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.


Messages - Lonegranger

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 98
1
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: August 29, 2019, 03:23:26 PM »
Ah, to die knowing what you believed is a just plain wrong, and to know people ridicule you for your at-best-medieval view!

Yes, itís a shame the medieval astronomers warped the minds of people with all types of fantasies that continue today as truth. They could have explored other reigons on the infinite Plane, instead of being bound to a world they thought was a sphere and could never leave.  What a true shame.

https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg
That simply asks a question, "Was this world map made ten centuries ago? " There's no evidence or proof of anything there.
And are newspapers evidence of anything? Hardly!

Especially as!
Quote

                                                                                                                               Hawaiian Gazette January 11, 1911

As I wrote in a blog post discussing this article, the following article comes to us from the January 11, 1907 edition of the Hawaiian Gazette and alleges to be a map of the world made in Japan more than 1,000 years ago. But as critical readers will notice, the story has more than a few hints of the Zeno Map story. As with that infamous map, this one is also a redrawn modern copy of an allegedly ancient map unseen by anyone. Like the Zeno Map, the original was also allegedly rotten with age, explained by a mysterious ancient letter unseen by anyone else, and it also serves to glorify the geographic areas connected to its ďdiscoverer.Ē In this case a Japanese resident of Hawaii found a map in Japan that was ignorant of Madagascar, Greenland, and Polynesia but somehow managed to include Hawaii front and center!
 
Thereís a pretty good indication that the journalist who wrote the piece knew it was a hoax: He compares it to James De Milleís 1888 novel Manuscript found in a Copper Cylinder, a satirical tale of an underground world.

Run away and stop foisting more flat earth hoaxes on us!

I expect the opposition to muddy the watersí.  If it were a Globe Earth map you would praise the newspaper, but since the center looks similar to the Gleason Map it must be discredited at all cost.

The following Gleason map will let you know were the Sun is any time of the day.





OK mr Terra...explain this.
Why does the moon appear to be upside down when viewed the the Southern Hemisphere, as compared to how it looks in the Northern Hemisphere?  You can add to that constellations like Orion.?


Because those in the south are looking north. It's all about "Orientation". Face south lean back and look at the Moon and you can see the same face as those in the north.

Your answer is a clear demonstration that you donít understand the question. Leaning back is no  answer. The moon in the Southern Hemisphere is upside down compared to the view from the Northern Hemisphere......let me repeat, upside down.

If I were to show you two cars one on itís wheels and the other on itís roof, would leaning back correct the view of the one on its Roof?......it has do do with orientation, yes because we are on a sphere.
Flat earthers can go on about NASA all day and their Ďallegedí phoney pictures, but ask them to explain why the moon is upside down when viewed from the Southern Hemisphere and they, like you flounder, as they have no answer.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: August 28, 2019, 11:48:08 PM »
Ah, to die knowing what you believed is a just plain wrong, and to know people ridicule you for your at-best-medieval view!

Yes, itís a shame the medieval astronomers warped the minds of people with all types of fantasies that continue today as truth. They could have explored other reigons on the infinite Plane, instead of being bound to a world they thought was a sphere and could never leave.  What a true shame.

https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg
That simply asks a question, "Was this world map made ten centuries ago? " There's no evidence or proof of anything there.
And are newspapers evidence of anything? Hardly!

Especially as!
Quote

                                                                                                                               Hawaiian Gazette January 11, 1911

As I wrote in a blog post discussing this article, the following article comes to us from the January 11, 1907 edition of the Hawaiian Gazette and alleges to be a map of the world made in Japan more than 1,000 years ago. But as critical readers will notice, the story has more than a few hints of the Zeno Map story. As with that infamous map, this one is also a redrawn modern copy of an allegedly ancient map unseen by anyone. Like the Zeno Map, the original was also allegedly rotten with age, explained by a mysterious ancient letter unseen by anyone else, and it also serves to glorify the geographic areas connected to its ďdiscoverer.Ē In this case a Japanese resident of Hawaii found a map in Japan that was ignorant of Madagascar, Greenland, and Polynesia but somehow managed to include Hawaii front and center!
 
Thereís a pretty good indication that the journalist who wrote the piece knew it was a hoax: He compares it to James De Milleís 1888 novel Manuscript found in a Copper Cylinder, a satirical tale of an underground world.

Run away and stop foisting more flat earth hoaxes on us!

I expect the opposition to muddy the watersí.  If it were a Globe Earth map you would praise the newspaper, but since the center looks similar to the Gleason Map it must be discredited at all cost.

The following Gleason map will let you know were the Sun is any time of the day.





OK mr Terra...explain this.
Why does the moon appear to be upside down when viewed the the Southern Hemisphere, as compared to how it looks in the Northern Hemisphere?  You can add to that constellations like Orion.?

3
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: August 28, 2019, 09:26:03 PM »
It is believed that those who embraced a sphere Earth before the modern era  were smart and those who embraced a Flat Earth were ignorant. Yet no one can provide the hard evidence of sphere Earth used at that time to prove to the people Earth is a sphere. Why?

So, who are the real ignorant and persuasive group?  Are they the ones who rejected the idea on grounds of no real evidence or those who accepted it as indoctrination without real evidence?

Yes, the Globe theory began through ignorance and indoctrination. Thatís something to be proud of, defend and support.

No one in their right mind can look at a horizon like this (below) and think Earth is a sphere. They have to go through a processes of indoctrination.




I think you have your flat earth cart before your flogged to death horse.
All of what you say is no more than hot air. The fact the earth is a sphere is simply beyond doubt. The real problem is not one of Ďindoctrinationí as you put it but education and reality and the fact that your appear unable to accept the truth.
The proof for a spherical earth is everywhere, proof that you for some reason only known to yourself are unable to accept.
You point to a picture and say this is proof! What would you expect to see in your picture if the earth were spherical? Remember the earth is big!

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Central Pillar
« on: August 28, 2019, 10:27:03 AM »
More than 100 since Earth not a Globe was published and still not a single flatearther has bothered to travel to the edge of the world and bring some evidence of what is on the other side, be it an abyss, the infinite plane, the foundations of the dome or whatever they believe they will find.

Not a single one, or maybe some went there and fell off.
How would one make it to the edge of an infinite plane? How long do you think that journey might take?

One wouldn't. But if one provided evidence of Earth far beyond Antarctica, that would certainly be evidence of a startling nature.

What I find extraordinary is no flat earther has taken the opportunity to fully explain the concept. It does make one wonder considering itís their core belief.......the flat earth.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Central Pillar
« on: August 27, 2019, 09:48:32 PM »
More than 100 since Earth not a Globe was published and still not a single flatearther has bothered to travel to the edge of the world and bring some evidence of what is on the other side, be it an abyss, the infinite plane, the foundations of the dome or whatever they believe they will find.

Not a single one, or maybe some went there and fell off.
How would one make it to the edge of an infinite plane? How long do you think that journey might take?

I didn't write to the "edge of the infinite plane", but to the "edge of the world", meaning the known world. That would be for example Antarctica or whatever each individual infinite plane believing flatearther thinks is separating us from the rest of the infinite plane.

I can imagine if we travel far enough on an infinite plane at some point we will go beyond the edges of the known world and find some new continents or new oceans, or the dome or something that hasn't been chartered yet. right?

One problem I see about an a infinite plane is not so much finding the edge, but more with how it would interact with all the other, planets, sun, galaxies etc. In the Cosmos!

The other problem is why no part of this infinite plane is observable. One would have  imagined that if one went high enough it would be seen stretching off into.......infinity!

The other problem is why anyone would put forward such an idea and claim to have evidence, but never reveal it.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment
« on: August 27, 2019, 02:12:49 PM »
Oh my! More quackery from the round earth box. Any experiment that proves the earth is not round must be a troll! I must be the village idiot, attempting to dupe round earthers into performing a failing experiment!

I find it very humorous that many here are claiming such an experiment is impossible, when one baller has already completed the task, albeit he seems to have not followed directions. He even goes so far to say it is extremely well thought out - thank you kindly Stash.

Very curious as to the results of your attempt at the experiment. I do however worry that there was a methodological issue with your implementation or the gathering and analysis of your results as I have performed this experiment many times and have always come to the conclusion that the earth must not be round. Did you make sure to repeat the experiment until you had a suitable dataset as instructed? Did you take note of the shadows which showed no change in angle?

I am still eagerly awaiting lone grangers attempt of this most wondrous experiment. Surely it will pull the wool from his eyes and restore his sight and reason to know for a fact that the earth is not some whirly gig and his shoes do not contain magnets that adhere him to its surface - and of course that I am indeed the most prolific scientist of 2019.

To the rest of you, I know buying the proper twine and tying it twice is quite the impossible task for the average round earther. More so, performing this action with gusto must be right out. I forgive you in advance if you are not up to the task. After all, we all knew when this thread started that the roundies would come and hand wave away any evidence while providing little to none of their own to justify this. Its the same thing they do in every thread. If I was trolling you roundies in this thread, you'd certainly have it coming.

Hi John. Iíll do your experiment once youíve taken and compared your image of the moon from one taken in the Southern Hemisphere. How do you account for the moon being rather different, by that I mean upside down, when viewed in the Southern Hemisphere as compared to it when viewed from the Northern Hemisphere? Just the kind of view one would expect what with the earth being spherical.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: August 27, 2019, 02:05:57 PM »
Watersí on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean.  Our Earthís surface lacks the curvature as taught. Itís time accept reality and common sense.


What if the adjoining land is below sea level?  Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream?  Have you ever heard of storm surge?

Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.

How does a flat earth flood without a retaining wall holding the flood waters in? Your experiment showed that it wouldn't.

Large surface areas of Earths landmass that are depressed (not curved) can easily flood. But these same large surface areas could not flood if the surface was curved. unless a retaining wall held back the water

Iím sorry but you really need to go and study geography/topography and other earth sciences to understand how and why flooding occurs. It has nothing to do with the earth being flat.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Central Pillar
« on: August 27, 2019, 07:04:09 AM »
More than 100 since Earth not a Globe was published and still not a single flatearther has bothered to travel to the edge of the world and bring some evidence of what is on the other side, be it an abyss, the infinite plane, the foundations of the dome or whatever they believe they will find.

Not a single one, or maybe some went there and fell off.
How would one make it to the edge of an infinite plane? How long do you think that journey might take?

That's a very good point, and that was something John Davis said about in reference to his trip to South America when he encountered some penguins, a picture of which he posted. He referred to 'when he was 'near the edge'. If you remember he tried to get a flight to Antartica, but due to some problem, he was unable to get on the flight. Perhaps he could explain in his own words.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Central Pillar
« on: August 26, 2019, 12:15:49 PM »

Useless and unnecessarily hostile post.
Lonegranger already said (s)he had searched the site for evidence.

He says that every other post.
(s)he is disingenuous at best, full of crap at least.

Think twice before you cahoot with (s)him.

Or do anything you want, I don't care.

Whatever.  I couldnít find any evidence for this idea either.  So unless I hear otherwise, Iím going with ďthere is noneĒ.
That's exactly why I asked the question.
I actually thought that behavior such as Bullwinkles was a total no-no in this area of the forum.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Central Pillar
« on: August 26, 2019, 12:12:50 PM »

Now I have searched, but I found scant to no actual evidence to support the claim.

Put on new gloves and start digging again?

You don't want answers, you just want to bloviate.

Useless and unnecessarily hostile post.

Lonegranger already said (s)he had searched the site for evidence.

You could at least say if you think evidence has been presented before even if you canít be arsed linking to any.

I'm afraid that's the kind of abuse one gets for asking a straightforward question. I referenced the comment made by John Davis, and if you care to read the comment and then search the FE wiki there is no information that one could consider to be evidence. So the question I ask is valid, where is the evidence Davis is referring to? As this is indeed a central pillar of FE belief one would have imagined that there would be a link to some documentation.
I think the comments from Bullwinkle demonstrate that some people have little interest in debate and just want to be Trolls and abuse people.
I'm a he by the way...lol

11
Flat Earth Debate / Central Pillar
« on: August 26, 2019, 05:33:07 AM »
The central pillar of flat earth belief is obviously the idea that the earth is a flat plane. On this site, it appears that their take on it is that the earth is not only flat but is an infinite plane. Sounds absurd but, recently on another thread, John Davis mentioned the existence of evidence:-

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82854.msg2197266#msg2197266

Now I have searched, but I found scant to no actual evidence to support the claim. As this is quite central to flat earth belief it would be interesting to have explained the 'compelling' evidence that has been said exists, particularly from John Davis as he counts himself as one of the acknowledged experts of this subject. If that is indeed the case then he should have all the answers. I look forward to hearing them.


12
Flat Earth General / Re: Can you design a compass for a spherical world?
« on: August 24, 2019, 04:11:30 PM »
As to your other query, you might note that at the south pole that indeed a compass does "flip" and act erratic.

Hold on there John, how would you know that? And which South Pole are you referring to? The magnetic or the geographic? Big difference! The thing is that at the magnetic north and south poles, the magnetic field lines actually point up and down, rather than along the surface.  So really, if you stood on the magnetic  south pole, your compass would try to point upwards. Special compasses are manufactured that can point in the up/down angle of the magnetic fields, as well as parallel to the earth's surface.
As to your erratic claim, thatís just not true. If you had indeed been there you would know.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« on: August 24, 2019, 10:32:13 AM »
All simple observable experiments point to a flat earth. Our library contains hundreds of them that have yet to be falsified by the round earth community. Their mind tends towards making things more complex than they are, heaping fiction upon fiction to sustain their ludicrous world-view. As such, discussions tend that way once they have been thoroughly trampled year after year on the simple easily self-observable evidences that the earth is not a globe.

It's really funny and strange at the same time as you say you have hundreds of experiments that appear to prove your point...... I have billions of everyday occurrences that disprove your hundreds of unsubstantiated undocumented and somewhat historical experiemnts.

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Letís hear if for the Indians.
« on: August 24, 2019, 10:27:08 AM »
Yep, I have seen one of their sting of pearls of small satellites.
With Cartosat-2c
When you watch them go by in a telescope, I have to keep moving the telescope West to keep the string centered. The amount of drift matches from our changing perspective from our rotation.

Astrophotography is always something I would have loved to have done more of, though living where I do cloudy skies are a big problem.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: Letís hear if for the Indians.
« on: August 24, 2019, 06:48:33 AM »

Quite an achievement, Iím sure youíll agree.

Way more exciting than providing running water to their people.

This must be a first, but I agree with you up to a point, though the same comment could well be leveled at the USA which to has poverty of a different kind and not quite on the scale of India.

16
Flat Earth General / Letís hear if for the Indians.
« on: August 23, 2019, 11:37:09 PM »
Well the Indian Satellite launched last month is now on orbit around the moon. Itís due to make a landing in early September to a pretty unknown region of the moon near its South Pole.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/22/spacewatch-india-moon-mission-lunar-orbit-chandrayaan-2

Chandrayaan 2 is on a mission unlike any before. Leveraging nearly a decade of scientific research and engineering development, India's second lunar expedition will shed light on a completely unexplored section of the Moon ó its South Polar region. This mission will help gain a better understanding of the origin and evolution of the Moon by conducting detailed topographical studies, comprehensive mineralogical analyses, and a host of other experiments on the lunar surface. While there, we will also explore discoveries made by Chandrayaan 1, such as the presence of water molecules on the Moon and new rock types with unique chemical composition. 

Quite an achievement, Iím sure youíll agree.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: Where is the center of the planet?
« on: August 23, 2019, 11:22:17 PM »
To those questioning where we got the reasonable idea that the earth has no centre, and is infinite in nature, please refer to the bodies of work from these notable scientists:

Samuel Rowbotham
Samuel Shenton
Charles Johnson
John Davis

Each of these have shown support for said model and have built arguments supporting it.

When we gaze out on a clear night from any part of the earth you care to stand on, the view, though not the same, is very similar lots and lots of stars some satellites and if itís a moonless night and youíre far from bright city lights, the Milky Way. If youíre in the right place you might even catch a glimpse of the ISS whizzing by.

One would have thought that if the earth were a plane and an infinite one to boot that some of the infinite nature of the earth you claim would be observable from somewhere.

The setting and rising sun along with Ďhundredsí of other reasons I think makes your claim out to be false. One would have thought, to keep this simple, that to claim an infinite earth one would have been required to have had at least an observation of it. Assuming you have observed it, perhaps on your holiday to the edge?  can you suggest the best vantage point to catch a glimpse of our infinite plane. As Rowbotham never left the UK Iím assuming it must be viewable from here.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« on: August 23, 2019, 11:03:46 PM »
All simple observable experiments point to a flat earth. Our library contains hundreds of them that have yet to be falsified by the round earth community. Their mind tends towards making things more complex than they are, heaping fiction upon fiction to sustain their ludicrous world-view. As such, discussions tend that way once they have been thoroughly trampled year after year on the simple easily self-observable evidences that the earth is not a globe.

If I understand you correctly you are stating that you have hundreds of experiments that prove the earth is flat that science has been unable to refute?

Could you give a more exact number as hundreds is rather vague.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« on: August 23, 2019, 03:27:17 PM »
I take from your answer youíre not for doing the convincing thing then!

Tell me one thing you would like me to respond to and Iíll try my best.
Why in the hell would I want you to convince you of something even I don't believe?! Repeating that is really getting tedious.

Let's start with the basics then.
if you're trying to find the holes in a model, knowing what that model contains very much helps
True or false?

Indeed.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« on: August 23, 2019, 03:16:30 PM »
Why are you accusing me of lying, I'm simply stating a fact. If you think any of your flat earth ideas are based on being informed please share and let's examine the evidence. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as lying. That's twice in this answer you have resorted to being personal...if you really want to get personal then do it in Angry Ranting.
Misrepresenting them so blatantly on the other hand very much is. This is just tiresome. If you don't give a damn about what someone has to say, why do you even pretend to engage with them?

Once again: I am not a FEer. I am not saying FET is accurate. I am not asking you to believe in or accept the slightest aspect of FET.
I am however vainly trying to have you stop embarrassing yourself when you straw man yourself into oblivion like this. Insist FE arguments are wrong all you want, but if all you do is ignore them rather than put in the effort required to actually address and so refute them, all you do is lend credence to the idea that RET is on its last legs. It isn't. Stop acting like it is.

There you go again resorting to personal attacks.....why do you keep doing that? This is supposedly a debate, why not use sensible well constructed arguments rather than getting tetchy?

No Strawmen around here. Iíve simply asked you to hit me with some strong arguments that will convince me..........looks like youíre not up for that.
You are not an argument, you are a human being. Probably. Don't worry, criticising your god-awful arguments isn't a personal attack.
No, I'm not interested in convincing you. How many times is it going to need repeating that I am not a FEer nor do I want to convince anyone else of FET? If you could stretch yourself to acknowledging or responding to a single word I actually said, that'd be great. Otherwise, eh, bored now.

I take from your answer youíre not for doing the convincing thing then!

Tell me one thing you would like me to respond to and Iíll try my best.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment
« on: August 23, 2019, 03:12:43 PM »
And here come the acrobats! Quite the entrance of gladiators, would you not say?

An oddly specific number indeed. It is of course a fourth of a mile, and the dip for a mile is predicted by the globularist academic community to be eight inches. I trust that globularism has not rotted your brains such that you can't perform simple arithmetics and divide an octuplet such that you get its quarter.

It is stated clearly that one must walk until said string is taught, and put the sticks in such that this is the case. If you can't follow simple instructions, I don't know if I can help you globularists. Is it really so difficult to the believer to tie an appropriate twine to two sticks? I have done so myself many times to the bemusement of many. When done in more urban areas, which obviously would fit this experiment well, it often draws quite a crowd. Bring a music box to give the entire ordeal a fanciful rhythm!

It is clear that these globularists are too spooked by my 'scary magic' that they will not even attempt to properly execute this experiment themselves. It is said that the man who thinks he knows something can be taught naught, yet those with an open mind might find themselves able to learn. This is in action this very day as you rotunders flip to and fro from mental trapeze sets to avoid facing up to the fact that there is no way the earth could possibly be some sort of round ball.

Ok John Iíll get some string if you take the photo as shown in the video and give Rab a call. Taking the picture will be neither scary or magic and may well lead to a revelation.
Itís a really simple and conclusive way of demonstrating the spherical nature of our world.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« on: August 23, 2019, 03:06:15 PM »
Why are you accusing me of lying, I'm simply stating a fact. If you think any of your flat earth ideas are based on being informed please share and let's examine the evidence. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as lying. That's twice in this answer you have resorted to being personal...if you really want to get personal then do it in Angry Ranting.
Misrepresenting them so blatantly on the other hand very much is. This is just tiresome. If you don't give a damn about what someone has to say, why do you even pretend to engage with them?

Once again: I am not a FEer. I am not saying FET is accurate. I am not asking you to believe in or accept the slightest aspect of FET.
I am however vainly trying to have you stop embarrassing yourself when you straw man yourself into oblivion like this. Insist FE arguments are wrong all you want, but if all you do is ignore them rather than put in the effort required to actually address and so refute them, all you do is lend credence to the idea that RET is on its last legs. It isn't. Stop acting like it is.

There you go again resorting to personal attacks.....why do you keep doing that? This is supposedly a debate, why not use sensible well constructed arguments rather than getting tetchy?

No Strawmen around here. Iíve simply asked you to hit me with some strong arguments that will convince me..........looks like youíre not up for that.


23
Flat Earth General / Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« on: August 23, 2019, 02:27:01 PM »
I love the way you sideline evidence and view it as some kind of irritant in any debate. The truth is really some kind of bitch if you want to believe in any of the multiple flat earth ideas, thatís for sure.
S...sideline evidence?
I brought it front and centre by pointing out that the lack of it alone should be talked about more as a valid, entirely sound, even preferrable reason to reject something. I also pointed out that more of it should be provided; a source is not inherently reliable, just saying it is, is basically pointless. if you can take the time to provide the evidence that it needs to be accurate, however...
I'm not 'sidelining' evidence, I'm expecting you to actually provide it should you choose to go that route. Don't get mad when you get held to actual standards of logic.

Quote
You talk about data derived from satellites as lacking logic!
...
You speak about being informed....show me just one flat earth belief that is based on being informed! Thatís just another example of FE double talk. If all the debates on this forum had to carried out by people who were informed they would be precious few posts. How much of the content in your collection is based on being informed?
So, tell me, honestly, when you lie this openly what do you think you do except make FEers feel more confident that their position is strong? Like, you have centuries of work to draw from, nothing I'm saying makes objecting to FET any harder for you, and if anything it helps you make sound refutations, but you still feel the need to resort to pretty explicit dishonesty. Cheap tricks don't make you look smart. They make you look desperate. Literally all you are going to achieve with that is strengthen FEers, and for anyone who comes to this site that's on the fence, they'll see you and assume those tactics when you're the one that ought to have the massive advantage in debate means you're compensating.
You should not need any of this rubbish. We seem to be agreed RET is easily the strongest theory, and far and away has more in support of it than any FE model, so why the hell do you need to lie for it?!

I did not say data derived from satellites 'lacked logic.' I said appealing to them when discussing a model that rejects them is something that is going to be ignored, and that you should take the time to actually demonstrate how we know satellites exist if that's the route you want to go. I also said that if you're trying to find the holes in a model, knowing what that model contains very much helps, and instead of an honest response to one of the simplest, most uncontroversial statements out there you decided to opt for a bit of wordplay and trickery just so you could make a superior remark.

If you want to use science, then as you say, use it. Don't throw a tantrum when someone expects you to do so. Science is not endlessly asserting the same few things, science is the way by which those things are proven. Show the evidence, don't just say it's right. Why is that something you want to object to?

Mad? who's getting mad? why do flat earther always refer to people who disagree with them as being angry? Is this taught at flat earth school in debating 101?

Why are you accusing me of lying, I'm simply stating a fact. If you think any of your flat earth ideas are based on being informed please share and let's examine the evidence. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as lying. That's twice in this answer you have resorted to being personal...if you really want to get personal then do it in Angry Ranting.

Challange 1...pick one of your Flat Earth ideas lay out the evidence and demonstrate how it can be classed as having been arrived by 'being informed'.

I know satellites exist as I've seen them flying overhead in the night sky as predicted by an app. Hundreds of thousands of people work in the industry.  I think its more pertinent if you can explain to me why you imagine they don't exist. I think the burden of proof is on you as the evidence for their existence is overwhelming.

Challange 2 provide me with some hard evidence that disproves GPS along with all the other flavors from the Russians, Chinese and us Europeans. Let's not forget about satellite TV, weaather sats, google maps and all the satellites we can see whizzing through the night sky as predicted by any number of downloadable apps.  All the launches that amount to almost three every week are also a bit of a clue! You explain all this away without resorting to the C-word and id be happy to listen.

Wordplay and trickery? Sorry, you have lost me....where is the trickery. I'm just trying to deal with facts and reality.

I'd be well open to listening to a flat earth idea if it came with convincing proof. To date I've seen nothing on this site that falls into that category. Perhaps you could prove me wrong by offering up some facts back by hard evidence.....convince me I'm wrong.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment
« on: August 23, 2019, 02:04:44 PM »
All your fieldcraft looks interesting, I suppose, but I'm not sure why you need to go to all that bother. Take a photo of the full moon, I assume you live in the northern hemisphere, phone a friend in Australia and ask them to take a pic of the full moon, Im sure Rabinoz, would be happy to help, and compare the photographs, job done, the earth is a sphere and its cost the price of a call to OZ, and no string required which you can get all tangled up in. I suppose you may require to wear protection while you are taking yours, but that's cool.

This is the kind of result you will get is explained here by this guy on a bike.




25
Flat Earth General / Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« on: August 23, 2019, 12:16:51 AM »
You talk about achieving something. I could ask you the same. What do you imagine you are achieving by gathering together a bunch of ideas that are based on no more than idle speculation. What is itís purpose? Do you imagine people should actually give the time of day to things like the Duel Earth?
It's fun. Once again, I do not expect you to believe any of it, I don't believe it, but puzzling things like that out's enjoyable. Plus, on a greater, non-personal level, it's honest. It's an easy reference for people that want to actually make claims about FET, because now they can take the radical step of knowing what they're talking about. For FEers, it's an indication that RET doesn't need to hide behind evasion and cheap tactics and lies, something far too many RE users apparently don't believe. For REers, it's a way to mount an informed argument if that's the path they choose to take.
You don't have to take it seriously. No one's making you. But when you do decide to start talking about the contents of FE models, all you accomplish is embarrassing yourself if you go in utterly uninformed, and that's the best case scenario. Worst case is you just torpedo the credibility of REers in general by making it look like we really do just have nothing.

If you want to reject FET based on lack of evidence, by all means do so. Honestly that's an attitude that really needs more defence here, and in general, far too many people can't wrap their heads around the concept of 'there's no evidence to support this' being the scientific death knell, they always look for 'this is impossible because ____' and that's how misinformation spreads. People want a stronger claim than what's often feasibly possible.
The kind of users that actively get in the way of discussion with 'there's no evidence' is just silly mind you, it comes off as insecure and is utterly pointless, but as far as a reason to reject goes, it's sound.
It's when you decide that, for some reason, that's not enough and you want to point out flaws with, say, how FEers explain the Sun, that you need to start having a clue what you're talking about. And yes, that goes for knowing FET as well. No one expects you to take it seriously (and really, when you're in a thread which appears to now be about how REers give a terrible impression, outright lying about something I've said explicitly several times over in this thread alone isn't doing you any favours) but you need claims to be relevant to it. If someone believes, for example, satellites are part of a conspiracy, then trying to show they're wrong by appealing to readings satellites have taken of the Sun objectively lacks any logic whatsoever. Either take a different tack, or justify the unwieldiness of such a conspiracy, otherwise you aren't actually pointing out a problem in what they believe. You're just saying it's different. Insistence alone does not make an argument, nor does ignorance.

You can argue awfully for the correct conclusion. Arguments are better when they are informed. It honestly boggles the mind that those are statements I need to defend here, and defend from REers no less, the self-proclaimed champions of rationality and reason. Is it any wonder FEers never actually get convinced by the standard of discussion on this site?

Quote
Iím not trying to convince anyone, Iím trying to point out to you the reasons why some people donít take seriously what flat earthers have to say.
And then we come back to this. Again, why? What's the point of that? Is it fun for you to say the same things over and over and just piss everyone else off? Do you think it's fun for anyone else? Do you think it tells anyone anything they don't already know?

Puzzle! There is no puzzle.
Knowing what they are talking about! Now that is funny!

I love the way you sideline evidence and view it as some kind of irritant in any debate. The truth is really some kind of bitch if you want to believe in any of the multiple flat earth ideas, thatís for sure.

You sure want your cake and want to both eat and have it at the same time as regards discussing any issue. 

You talk about data derived from satellites as lacking logic! Are you saying all FE arguments  should be ring fenced due to FE types being upset by satellites as it destroys their arguments in one fell swoop! Regarding the sun for a moment, there are over 30 ground based solar observatories that will tell same story as one sailing through space.

You speak about being informed....show me just one flat earth belief that is based on being informed! Thatís just another example of FE double talk. If all the debates on this forum had to carried out by people who were informed they would be precious few posts. How much of the content in your collection is based on being informed?

Defending the indefensible is not easy. Defending the sun being small and near is for one a difficult prospect!

Pissing off people by dealing with the truth and reality is sure a bummer especially when using informed reasoning. You have to make your mind up. If you want a debate based on science then letís stick to the facts. On the other hand if you want your debates to have no such rules then say so. You canít mix the two and cry foul when your protagonist wheels in big guns loaded with, double 00 factual scientific buckshot.

Fun...I donít think itís fun when the arguments get personal, let just stick to proven facts. Or if you want we could just make shit up! What would you prefer?


26
Flat Earth General / Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« on: August 22, 2019, 11:49:22 PM »
The following video has everthing to do with the main points of the OP. "Shadows and light"  It's satire, but it makes a lot of sense.


On The Level Flooring Company - Pilot Ep1



I think both the video and your statement say more about the way flat earthers will clutch at any passing straw and be willing to avoid the truth no matter what.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« on: August 22, 2019, 03:21:10 PM »
What you are really saying is science can be ignored if the results donít match your world view. I always like dealing with reality and that it seams is where we part company.
No, I'm saying the reason science is, y'know, science, is because evidence of it can be given. Literally no one mentioned ignoring results. The problem is the idea that those results can only ever point to one idea, which must be followed and defended religiously. That's not science.
RET can take a little competition. If someone can come up with a model that explains said observations, broadly speaking, then just repeating that it's impossible is the height of pointlessness. Again, science is science because of evidence. Providing that is always going to be easy. The problem, again, is insisting that the evidence can only point to one thing; that's never the case, and acting like that does nothing but encorage the FE impression that we're all just brainwashed sheeple. If you want to argue that it's impossible, you need to take the time to look at what FET actually predicts we'd observe, and then see how that lines up with observation, rather than jamming RE predictions in with it and complaining the ugly mishmash you created on the spot doesn't work.

Or, of course, you could not bother. Something can be rejected for lack of evidence, you don't need to try to argue that it's impossible. It's when you do that however, that you need to actually be honest about what you're criticising. I have no idea what you think you're achieving when you act the way you do. It's certainly not convincing anyone, nor is it informing anyone of anything they don't already know.

Firstly there is no competition in science, your ideas are either right or wrong. Itís pretty digital where it comes to science.

Using Ďbrainwashingí as a term for following science fact is rather weak and a pretty weak sideswipe, I would rather call it being enlightened. Itís one of those desperate reactions flat earthers use as they have no science to backup what they believe and as a result attempt to belittle science in a vain attempt to level the playing field. Their only option is to ridicule the world of academia and call educated people sheep! Letís face facts for one moment, all flat earth ideas, bar none, are all based on no evidence whatsoever. Itís this simple fact that makes educated people discount what flat earth belief is offering.

Iím not trying to convince anyone, Iím trying to point out to you the reasons why some people donít take seriously what flat earthers have to say.

Again if we take the old chestnut of the sun. Science tells us a number of things about our sun. All the facts and figures have been gathered over a number of years by thousands of scientist and astronomers who all worked professionally in that area making use of a variety of solar observatories. From all their research a good understanding of the sun and itís workings have been arrived at that appears to stand up to scientific scrutiny. If you read the latest research there appears to be a general agreement amongst all astronomers as to the sun and itís workings.   Then we have the flat earth brigade, who have no access to any solar observatory, have not carried out any credible research and yet make comment as to the nature and make up of the sun based on nothing more than wild speculation. You appear to think that this flat earth view on the sun should be taken seriously! The question Iím asking you is why? When their ideas are based on nothing credible.

You talk about achieving something. I could ask you the same. What do you imagine you are achieving by gathering together a bunch of ideas that are based on no more than idle speculation. What is itís purpose? Do you imagine people should actually give the time of day to things like the Duel Earth?

Let make it quite clear Iím not bashing the flat earth people, itís the ideas they put forward, as people they could possibly be quite ok, their ideas on the other hand are, totally unscientific and pretty much bollocks.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« on: August 22, 2019, 12:45:25 AM »
To all "globe-earthers": why do you even waste your time discussing on complex levels?
Because it makes them feel special. The one thing you quickly note here is that most of the people arguing for RET aren't doing it for scientific reasons, but for egotistical reasons, and that's coming from a REer.

Quote
To all "flat-earthers": how are these simple reproducable observations not enough?
And that's why it tends to end up with complex theories. One way or another, FEers develop their models to the point where basic observations do still need to accomodate more advanced theories. Which, in fairness, is the one way FET has a chance, if the foundations we developed our understanding of science upon were flawed because they didn't account for something that was centuries away from even being hypothesised. So there is that, the issue is more the supposedly flawed foundations having predictive power, but that's a whole debate in itself.
Short version: the conclusion of an observation is dependent on context. Angles of sunrays means completely different things if light doesn't necessarily travel in a straight line, etc.

Iím constantly flabbergasted by your insistence that people who frequent this site should take the contents of your repository seriously and give the ideas contained within the time of day.

Statements like the following just make me smile:

conclusion of an observation is dependent on context. Angles of sunrays means completely different things if light doesn't necessarily travel in a straight line, etc.

What you are really saying is science can be ignored if the results donít match your world view. I always like dealing with reality and that it seams is where we part company.

As you mention light, letís take that as an example. Light and the way it behaves is very well understood. Flat earth thinkers approach many subjects like light as though little is known about and make statements that have no scientific basis. Light rays from a distant source such as our  sun and distant stars are parallel in nature and behaviour, ask any astronomer. There is no debate about this itís the way the universe has decided light should behave. Flatearthers donít like this and as a result choose to believe differently. The fact that they are at odds with the science and the whole area of geometric optics appears to be irrelevant.

As well as ignoring the findings of science flat earthers constantly make pronouncements about subjects they can know nothing about apart from what conventional science has given them. Astronomy is a classic case and especially the study of distant objects like pulsars, quasars and other distant objects like exo planets.  Give the fact that the study of these objects requires specialised observatories, some of which are in orbit, this does not stop flat earthers making pronouncements about these objects based on zero data.

Even the study of our nearest star, and  the wealth of scientific output produced from all the solar observatories is ignored by flat earthers. Itís all ignored in favour of their own evidence free ideas, many of which can be read in your repository.  You constantly ask for your collected flat earth ideas to be taken seriously, but how can they?

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Quasars, Pulsars and Gamma Ray Bursts
« on: August 19, 2019, 02:54:10 PM »
Changing topics when you lose again? How NASA does whatever is immaterial.

Astronomers don't know how the Sun works and have no clue. If they can't explain one interconnected layer then they can't explain any of it.

"That's called science" -- Very funny.

Iím wondering on what basis you are making all your claims Tom? Flat earthers have no solar research facilities that Iím aware of, so how you are able to comment on a subject that requires dedicated observatories?

A simple search of data gathered from any one of the solar research facilities/ universities will show all of your claims to be false.

We have a position to either believe in the views of a man, Tom Bishop, who i imagine knows nothing about the sun, through any personal research, or for that mater any other astronomical body, for how could you? or believe in the work carried out by the many thousands of professional astronomers who work on a daily basis gathering data about the workings of the Cosmos using state of the art facilities.

I have to therefore assume given your lack of any solar observatory  that all your views on the sun and the Cosmos at large have all just been made up, based on nothing more than guesswork.

However to give you the benefit of the doubt, could you please describe the research you have carried out on our nearest star along with the facility you used as I could conceivably be wrong.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: August 18, 2019, 08:48:31 AM »
And like all fields, if something can be subject to it it also generates it.
Saying something doesn't make it true. Give me more than a sound bite.

You are for once totally correct, saying something either verbally or in writing does not make the content true. Case in point, your Repository.
What would be interesting to consider for one moment, are the constituents that would make either a verbal or written statement true?
You say peoples minds can't be changed by debate, which I agree with. People tend to believe in things that confirm their own beliefs regardless of the truth or any supporting evidence

Take something we are all free to witness, the setting sun. Like many, I've waited till the golden hour as the sun gets low in the sky to take photographs, and then wait that bit longer for the moment when the sun goes down beneath the horizon and illuminates any clouds that may be around, giving at times spectacular results if it's combined with a landscape of note.

While I and others can clearly witness the sun dipping below the horizon or rising above at sunrise. Flat earther regardless of what is in front of their eyes will believe in an explanation that is totally at odds with reality but confirms their own beliefs.

The same is true of the moon, and other free to see natural phenomena, like a ship sailing over the horizon. What hope is there in convincing the other side if they are unable to believe the truth of what they can see. Even when confronted with images of the moon or of the stars taken in both the northern and southern hemispheres, flat earth believers will deny the evidence of their own eyes preferring to hold on to their beliefs regardless of the truth.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 98