


It is very clear that the cause is a wide-angle or fish-eye lens.

...says Tom. However, close examination of the video disproves this. Let's look at some images, shall we?

Here's a freeze frame from the video. Notice the earth has a decidedly convex appearance. But wait - how do we know this is not merely a trick of the lens?

Look at distances X and Y. They are almost exactly the same, indicating the terminator between earth and sky occupies a symmetrical position on both sides of the photograph. A straight line drawn between these points would therefore cross the exact centre of the photograph, as shown here:

If the camera lens distorts the image - which we can all agree does happen with wide angle lenses - the image would be distorted inversely at top right to how it would be at bottom left. In other words, if lens distortion produces a downward curve of the horizon on the left, it should produce an upward curve of the horizon on the right. Lens distortion is symmetrical. Yet we don't see this happening in the frame from the balloon video. The camera doesn't "know" which is the ground and which is the sky - so why in this situation is the earth showing convexity on both sides and not the sky? Let's turn it upside down to make it even more obvious:

Lenses distort, that is true, but they distort without bias to their subject. If there was no curvature to the view the camera was seeing, it is impossible for it to render convexity on both sides in an image where a line between two symmetrical points crosses the image centre.
I think some of you need to take a class in photography before trying to make out that you understand it.

Suggestions & Concerns / Wilmore is his own judge and jury
« on: February 24, 2012, 03:26:57 AM »
Wilmore appears to have locked a thread which is discussing his own conduct as a moderator.
This is inappropriate and is like a judge presiding at his own trial. I suggest that matters concerning the conduct of moderators should only be locked by that moderator's peers, i.e. other moderators or admins.

Suggestions & Concerns / Wilmore refuses to moderate to his own standards.
« on: February 23, 2012, 03:13:38 PM »

Homophobic hate speech and advocation of sexual assault is also against the forum rules.

I know.

Wilmore agrees that homophobic hate speech and advocation of sexual assault are against the rules.
Why has no action been taken against Thork for breaking these rules?

Flat Earth Q&A / How does Thork explain eclipses without the Antimoon?
« on: February 14, 2012, 04:00:32 AM »
Oh, the anti-moon. I never go in for that anyway. Its a bloody mess of a theory.

Flat Earth Q&A / INS question
« on: January 22, 2012, 05:11:13 AM »
For the benefit of certain users who haven't been able to answer this question yet. I thought maybe presenting it as a written post was too complex and fried their tiny minds, so here it is in a simplified poll format.

Suggestions & Concerns / WTF is this?
« on: January 10, 2012, 04:22:24 PM »

I know I'm not allowed to post in this section but I thought it was meant to be for ultra-serious posters and Tom Bishop. Does crap poetry really belong here?

Flat Earth General / Stupid Conspiracy
« on: December 05, 2011, 07:05:07 PM »
Yes, I have read the stickied 26 page thread. I want to put this in a readable format.
Let's look at how many people from what walks of life need to be in on the conspiracy in order for it to function, shall we?

1. Space agencies.
People like Tom Bishop love to make out that this is just NASA, the Goddamn Russians and if pushed, China. Not true. You also have the European Space Agency (including people from the UK, France, Germany and so on) and even India has a space programme now. Oh, and Japan. Anyone else I forgot? Probably.
1a. Accessory space agencies.
These are the people who back up the Space Agencies. The Space Agencies oversee the building and flight of spacecraft and the training of astronauts, but not everything in space is owned, created, or operated by them. For example, take deep space probes, often worked on by teams from universities and technical institutions, and monitored by teams such as JPL. These are the people who would need to be most involved in bribery if there was a conspiracy cover up, as they are actually recording the data using massive dishes, and sending the instructions back out to the space craft. They know where man made objects in space should be, and if they weren't where they're meant to be, they would know. We're talking hundreds of people worldwide that need to be in on the conspiracy to pull this off - so far. The number has to rise when we add:

2. Pilots.
There's quite a lot of pilots out there who fly in the southern hemisphere, along routes which according to FET, would exceed the actual capable range of their aircraft by many thousands of miles. The only way to account for this would be to add them to the conspiracy, which also enables them to ignore instrumental discrepancies such as between GPS and navigational beacons, and INS. So let's put that up to another thousand, to be on the conservative side. After all, we're not just talking about current pilots, but all the retired ones and the ones still in training.

3. The armed forces.
All of them, everywhere. At least the ones telling the troops where to go and what to do, and any involved in navigation. Also the crews of submarines, which often use INS for navigation. Let's say another two thousand, to be conservative. (Note to Americans: other countries have armies too, not just you guys.)

4. The hidden armed forces.
Want to disbelieve satellites? Then you have to have stratellites and pseudolites and all the other replacements you like to think exist. Who operates all these? A popular theory on here is it's a branch of the military. And it's gonna need to be another several thousand guys worldwide.

5. Satellite engineers.
No, not the ones that put the satellites up there (see section 1) but the guys that fix the dish on your house. They need to know where to point the dish. If your signal source is thousands of miles away in space, it's easy. If it's on a balloon up in the atmosphere somewhere, then oh dear, suddenly they need to point a dish in Guildford at a different place in the sky than a dish in Croydon. How very strange. Better bribe the thousands of dish guys then, hadn't we?

6. Everyone in the Antarctic.
All the people who work on all the bases out there and who have seen this massive wall of ice, or a big cataclysmic edge - quick, slip them a cash bung! And make sure you've got plenty of cash available because there's quite a high turnover rate of staff down there, and once they've seen the truth, well you just gotta keep paying.

7. Conspiracy enforcers
Assuming all these people are being bribed, you need to have somebody actually running the whole thing. Who looks after the cash that pays off the satellite engineers and the Antarctic researchers? Who threatens to murder them if they squeal? The numbers can't be known for sure but you're gonna need a few hundred of this type just to corral everyone else. Oh, yes, also corrupt politicians in every country.

So how many people are we up to? Probably over ten thousand now. Minimum. This is ridiculous. And once someone's in on it, they need to keep paying them indefinitely. And yet not once do we hear of a leak, after all those thousands of people have been so easily bribed?
Yeah, right.

1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
5. To make a simple example of stars, let's make Star A to be Polaris and Star B to be Vega, in Lyra. We are at latitude 52 degrees North.
6. Polaris will always maintain the same height above the horizon. Vega's height above the horizon will vary as it rotates around the celestial pole.
7. When Vega is the same height above the horizon as polaris, the light from both stars must logically be bent by the same amount.
8. When Vega is higher in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent by less. When it is lower in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent more.
9. The result of this variance in bending will be a variance in how much Vega's position is distorted to an observer. However, the position of Polaris is subject to distortion of an unvarying amount.
10. Measuring the distance between Vega and Polaris should give different results depending on where in the sky Vega appears to be.
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.

I had the pleasure of being at the seaside two days ago, in the evening as the light faded. A fishing boat was going out from the harbour into the distance. When watching it from the beach, I could see the light on its mast perfectly clearly. However, when I crouched down, the light disappeared.
As the boat went further from me, so the amount I needed to crouch for it to vanish became less and less. The sea was calm, I estimate the highest waves to have been no more than half a metre at maximum. This is insufficient to obscure the light by getting in the way.
This first-hand observed phenomenon directly demonstrates the curvature of the earth, as one would expect if a sgement of a sphere was between myself and the boat. This nullifies the "it looks flat" claim from the brainless FE mantra squad, because if it looked flat one would always be able to see the light, no matter how low you crouched. It also disgrees with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.
FE'ers, please contribute to this thread by agreeing that this is what would be expected to be seen on a large sphere. You may not cite Rowbotham's perspective theory as it directly contradicts his Bedford Level Experiment results, and if you believe one thing Rowbotham says then you have to believe the whole book. You may not cite bendy light as that has been disproved by absence of predicted stellar distortions.
This observation was carried out entirely zetetically.

Flat Earth General / Flat Earth Semantics: a guide
« on: October 15, 2011, 07:31:21 PM »
I think we should list here all the stupid semantic arguments used by FE'ers to try and skew discussions. We should number them, so when we see them arise in other threads we can cite the number at them to tell them to stop being a cliche. They then can't use the arguments because they can refer to this list to see if they have been exposed as known trolling. Anyone caught using the arguments listed here is defining themselves as a troll.
I'll start us off with:

#1 "You can't have a straight line on a curved surface"
When we talk about travelling straight on a globe, we mean yaw-free, i.e. without deviation to left or right. You know this is what we mean when we say "straight".

#2 "The burden of proof is on you..."
Burden of proof is entirely meaningless. Each side always claims the other should prove things and it is used only as a get out clause for people who don't want to back their words up.

#3 "It's just a theory, therefore it's not correct", and
#3.1 "Theories cannot be proven"
Firstly, just because something uses the word "theory" to describe it does not automatically mean "doubtful". Just because technically theories can never be proved to 100% certainty does NOT mean it doesn't fit 100% of the data we have available to us.

There are bound to be others, please add them as you think of them. Note this is a list of semantic arguments, i.e. word traps rather than a compendium of silly ideas like moonshramps, bendy light etc. Those are already listed in the FAQ.

Pages: [1] 2