61

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The FE Theory is Implausible

« on: August 06, 2007, 01:28:07 PM »

The funniest thing, to me, is that the ancient Greeks calculated not only the shape and size of the Earth, but also the size and distance to the Sun and the Moon using only observation and basic geometry - yet here we are on the internet with these FEers whose education in science and math far exceeds that of the ignorant ancient cultures, and they must call upon every type of science they can grasp at in order to reinforce their wacky theory. I guess that goes to show that knowing a lot about math and science is useless without logic.

62

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did all the clouds go?

« on: August 06, 2007, 01:19:01 PM »

Quite poetic, Tom. You seem very eager to quote explorers from the times before modern technology when the frigid temperatures of the Antarctic were impassable. However, with the advance of technology, people have journeyed well into the interior of the South Pole and I don't recall seeing any discoveries of 11,500 foot tall mountains (okay, not that big. But still BIG!). I also find it interesting that you seem adamant about the ice being rigorously guarded while also quoting extremely specific details about it and even providing a picture! (A picture which, I noticed, is devoid of any "Ice Wall Guard").

Another point: you said so yourself that people have reported being able to see hundreds of miles while near the poles due to the temperature and clarity of the air. So why hasn't anyone seen into the area around the Earth? It is, after all, so cold that even air cannot flow far into it (another claim you made). By all accounts it should be incredibly easy to verify the flatness of the Earth. Anyone on the South coast of Africa or South America needs merely to look South with a telescope!

63

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is Tom Bishop for real?

« on: August 06, 2007, 01:04:19 PM »

I don't think that TheEngineer honestly believes in FE, I think he just gets off on acting condescendingly intellectual and being a jerk to everyone. 90% of his posts are along the lines of "This has already been asked before". But most of the time it was asked before and never answered, or the FEers answered it but then said something else that contradicted it. Either he does that or he tosses off some dismissive, thread-killing response that manages to just barely not answer your question while also discouraging you from asking him to please go into more detail.

As for Narcberry and Tom Bishop... I really don't know. Tom Bishop has a sort of holier-than-thou attitude so I suppose he could just be one of those "you can't prove anything" jerks who likes arguing everything indefinitely. Narcberry seems stubborn, ignorant, and frustratingly aloof.

One of the only legitimate FEers (I think) was Franc T. Planar. But I don't think he's around anymore.

64

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Northen lights

« on: August 06, 2007, 12:54:08 PM »

Well this thread http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2516.0 discusses the Northern lights in length but doesn't come to any conclusion, by the look of it. The argument seems to be that the Earth's magnetic field is the same, just fitted to a disk instead, but that seems like a highly unnatural shape to me.

Would it look something like this?

65

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did all the clouds go?

« on: August 06, 2007, 12:21:56 PM »

Hey, remember when Tom Bishop spontaneously switched from supporting the "Flying Disk" model of the Earth to the "Infinite Plane" one? (aka the Franc T. Planar model) Maybe if we continue invalidating his arguments he'll switch to a toroidal Earth, a Möbius strip perhaps... heaven forbid a sphere.

66

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight Times

« on: August 06, 2007, 12:17:11 PM »

Long posts are evidence against Occam-compliance. Compare the above post with...

The earth is flat.

Scientifically, you have a responsibility to see the validity of this argument, and join us.

L. M. A. O.
You clearly know nothing about Occam's razor. Occam's razor is not an argument for succinctness, it is an argument against assumptions.

So a very long post of widely accepted facts is more Occam-compliant than a short post consisting of an entirely unsupported claim (for example "The Earth is flat.")

I am forever amazed at your ability to bend and pervert absolutely every logical and scientific tool to fit your views of the world.

67

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Northen lights

« on: August 06, 2007, 12:02:54 PM »

I would also be interested to see what the FE explanation of the Northern lights is. And visibility definitely changes with height - and is way more than 12 miles.

68

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth Isn't Flat 2 (Proof Included)

« on: June 10, 2007, 10:53:15 AM »

Wouldn't an airplane "circumnavigating" a flat Earth notice, at least the tiniest little bit, that they're always turning in one direction? I mean, it'd be a very slight turn, yes, but you'd have to notice at least something, wouldn't you? With all of the Earth laid out below you, wouldn't you notice that your orientation seems to be changing?

69

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would it take for you to believe in a RE?

« on: June 10, 2007, 10:00:25 AM »

Tada! I already asked this one before!

...but the program illustrates the ease with which the illusion was pulled off, and it's reasonable to suspect that with a little extra effort and resources (which the Conspiracy certainly has) it would be possible to fool Flat Earthers as well.

And no. That is an entirely unreasonable assumption. They'd have to build a full scale model of a rocket (that can simulate takeoff with you inside it), they'd have to somehow fool all of your family and friends into seeing a real launch (or somehow not allow them to watch you go into space), they'd have to simulate a zero G environment (the only way to do that right now is to go for a ride on the "vomit comet"), and much much more. Accurately simulating space flight to fool a bunch of FE'ers would cost many more billions than it does to actually send someone into space. Currently, I don't think its possible.

70

Flat Earth Debate / I can't believe you guys are still arguing

« on: June 08, 2007, 09:28:00 PM »

I used to post on these forums a lot and I was stopping in today expecting to see at least a slight decrease in activity.

Do you guys realize that all that ever happens month in and month out is that the exact same questions are asked over and over and again? All of the FE'ers respond to these questions with the exact same belligerent, incomplete, incorrect answers and the RE'ers just sit around agreeing with each other for the exact same reasons that we always do.

When I joined I'd say there were at least 10 or so FE'ers around, now it seems like all that is left are the ever-vigilant Narcberry, Tom Bishop and TheEngineer.

Since the second they joined, these FE'ers have all been arguing with RE'ers. Many intelligent RE'ers have attempted to convince them of their stupidity with many, many intelligent and valid arguments to no avail. You know what? I am willing to bet without almost complete confidence that not a single FE'er on these forums has ever been swayed over to RE. Furthermore I am also willing to bet with similar confidence that no FE'er will ever allow themselves to ever be swayed over to RE ever.

The kind of FE'er that joins this forum is the kind that won't even believe that the Earth is round if you shot them into space and let them orbit it a few times.

Frankly, I think that aside from being a practice ground for logical debate these forums are pointless. Everyone just sits around and pats each other on the back if they believe the same model or chews each other out if they don't. They achieve no purpose.

71

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space Shuttle Launching

« on: June 08, 2007, 09:03:33 PM »

I've seen three shuttle launches, sadly, they did nothing to show the shape of the earth.

Didn't you notice how the space shuttle went horizontal after a bit? What do you think happens? They discard the fuel tank and boosters in the sea and then immediately land the shuttle again?

72

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Differences in g - one more you can add to your "unanswered"

« on: May 21, 2007, 07:35:18 PM »

I know this thread is really old, but seriously folks, not a single FE'er response? I would at least expect TheEngineer to hop on this one spouting relativity BS.

73

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Just one question

« on: May 21, 2007, 07:14:30 PM »

Exactly. For more information on civil unrest, please read my book, Cookies: Not a Snack for why the government has been lying to us for years about the nature of chocolate.

I literally lol'd at this.

But anyway, the whole civil unrest argument doesn't even make sense. True, if we found out that the government had been spending billions to hide the very shape of the Earth from us, people would be upset and there might be civil unrest - but this only answers "Why would the government continue to hide the truth from us?" What is left to be answered is why would the government hide such a thing in the first place? The the conspiracy would've had to have been around hundreds of years ago, and what possible reason could there be for hiding the shape of the Earth back then?

74

Flat Earth Debate / Re: List of FE illusions

« on: May 02, 2007, 05:15:57 PM »

- The vanishing point is at eye level with the observer, at the edge of the horizon.

- All receding objects overhead must appear to decline in altitude until they reach the vanishing point.

- The sea level of the earth must appear to incline in altitude until it reaches the vanishing point.

- Everything converges at the vanishing point.

Take a perspectives class sometime.

True enough, but these points are completely irrelevant to what he's bringing up. Allow me to show you. In these diagrams we are assuming that we have a perfectly flat surface and a person with perfect eyesight.

1. The tree is close up and entirely visible.
2. The tree is very far away and entirely visible. Obviously it will remain so no matter how far away it is.
3. The tree is close up and there is a low wall. The wall obscures only a small amount of the tree because it is close up and we can see over it.
4. The tree is very far away with a low wall. The wall obscures more of the tree because we can no longer see over it as easily. The amount that it obscures will continue to decrease as the distance increases but will clearly never increase past its own height.
5. The tree is close up and there is a high wall. The wall obscures much of the tree because it is so close to the observer.
6. The tree is very far away with a high wall. The wall obscures less of the tree than in case 5 because it is further away and we can see over it. The amount it obscures will continue to decrease as the distance increases but will clearly never decrease below its own height.

From this we conclude that as any object gets further and further away from an observer, the height of the area not visible due to an obstruction will approach the height of the obstruction.

This means that, on a flat Earth, in order for a tanker (20 feet of freeboard) to be obscured by waves so that its hull appears, say, half below the horizon, you would need waves 10 feet high! That's pretty choppy seas. An even more significant result from this is that if what Tom says is true the "distance to the horizon" would be significantly different based upon the average wave height. In calm seas, the horizon would stretch on nearly forever!

75

Flat Earth Debate / Re: $5,000 for Proving the Earth is a Globe (Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931)

« on: May 02, 2007, 04:26:57 PM »

Lol, true. But I'm just pointing out the stupidity of Tom posting such a thing in the first place. It's really not valid evidence in the least.

76

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Simple Questions :)

« on: May 02, 2007, 04:25:39 PM »

I became an Flat Earth proponent by doing the following:
...

Wrong Tom. I contend that you came to believe that the Earth was flat because you wanted to believe that the Earth was flat. Anyone who performs the Earth Not A Globe experiments and, from them, comes to the conclusion that the Earth is flat is either scientifically blind or a moron. Half of the proofs in that book are blatantly incorrect and the other half less blatantly incorrect but completely wrong nonetheless.

77

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault's pendulum... stil not refuted

« on: May 02, 2007, 04:18:27 PM »

Tom keeps on saying that people have performed the Foucalt pendulum experiment and got results that contradict a rotating sphere, but I have yet to see him actually refer us to these experiments...

78

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Differences in g - one more you can add to your "unanswered"

« on: May 02, 2007, 04:16:07 PM »

I know you're just wearing an FE hat, but the if air pressure was the main cause then you would feel less force pushing on you in all directions, not just less force pushing downward. I'm pretty sure that that isn't the case.

79

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tell me this

« on: May 02, 2007, 04:12:19 PM »

Couple this with his hilariously flawed perspective argument and you've already debunked about half of that stupid book.

But Tom keeps referring us to it over and over and over again as though that guy isn't a complete moron. How can Tom expect anyone to take him seriously so long as he actually thinks that Earth Not A Globe is a valid source?

80

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Google Earth and cartography

« on: May 02, 2007, 04:09:18 PM »

If the earth is a globe it would be impossible to accurately represent a sphere onto a flat surface.
But since the earth is flat is becomes extremely possible.

*wraps head around this one*
Let's simplify this FE argument!

1. Maps are very accurate since any normal person can use a map and verify that it works.
2. Maps are flat (that is, usually they are printed on paper)
3. One cannot accurately represent the surface of a sphere on a flat surface
4. Thus, since our maps are accurate, the Earth is flat!

But then of course when you navigate with a map in your day-to-day life you're usually working on a very small scale. So in that case flattening a spherical map doesn't lose much accuracy. And then you've got to remember that the Mercator map is widely accepted is being a gross misrepresentation of the Earth since, in keeping the latitudes perfectly straight (for navigation purposes), it blows the continents way out of proportion. That's why we have the Peters Map:


Or the one in sokarul's post.

81

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Star Trails

« on: May 02, 2007, 03:58:43 PM »

There is no meteor cloud because pictures don't constitute real evidence!

There are no stars because looking at things doesn't constitute real evidence!

There is no logic because ignoring facts and making extensive assumptions does constitute real evidence!

82

Flat Earth Debate / Re: $5,000 for Proving the Earth is a Globe (Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931)

« on: May 02, 2007, 03:47:20 PM »

This is ridiculous. Obviously the guy with the $5,000 is blatantly biased towards the flat Earth model. This is one big pathetic attempt to make RE'ers look bad.

Of course it's difficult to prove the Earth is round if every single accepted proof is denied on the most tenuous and illogical of grounds. Even if one was to submit a completely valid proof, don't you think that it's more likely that this guy will think up some stupid reason for why its not valid rather than paying up the 5 grand?

83

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Circular Arguement

« on: April 26, 2007, 03:39:18 PM »

When I jump, I no longer feel a force on my body.  Where does this force disappear to?

Oh, come on. That's a horrible example to prove that gravity doesn't exist. When you jump, you do feel a force on your body: the force of gravity. However, the human body is specifically designed to thrive under constant pressure from the force of gravity so we don't really notice it much. The "lack of force" that you feel is simply the transition between a strong force (your legs pushing you off the ground) and a weak force (gravity) that your body can't sense very accurately. I imagine that being in an actual gravity-free environment would feel much different than jumping...

Gravity isn't a force that only works when you're standing on the ground, it's just easier to feel when you're standing on the ground because you're pushing against a solid object.

Jumping : Standing :: Running in the open : Pushing against a wall

Whether you're running or pushing against a wall, you're still exerting force forward, even though you feel significantly less opposing force in the former case.

84

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Current Unanswered Questions - FEers Please!

« on: April 25, 2007, 09:37:31 PM »

The earth is an infinite plane. It does not revolve.

O M G

Conclusion!: Tom Bishop disappeared because Franc T. Planar killed him and is now posting under his name!!!

Some of those explanations are real stretches. Based upon the size of the sun and distance from the Earth that you give, how is it possible that the light can hit China and not North America? The sun would definitely have to be a spotlight in order for such an effect to occur.

85

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Such a far-reaching conspiracy...

« on: April 25, 2007, 04:19:30 PM »

Yet again, Tom, you ignore the most important aspects of my post and respond only to those that are easy to answer.

In fact, I'll repost here for you convenience.

Do you honestly think that the few links that I dug up are the only examples of human experiences that contradict your FE theory? There are probably thousands of websites, tens of thousands of books, hundreds of thousands of pictures, and millions of people who would all have to be falsified/paid off/destroyed/silenced in order for your theory to hold water. You keep saying that all you have to do to believe FE theory is look at the ground and see that it looks flat. You fail to mention that belief also involves a supposition of truly epic proportions.

If you can provide us with an FE theory that even remotely satisfies Occam's razor then I'll start to take you seriously.

86

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: TOM BISHOP DEAD?!

« on: April 24, 2007, 11:10:32 PM »

Hypothesis: Tom reset his account so that we couldn't easily look through his previous posts and point out his numerous contradictions and errors.

87

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Such a far-reaching conspiracy...

« on: April 24, 2007, 10:55:03 PM »

I am so sick of your conspiracy theory BS.

So much of your FE theory relies on a conspiracy that you can't prove the existence or non-existence of. You don't have proof, hell you don't even have likelihood! All that you have is a possibility. Even if every little piece of your FE puzzle fits perfectly into place, that's still not proof.

Every single bit of evidence that us RE'ers dig up requires to you to further expand your conspiracy, further modify your model. Do you honestly think that your theory will ever be complete? As I've already said, your theory has no discoveries of its own. All that you have is further stretches, more inventions, more and more steps back to accommodate the contrary evidence that we throw at you. That and your stubborn silence when difficult, legitimate questions are asked.

Do you honestly think that the few links that I dug up are the only examples of human experiences that contradict your FE theory? There are probably thousands of websites, tens of thousands of books, hundreds of thousands of pictures, and millions of people who would all have to be falsified/paid off/destroyed/silenced in order for your theory to hold water. You keep saying that all you have to do to believe FE theory is look at the ground and see that it looks flat. You fail to mention that belief also involves a supposition of truly epic proportions.

88

Flat Earth Debate / Re: From "Unanswered" in the FAQ

« on: April 24, 2007, 10:40:03 PM »

Clearly they don't!

89

Flat Earth Debate / Re: wandering planets

« on: April 24, 2007, 10:35:35 PM »

Sorry Narcberry. I used the much lauded search feature and performed two searches. One for "planet" and the other for "star". I clicked on every single result that was posted by you and not a single post addressed this issue.

How about rather than referring us to a search feature that clearly doesn't work, you simply look through your own posts (since you made them and should know where they are) and give us a link to your argument (you know, like us RE'ers do).


I and others have already asked this question several times. Why is it that all of the stars and planets move in ways easily explained by spherical motion? Such movements would be completely arbitrary if the Earth were flat.

Edit (a day later): *slaps Narcberry* I DEMAND SATISFACTION. Please be so kind as to link us to your explanations and/or answer the questions we have asked.

90

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Horizon Hoax

« on: April 24, 2007, 10:19:38 PM »

Thank you, Doctor Butts. Anyway...

Assuming that you're in a plane at cruising altitude (~10000m), the apparent curvature of the horizon would be about .05 - a perfectly straight line has a curvature of 0. That isn't RE theory, that is just geometry. This is further complicated by the refraction of light in the atmosphere, weather conditions, and geography.

You would need a very wide-angle shot (more than 120⁰) on a perfectly clear day in the middle of an ocean before Narcberry's straight line test would show curvature.