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 - Rational U.S. Viking

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Amateur space flight
« on: October 19, 2010, 12:44:49 AM »
I'm sure this was a fun project for the people involved in it, and I commend them for trying it and congratulate their success, but I have to admit that it didn't really, by itself, prove anything conclusive one way or the other about the true shape of the earth.  But that was not really the main intent of the experimenters, as far as I could tell.  They were merely trying to see if they could successfully launch a camera via a balloon to the edge of space and affordably see for themselves what the view was like from up there.

2
. . .I'm sure you'll get plenty of wonderful answers if you post in the correct forum;


Nonsense!  The question of how RE navigation can work so well on a supposedly flat earth is one to which no Flat flat earther has come even close to providing a reasonable or plausible answer.  You know this as well as anyone.  Wonderful, perhaps, in the sense of being wonderfully fanciful or ridiculous, but not even close to being rational or believable.

3
Can anyone reading this thread possibly fail to see that Lord Wilmore's accusing anyone else of pedantry is an outstanding example of "a pot calling the kettle black?"

4
Flat Earth General / Re: FES debunked by Thork
« on: October 03, 2010, 01:33:56 PM »
Aspiring to know everything, keeping in mind it isn't possible, is not a bad thing.

It's one of my aspirations, anyway..

I sympathise with that point of view, and I can't deny that some of the links and discussions I have gleaned from this forum have led me to enhance my own knowledge and perspective (though it is not certain that I would not otherwise, eventually, have been led to the same enhancement). 

What bothers me, however, about this forum is the inherent, blatant dishonesty and irrationality of so many of the arguments used to support FET (especially those used by the most troll-like of the "Devils advocate" FE'ers).  I find it difficult to believe that, over all, forums like this are the best or even a particularly effective way to promote real knowledge and understanding about the real world. 

This forum's strongest point (though still a rather weak one) is its entertainment value.  I have often gotten a good laugh from some of the resident FE'ers positions and arguments (which I suspect was more often the real intent than I sometimes realize). 

I have sometimes also been amused and sometimes dismayed by the flawed arguments and misconceptions of some of the less well informed of the RE defenders, and appreciative of the kind attempts by others to gently correct those misconceptions.  This is when there is (perhaps) some potential for real learning.

5
Given the evidence available for RET, that would be like accusing me of being a closed-minded bigot for inability to seriously consider the notion that 2 + 2 does not really equal 4!

Incorrect.

Prove it!

6
Nonetheless, I still find it very hard to believe that anyone living in this day and age who is familiar with the enormous abundance of readily available evidence for RET, and who has compared that evidence with the inanity of the arguments presented on this forum against that conclusion can still believe in FET without being an unqualified idiot.

That is because you are a closed-minded bigot.

Given the evidence available for RET, that would be like accusing me of being a closed-minded bigot for inability to seriously consider the notion that 2 + 2 does not really equal 4!

7
I don't believe this site is real. If it is, what is the whole conspiracy about? Why would there need to be a conspiracy that the earth is round? Seems like it'd be more beneficial to those that would need to create a conspiracy, to keep it flat.

Also if it's flat. What's the bottom look like? Also, why would it be flat when almost everything in reality has depth?

Whatever, this site has to be fake. If it's not, I feel bad for you people.
If it was fake it wouldn't be here. The fact is, given a large enough population someone will believe any idea you can come up with. The total number of actual believers ranges from 3-6 on this forum so take that however you want.

I agree.  There is very probably no idea or claim that is so stupid or ridiculous that you will find no one who is gullible enough to believe it.  If this site proves anything, it is that!

8
Not just according to Sporadic.  According to anyone who is not an unqualified idiot.  You already know that as well as I do, as you are merely a "Devil's advocate" troll, who doesn't believe in FET any more than I do!

So, let me get this straight:

1. According to you, all FEers are unqualified idiots.
2. According to you, anyone who is not an unqualified idiot would think that.

Your statement is thus self-validating because you have defined an "unqualified idiot" as the complement of some subset of those who believe that all Flat Earthers are unqualified idiots, which naturally includes all Flat Earthers. Unfortunately for you, this also qualifies as a logical fallacy.

Nonetheless, I still find it very hard to believe that anyone living in this day and age who is familiar with the enormous abundance of readily available evidence for RET, and who has compared that evidence with the inanity of the arguments presented on this forum against that conclusion can still believe in FET without being an unqualified idiot.

9
Peer editing by unqualified idiots doesn't count.

Let me guess, anyone who believes the Earth is flat is an "unqualified idiot" according to you?

Not just according to Sporadic.  According to anyone who is not an unqualified idiot.  You already know that as well as I do, as you are merely a "Devil's advocate" troll, who doesn't believe in FET any more than I do!

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Things yet to be explained(Properly) by FET.
« on: September 08, 2010, 03:05:45 AM »
Obviously, FE'ers utterly fail to come even close to rationally and honestly explaining away the above listed objections to FET.  All they can possibly do by continuing to cling to FET is to make themselves look ever more ridiculous and foolish.  Most of the "FE'ers" on this forum are devil's advocates who know this full well and are carrying on the debate merely for the sake of debating.  That's why I don't waste nearly as much time here as I used to.  I visit now only when I feel the need to experience a good, mood enhancing belly laugh!

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Round Earth from a Balloon
« on: June 04, 2010, 03:19:48 PM »
Levee, what makes you think copy/pasting your post makes him understand? ???

Levee is worse with the copy/pasta than Tom Bishop.  I ignored all of those links because they are irrelevant to what what I was asking, namely mathematical proof that the ISS/Mercury transit of the sun disproves the official size and distance to the sun.  With all of the mathematics that Levee claims to have studied over the years, this should be a trivial task for him.

I agree.  My guess is that he will answer (as he said in one of the previous posts) that it is impossible to understand anything without first reading 100 pages of text.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: Round Earth from a Balloon
« on: June 04, 2010, 01:08:48 PM »
Levee, would you please explain how a shining flat disc only 618 meters across and only 31 km above the earth's surface can manage to move from horizon to horizon without a drastic change in angular size or shape or in apparent brightness as seen from the surface of the earth?

13
Flat Earth General / Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« on: June 04, 2010, 02:18:05 AM »
Rational U.S. Viking, I provided ample proofs pertaining to the fact that our official historical chronology has been greatly modified. Did you read at least the arguments I presented?

I have read many of your arguments, and find most of them to be complete and utter nonsense.  Even most of your fellow FE'ers agree with that!  There is certainly nothing "Zetetic" about them since you gullibly rely without question on any obscure text, ancient or modern, no matter how crackpot they may be, that contains views that support or seem to support what you have decided to believe, without (apparently) making the slightest attempt to test them or confirm them with your own observations and experiments, which massively violates the spirit of "Zeteticism" that you FE'ers claim to uphold.

Your claims are false, especially re: the circumpolar constellations. As that picture clearly shows, there are three kinds of stellar orbits, that is why the map presented in the FAQ has been such a headache to the FES.

It shows nothing of the sort!  All it shows is precisely what RET would lead us to expect if the earth is spherical and one takes a time-exposed picture with a camera aimed at the Celestial Equator.  Norhing is more of a headache to FES than your embarrassingly irrational arguments!

My FAQ has shown in every debate here, that you, the round earth believers, have no idea in what you believe in, no concept of what round earth theory actually is.

So, tell us what you think round earth theory actually is (without posting umpteen pages of rambling, incoherent text filled with links to dozens of unverifiable, obscure and irrelevant texts that almost no one takes seriously nowadays and that you cannot possibly have verified with your own Zetetic observations and experiments.

In each and every debate, I have been able to show that the round earth hypothesis is just a hoax, starting, for example from the disastrous big bang/space-time theories.

You are seriously delusional if you believe that!


viking, as your messages clearly show, you need to study much more the subject of round earth theory, before you can even dream to come here and debate with me (or anyone else).

How is your irrational, uncritical acceptance of almost any obscure, irrelevant, unverifiable and discredited text (both ancient and modern), many of which are merely the mythologies of ancient, highly superstitious civilizations, in any way superior to RET as currently understood by the most brilliant scientists, navigators, geodicists, etc. who have ever lived, and who have worked very hard all their lives to discover, test and verify what they now know to be true?
 

14
Flat Earth General / Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« on: June 02, 2010, 11:18:33 AM »

Does anyone here seriously believe that we have explored enough of the solar system to logically conclude that the earth is the only place life exists?  As I recall, during the Apollo 12 mission, astronauts retrieved several parts from the Surveyor 3 lunar probe that had landed there 31 months before.  Scientists found that some microbes survived harsh lunar conditions for more than two and a half years.  Now tell me why life can't possibly exist on Europa, Titan or any number of other bodies within our own solar system.

Please don't misconstrue what I said.  I agree with you entirely!  Since we have not been able to do an exhaustive search of every place in the solar system where life might possibly exist, the absence of evidence for extraterrestrial life, so far, is extremely weak evidence of absence, but it is still a kind of evidence.  It is weakened even further by the fact you pointed out that even terrestrial microbes have managed to survive where one might not have previously suspected that they could.  I have little doubt that there is life elsewhere.  If nothing else, there are probably terrestrial microbes on Mars now, carried there either by U.S. space probes or Russian ones or both.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« on: June 02, 2010, 10:59:17 AM »

I am sorry to dissapoint you, but you have been reading the wrong FAQ to start with.


Face it.  Amost no one (including most of your fellow FE'ers) even begins to take your FAQ seriously, and with good reason!

All of the issues you raised here, were clearly and completely explained by me, in the alternative flat earth theory links.

I can't remember seeing any explanation by you that one could reasonably describe as clear and coherent.

For example...

There are three kinds of stellar orbits, here is the photograph to prove it:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0903/5hOHPsanterne900.jpg

If you think that picture proves what you claim it does, you are delusional!

S. Rowbotham made a mistake by assuming that all constellations orbit around the North Pole, that is all...

S. Rowbotham was correct about all the constellations visible from the Northern Hemisphere.  All the constellations, both Northern and Southern, appear to orbit around a single axis which has the North Celestial Pole at one end and the South Celestial Pole at the other.  This has been observed and confirmed to a high degree of certainty countless times by all astronomers and navigators using Celestial navigation for centuries.  You have never come even close to a satisfactory explanation for this observation that is consistent with FET!

And I do not use bendy light in my messages, not ever...

Good for you!  I commend you for that!

However, how  can you reasonably expect anyone, whether RE'er or FE'er to assign any credibilty to someone who is delusional enough to believe, despite overwhelming evidence of all types to the contrary, that the Earth is no more than about 1,000 years old and that all of human history prior to that is fiction and fabrication?  Because of your silly assertions, no one discredits FET more than you do!  You are obviously an embarrassment to many of your fellow FE'ers.  Is that, perhaps, your actual, secret intention?

16
Flat Earth General / Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« on: June 02, 2010, 09:56:19 AM »
How have you confirmed that earth is the only planet that harbors life?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Fixed.  You just haven't looked hard enough in the right place.

Wrong.  In probability, absence of evidence is always evidence of absence.

So, if you can't find your keys, then they don't exist?

I have to agtee with Roundy on this one.  Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  However it is absolutely conclusive evidence of absence only from where one has looked for it so far.  I would agree with you, however, that absence of evidence from where one has looked so far is not enough to establish that evidence might not exist where we have not yet been able to look for it.

17
Physicists didn't have to fake anything. They're just wrong.

What qualifies you to assert that with such absolute certainty?

18
Flat Earth General / Re: To all Flat Earthers.
« on: June 01, 2010, 03:04:43 AM »
Ahh, my favorite. When zealots are shown folly, they accuse the other side of trolling.

Are you suggesting that you aren't a troll?

Franklin is not a troll.  He is a strong advocate for the flat earth theory.

That is equivalent to accusing him of being mentally deranged.  Is that really better than giving him the benefit of doubt by assuming that he might be merely a troll?

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Can you prove that the Earth is flat?
« on: June 01, 2010, 03:01:20 AM »
Only when it comes to Ebola Vomit, Cocaine and Black Liquorice.

Vongeo obviously also belongs on "the list."

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Zeteticism.
« on: June 01, 2010, 02:27:00 AM »
The only part of FET which seems to be "zetetic" is that the ground appears flat in your own small viewing area.

Everything else (The UA, antimoon, sub-moon, bendy light, bioluminescent sun and moon, the ice wall, the conspiracy even though they state that it isn't actually part of the theory, harmful moonlight, the earth magically not producing a gravitational field, electrostatic repulsion keeping the stars planets and sun aloft, any map they can come up with, etc.) are theories with not even observational evidence to back them up, therefore are anti-zetetic. To make any of these predictions, you must first assume that the earth is flat, and that the RE explanations are wrong, which zeteticism forbids.

Great answer!  It is amazing how they can be so blind to their own hypocrisy (assuming, of course, that they really believe in FET and are not merely trolling)!

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Your arguments are invalid.
« on: June 01, 2010, 02:17:53 AM »
Just so we're clear here, I'm reasonably certain Roundy is just 'devil's advocating' for FE, he's usually very careful to not proclaim belief in FET, just points out flaws in RE arguments.

If an alleged devil's advocate can find so many flaws in your airtight round-earth arguments, then maybe they aren't as sound as you think.  It's time you let go your shackles of indoctrination and begin to see the world for what it really is; a flat disc.  I have high hopes for you General Disarray, I foresee that one day we can count you among our ranks as a brother.

For one thing, Roundy is not merely an alleged devil's advocate, he has admitted to being one.  He has also admitted on several occasions (including in this very thread) that he acknowledges that RET is more likely to be true than FET.  Also, devil's advocate or not, it would be a gross exaggeration to claim that he has truly found "so many flaws" in round-earth arguments (though it is true that a few of the less scientifically literate among the RE'ers have made some fallacious arguments).  Whatever real or imagined (mostly imagined) flaws exist in round-earth-arguments, they pale into insignificance compared to the flaws in FET.  There are, after all, very good reasons why Roundy is only a devil's advocate and not a true advocate.  Live with it!

22
Flat Earth General / Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« on: May 31, 2010, 02:30:44 PM »


[quote from me]As for Jack, Narcberry and James' theories about the formation of the earth, I have read them, and if you really think they make more sense than the RET perspective, that is only further proof of your own irrationality!

To claim that you guys have effectively countered the points I made is not only irrational, but massively dishonest![quote/]

Interesting, because Narcberry's theory is the Big Bang Theory. This shows you are not only dishonest, but think that the simple association with a noted FE advocate inherently makes it worse. This shows massive bias and bigotry.

I searched and found narcberry's thread about the Big Bang Theory.  It didn't seem to me that he supported it.  What he seemed to be saying is that if he had to choose between the Big Bang Theory and "God did it", he would choose the latter.  Yet another fail on your part, and more evidence of your dishonesty--not mine.  And you still have not been able to show that any of the points I listed are wrong or even seriously doubtful.

You seem to have an interesting concept of what constitutes unfair bias.  What do you think is more unreasonable--to be biased towards what is overwhelmingly supported by the preponderance of the evidence, or biased towards what you have already decided to believe, regardless of what is indicated by the evidence, as you clearly are?

23
Flat Earth General / Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« on: May 31, 2010, 01:14:00 PM »

Actually, satellite imagery is quite useful.
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/TG/RS/uses.html
http://www.stormsurf.com/page2/tutorials/satimagery.shtml
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/April/20070412161156lcnirellep0.1427576.html
http://terralook.cr.usgs.gov/how_to_use.php

Thanks for those interesting links, but I noticed an error in the second one.  It stated that geosynchronous orbit is 18,000 miles above the earth's surface.  By my own calculations, using the accepted values for the gravitational constant, earth's mass and size, and sidereal period of rotation, geosynchronous orbit would have to be about 22,400 miles up, not 18,000.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« on: May 31, 2010, 12:43:50 PM »

I skimmed the tl;dr, it looks like it could use some lurk moar.

Yet another incredibly weak and idiotic response!  RET still wins!

As for Jack, Narcberry and James' theories about the formation of the earth, I have read them, and if you really think they make more sense than the RET perspective, that is only further proof of your own irrationality!

To claim that you guys have effectively countered the points I made is not only irrational, but massively dishonest!

25
Flat Earth General / Re: How many GENUINE Flat Earthers are there?
« on: May 31, 2010, 12:12:58 PM »

Hmm, rationalizing.  How name-appropriate.

Since, by your own admission, you don't actually believe what you are arguing for, your remarks are totally worthless, as far as I am concerned.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« on: May 31, 2010, 11:33:09 AM »
The Earth appears flat at our local level. Logically, we assume it is flat until evidence is given otherwise. RET's lack of evidence proves the Earth flat.

Yes, you start out with the observation that "The Earth appears flat at our local level", and then close your eyes and refuse to consider any and all evidence that indicates otherwise, no matter how abundant and compelling.

Only RET adequately explains lunar eclipses without having to postulate an invisble and unprovable shadow object or antimoon.  There is absolutely no justification for believing in that object other than desperation to find some excuse, however implausible, to avoid accepting the otherwise obvious conclusion that RET is correct.

Only RET adequately explains sunrises and sunsets and the fact that the sun and all the stars and constellation appear to move smoothly from horizon to horizon at a constant angular velocity without any measurable change in size or distortion and without having to invent weird and implausible laws of perspective and "bendy light" which have no compelling justification other than desperation to salvage belief in FET by any means necessary, whether fair or foul.

Only RETadequately explains the observation that all the stars seen from the Northern Hemisphere seem to revolve around a single point in the Northern skies in perfectly circular concentric paths while the stars visible from the Southern Hemisphere seem to similarly revolve around a single point in the Southern skies which is simultaneously visible from any point in the Southern Hemisphere, without having to postulate unprovable and thoroughly discredited explanations such as "Celestial gears", multiple centers of rotation in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere, etc.

Only RET adequately explains how the North Polar regions can have six months of continous night at the same time the South Polar regions have six months of continous daylight and vice versa without having to postulate ridiculous phenomena such as "sky mirrors" or weird and implausible scattering of light by ice crystals during the Southern summer which somehow distribute the light of the sun over the entire 78,000 miles or so circumference of the outermost edge of the supposed flat earth without any measurable diminution of the intensity of the sun's light or any noticeable distortion of its shape.

Only RET adequately explains how Celestial navigation dependant the earth being round can possibly work as well as it does.  If FET were correct, this could not possibly be true!

These evidences listed above are only a tiny proportion of the evidences of a round earth, many of which have been pointed out to you many times on this forum.  Countering all that by claiming an entirely fanciful and massive conspiracy involving many generations of the most brilliant scientists, engineers, navigators, philosophers, geodicists, etc. who have ever lived is an incredibly weak, foolish and even idiotic response!  If that is the best you can do, you lose massively!

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Mapping on the cheap - spotlight method
« on: May 29, 2010, 04:51:23 AM »

I have walked on five of the world's seven continents, and I have never noticed myself having to put more effort into standing up straight in some places, nor have I started bouncing around like an idiot as soon as I got out of the airport. I think it's very clear which theory is more likely.

Please stop pretending that you don't know any better than that!  How do you benefit from pretending to be as stupid as you sometimes seem?  If that response was not a clear example of trolling, I don't know what is!  You know full well that variations in your weight at different places on the earth's surface are too small to be easily noticed without a very accurate scale (not a balance scale, of course, as it actually measures your mass, rather than your weight, and would give the same readings no matter how great the differences in gravitational acceleration at various places on earth).

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with Flat Earth Hypothesis.
« on: May 29, 2010, 04:12:39 AM »

There is no cohesive view from biologists on how birds developed flight.  Does this mean that they are all wrong and birds have therefore never evolved flight?

That's an entirely specious argument.  For one thing, there is not as wide a range of mutually contradictory opinions of the evolutionay development birds' flight as you are trying to imply.  Most of the disagreements on that are over relatively minor details, none of which weaken the premise that flight evolved as a consequence of Darwinion, natural selection.  Besides that, there is no serious or reasonable doubt anywhere that birds do, in fact, fly.  The same cannot be honestly or reasonably said about the FET premise.  Even some of the "devil's advocate" FE'ers occasionally admit that.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: How many GENUINE Flat Earthers are there?
« on: May 29, 2010, 03:36:29 AM »

You seem to have an intimate knowledge of John Davis' thoughts.  Care to explain how you are qualified to make these assertions?

I'm a psychic adept, don't you know?  ;).  Seriously, though, even that assertion is comparable in credibility to many FET claims!

30
Flat Earth General / Re: How many GENUINE Flat Earthers are there?
« on: May 29, 2010, 03:22:12 AM »

Quite the opposite in fact.  Its a money pit. 

I hope you realize that that is not likely to ever change.  In the coming years, it will only get harder and harder to sucker people into believing in FET as space tourism by private citizens becomes ever more affordable and frequent, and the products and technologies spun off from the space program become ever more apparent and beneficial.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15