61

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there any evidence for a FE?

« on: August 15, 2011, 07:15:22 AM »

Is tom the only true FEer who still posts?

No.
[/quote]

Correct, Tom is a troll too, just not a very good one.

62

Flat Earth General / Re: Virgin Galactic

« on: August 15, 2011, 04:54:00 AM »

So Richard Branson has found a way to take $200,000 from people who have more money than sense. How many of those people, has he actually taken into space?

He has been taking refundable deposits since 2005. Millions and millions of dollars of refundable deposits. All that money as an interest free loan, at a time when the banks won't lend? What an entrepreneur!

He has good business sense, this is why hes the multi millionaire he is today. He is also a lot more ruthless in his business dealings than people realise because he has such a "nice guy" image.
He did, however, help develop a spacecraft that has flown to space and won the X-Prize, so at least people have a sensible reason to invest their money in him. If people want to spend their cash in that way, thats up to them.

63

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Attn admin: Can there be too much arguing?

« on: August 15, 2011, 04:44:28 AM »

No one comes to FES to talk to the RErs.

You do.

Lets assume all the flat earthers stop posting as they are repeatedly asked to do. Then what? The very thing that attracted all of us is gone. People leave. They wouldn't get replaced.

You say that as if its a bad thing. Not all of us want to hear you repeating the same denials of reality over and over again because you have no argument against them. The RE "permanoobs" that you object to so much get your goat simply because we are the ones who can smash almost any flat earth argument to pieces in a single post. And you dont like that because it makes trolling more difficult and less fun.
So what if people leave and arent replaced? Why should I care?

64

The Lounge / Re: Abduction! - A forum Game

« on: August 15, 2011, 03:47:45 AM »

Well Im perfectly happy to go with mob rule on this one and change my vote to Ichi for the sake of tidyness:

Ichi [17]

65

Flat Earth General / Re: Virgin Galactic

« on: August 15, 2011, 03:45:14 AM »

Oh no, this will trigger James delirious burbling about how Richard Branson is a satanist because the shape of his beard fits inside a pentagram and all that garbage. I fear a can of worms has been opened.

66

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Attn admin: Can there be too much arguing?

« on: August 15, 2011, 03:38:44 AM »

If I am an outsider visiting the forums, what do you think my chance of "conversion" will be? No chance.

Good. From the point of view of those who argue for the RE side, this is a desirable thing. Would you be happy to sit back and watch someone get "converted" into believing something false? I am not, so I make quite sure that new visitors are aware of all the fiction, reality denial and twisting of truth that has to happen in order to make a case for the flat earth. Hence my description of myself as the wasp at the flat earth picnic.
You are advocating bias against RE counterarguments, which would be silly. The flattist trolls need people to argue back or trolling is no fun for them.
You make the newbie mistake of thinking this site exists to convert people to belief in flat earth. It doesnt - it exists so trolls can have fun arguing nonsense and so that Daniel (who NEVER seems to contribute to discussions here any more) can get his name in the newspapers from time to time by pretending to believe the earth is flat. He freeloads on the back of those of us who post things here because his name is on it.

67

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there any evidence for a FE?

« on: August 15, 2011, 03:24:07 AM »

You have provided no reason to consider that the earth might be a globe. There is no reason to consider your absurdities. I don't indulge people who believe in the existence invisible ghosts. I won't indulge you.

We have. Look at the post above about ships sinking over the horizon.  Look at all the other posts about it. Look at the posts from me and everybody else saying that a very large globe has such a slight curve its hard to see - but the sinking ships show you where the curve is.
I agree, you have joined Pizza Planet, Pizza Planet and Thork in the Reality Denial Club.

68

Flat Earth General / Re: GPS and Microwaves

« on: August 15, 2011, 03:18:38 AM »

Earth not a globe provides theories that the earth is flat.   The existence of satellites contradict these theories.  So does the practice of surveying, which has the precise shape of the geodetic earth mapped out.

Feel free to quote any statement in Earth not a globe, and i will shoot it down.

EXPERIMENT 1.

A boat, with a flag-staff, the top of the flag 5 feet above the surface of the water, was directed to sail from a place called "Welche's Dam" (a well-known ferry passage), to another called "Welney Bridge." These two points are six statute miles apart. The author, with a good telescope, went into the water; and with the eye about 8 inches above the surface, observed the receding boat during the whole period required to sail to Welney Bridge. The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! There could be no mistake as to the distance passed over, as the man in charge of the boat had instructions to lift one of his oars to the top of the arch the moment he reached the bridge. The experiment commenced about three o'clock in the afternoon of a summer's day, and the sun was shining brightly and nearly behind or against the boat during the whole of its passage. Every necessary condition had been fulfilled, and the result was to the last degree definite and satisfactory. The conclusion was unavoidable that the surface of the water for a length of six miles did not to any appreciable extent decline or curvate downwards from the line of sight. But if the earth is a globe, the surface of the six miles length of water would have been 6 feet higher in the centre than at the two extremities, as shown in diagram fig. 2; but as the telescope was only 8 inches above the


FIG. 2.

water, the highest point of the surface would have been at one mile from the place of observation; and below this point the surface of the water at the end of the remaining five miles would have been 16 feet.

Let A B represent the arc of water 6 miles long, and A C the line of sight. The point of contact with the arc would be at T, a distance of one mile from the observer at A. From T to the bridge at B would be 5 miles, and the curvature from T to B would be 16 feet 8 inches. The top of the flag on the boat (which was 5 feet high) would have been 11 feet 8 inches below the horizon T, and altogether out of sight. Such a condition was not observed; but the following diagram, fig. 3, exhibits the true state of the case--A, B, the line of sight, equi-distant.


FIG. 3.

from or parallel with the surface of the water throughout the whole distance of 6 milts: From which it is concluded that the surface of standing water is not convex, but horizontal.

Directly contradictory to Rowboathams own admission that ships appear to sink over the horizon. Please provide samples from enAg which do not contradict enAg.

69

The Lounge / Re: Abduction! - A forum Game

« on: August 14, 2011, 05:23:56 PM »

Is there some sort of reason everyone is going after Ichi, like the way its traditional for Dann to be killed off first? Is it traditional for Ichi to be got second?

70

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is an icewall necessary

« on: August 14, 2011, 05:21:02 PM »

Brazil is to the icewall as Donald Trump is to the Tooth Fairy.

Please refrain from low content posting in the discussion forums.

I found it to be a cogent analogy that will be helpful to people like James who cant tell the difference between evidence supporting real places and evidence supporting the ice wall. That he (James) compared the two indicates he is in need of clarification, which Theodolite provides here.

71

The Lounge / Re: Abduction! - A forum Game

« on: August 14, 2011, 02:29:28 PM »

I vote to lynch Sillyrob!

72

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is an icewall necessary

« on: August 14, 2011, 11:19:43 AM »

Nobody has ever seen it, so it makes things a lot easier.

Nobody has ever seen the Earth's curvature, either.

You already renewed your membership of the Reality Denial Club a few days ago, but Im sorry, our policy is not to refund the fee to those who do it again too soon.

73

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is an icewall necessary

« on: August 14, 2011, 10:56:03 AM »

What do you mean "let's not have it"?  What a silly notion; are you suggesting that we demolish an entire continent? Quite clearly not.

Nobody has ever seen it, so it makes things a lot easier.

74

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is an icewall necessary

« on: August 14, 2011, 09:10:27 AM »

I understand the thread perfectly:  asking why the Ice Wall is necessary is a ridiculous question. It is literally the equivalent of asking why Brazil is necessary.  The Ice Wall is a large, donut shape continent which came into existence through a set of complex geological processes.  It does not have necessity, it just exists as a matter of contingent fact.

Since it isnt necessary, lets not have it. There is no need for the northern rim of a flat earth to have a doughnut shaped continent after all, hurrah.

75

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Persieds Meteor shower

« on: August 14, 2011, 09:04:58 AM »

I do not know why anyone would want to take a shower under a cascade of falling rocks but I can assure you it is very dangerous.

How many documented cases are there of anyone ever being hit by a meteor?  I can assure you that the number is very small.

IIRC, I think it is one injury to the arm and one death of a dog. No humans have been killed that are documented.

76

Suggestions & Concerns / Self moderating abuse

« on: August 14, 2011, 09:02:26 AM »

James has posted a load of unqualified nonsense about Satanic conspiracies in the debate section. Though he tries to link it to the topic by mentioning that he doesnt believe microwaves work, most of it is irrelevant gibberish. It quite clearly states on the forum main page that conspiracy stuff is supposed to be in the General section, not the "strictly moderated" debate section. I have had posts of my own that were far more relevant (the SCM and earth edge shape topics) moved to RM, so this religious froth should not be tolerated in the upper fora.
However, thats not my main beef.
As an upstanding member of these fine boards, I did my civic duty and reported the post to the moderators. Heres the reply:

Reported for being in the wrong section. This should be in RM. I have had some of my far more relevant threads moved, this ranted gibberish should be put in the basement, not the "strictly moderated" debate section.

Thanks for your moderation report. I've reviewed the post in question and decided that at this time no action is needed, as the post directly addresses the topic of the thread with some new information. Keep up the good work though!

Here we see James passing judgement on whether his own post needed action. This is inappropriate. If a judge is accused of malpractice, does he judge himself? Can a defendant sit on his own jury? I think not. I suggest moderators should be not allowed to make the decision of whether or not their own post is appropriate. The other moderators should do that. Regardless or not whether my reporting his post was justified, he should not be the one presiding over the decision on it.

77

Flat Earth General / Re: GPS and Microwaves

« on: August 14, 2011, 08:44:50 AM »

GPS and NASA are to Satanism as Protestantism and Catholicism are to Christianity - they have minor differences in dogma but underlying arise from the same faith, and they help eachother out in their endeavours.

GPS "signals" are broadcast from a continuously fuel-replenishing fleet of high-altitude, ex-cold war fighters and bombers. The 50th Space Wing, NASA's military predecessor, neglected to decommission these planes, using them instead to conduct  one of the greatest hoaxes in history. Their coat of arms is a terrifying skeletal, goat-hoofed demon taking wing across a desolate sky.

However, as Protestantism to Catholicism, NASA's Satanic ventures and direction have expanded beyond original Satanic dogmas held by the 50th Space Wing.  Now, as shown by NASA's new logo, which contains a chevron (one fifth of a complete pentagram) they are more focussed on being one of the Satanic Order of Five Space Agencies - NASA, POCKOCMOC, CNSA, IRNSS and JAXA, whose combined logos create a recursive pentagram, one chevron of which is itself a pentagram.  This is taken to symbolise the eternal and unending nature of their deception, and to glorify their deity, Satan.

So now, the 50th Space Wing is merely one of NASA's many denominational schisms. I do not know if NASA has invented the microwave, but I would not put it past them to falsely market a supposedly new product for exorbitant cost, which in reality is no more effective than a camping stove in a cardboard box.  The shoddy workmanship visible in most microwaves certainly does remind me of the mock-up space shuttle (a deception), whose outside was made out of pottery tiles and glue, and would routinely fall off at the slightest provocation (being moved, sitting still, riding on the back of a Boeing 747, deceiving public eyes).

Reported for being in the wrong section. This should be in RM. I have had some of my far more relevant threads moved, this ranted gibberish should be put in the basement, not the "strictly moderated" debate section.

78

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is an icewall necessary

« on: August 14, 2011, 08:38:59 AM »

What a hilarious question appears to have started this debate.  Why would any mundane geological or geographical feature be necessary?  Why is Brazil necessary?  Why is the sea necessary?  Why is the great barrier reef necessary? ... Why is the Ice Wall necessary?  What a funny sort of question - what sort of answer could possibly be given to that question?

Thank you for your contribution. Return to your porch rocker and resume whittling.

Deliberate pretending to misunderstand the point of the OP doesnt make you look clever, Jim.

79

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there any evidence for a FE?

« on: August 14, 2011, 06:40:23 AM »

It all boils down to that quote, which I am guessing you 'found' because Parsifal has necroed the thread.  I follow Parsifal and Tom still and have little time for people like yourself.  If that is the best 'gem' you can find you obviously haven't lurked enough to bring up all the dirt on me.

Once again, to return to the OP: I agree with Tom here, when I look out my window the Earth seems flattish.  It is the same wherever I go.

I have better things to do with my time that trawl through your troll droppings. Parsifal fortuitously brought that one up at just the right time, and I dont need a load of "dirt" as you call it, one example of you doing exactly what you accuse me of doing is quite enough.

Nobody is interested in whether or not you agree with Bishop as you have admitted not reading a relevant post that negates the "look out your window" argument. It is expected that posters in this section of the forum will read the replies before contributing.

80

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Any pianists here?

« on: August 14, 2011, 05:48:15 AM »

I can play but I dont have room for a piano at home. I have one at work though.

81

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Zeteticism is the opposite of science

« on: August 14, 2011, 05:18:16 AM »

The "zetetics" on this forum choose to use it as a basis to discount evidence. Discounting observed evidence is a necessary part of supporting a flat earth, therefore zeteticism is seized on in the most extreme fashion so that utterly undeniable proof from third parties can be thrown out on the basis of being observed by someone else.

Observed evidence?

Yes, evidence that has been observed by a third party is frequently discarded in order not to trouble the flattists. For example:
Gravity measurements around the world indicate a variance that would disprove UA. Therefore this evidence is ignored.
Observation of earth from space indicates a round planet. Therefore this evidence is discarded.
Observation that the angular distances between stars do not vary would disprove bent light, and so has been discounted by flattists on this forum.

82

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there any evidence for a FE?

« on: August 14, 2011, 05:04:49 AM »

I see a plane when I look out my window. I do not see a globe. If you're going to claim that our eyes are deceiving us then you are going to need to provide evidence for your absurdities.

It doesn't matter what "might" be possible. What matters is what is observed and empirical. A flat earth is observed and a round one is not.

Hey Bob, how do you know you are looking at a flat plane and not a globe? Is it because a globe would look curved and youd see the ground sloping away from you?
If you were stood on a little globe, you would see the ground curving away from you in all directions. Now imagine a bigger globe - still curving away, but at a less extreme angle. Now imagine an even bigger globe - you can still see that you are on the apex of a mound but there is only a very gentle decline to a noticeable slope. Now imagine it even bigger, then bigger still, until the curve is so gentle that it is miles and miles away before the downward slant becomes apparent, well beyond your ability to see easily, but if you looked through a telescope you could still see tall objects appear to sink as they moved along it.
I would like you to tell me how you know you are not looking at a flat plane and not a really really big globe, when as I have just shown, they look very similar apart from the globe has the telltale sinking ship effect. You cant cite Rowboatham for this, since you are claiming you are observing the flat plane yourself. What observations tell you it is a flat plane rather than a massive globe?
BTW trying to say I am incorrect in my description of the curve on globes of different sizes is disputing the mathematical fact that a smaller sphere has a greater curvature per unit distance than a larger one, so you cant get out of it that way.

tl:dr

Well, I read the first 2 words and then stopped.  You are namecalling and that is frowned upon here.

If you think its an insult too far, take it up in the S&C section. Please include in your complaint why you have never objected to all the other instances of Bishop being addressed as "Bob" and "Trollm"  as well.
(Oh, just FYI, "tl:dr" is frowned upon in the upper fora, especially when its really not that long at all. I guess you tire easily.)

Additional: just found this gem from you.

I lurk on here often and come here just to read whatever Tom Bishop and Parsnip boy riding a bike with extremely bad graphics have to say

Pot/kettle etc.

83

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Zeteticism is the opposite of science

« on: August 14, 2011, 03:02:54 AM »

The "zetetics" on this forum choose to use it as a basis to discount evidence. Discounting observed evidence is a necessary part of supporting a flat earth, therefore zeteticism is seized on in the most extreme fashion so that utterly undeniable proof from third parties can be thrown out on the basis of being observed by someone else.

84

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there any evidence for a FE?

« on: August 14, 2011, 02:55:03 AM »

I see a plane when I look out my window. I do not see a globe. If you're going to claim that our eyes are deceiving us then you are going to need to provide evidence for your absurdities.

It doesn't matter what "might" be possible. What matters is what is observed and empirical. A flat earth is observed and a round one is not.

Hey Bob, how do you know you are looking at a flat plane and not a globe? Is it because a globe would look curved and youd see the ground sloping away from you?
If you were stood on a little globe, you would see the ground curving away from you in all directions. Now imagine a bigger globe - still curving away, but at a less extreme angle. Now imagine an even bigger globe - you can still see that you are on the apex of a mound but there is only a very gentle decline to a noticeable slope. Now imagine it even bigger, then bigger still, until the curve is so gentle that it is miles and miles away before the downward slant becomes apparent, well beyond your ability to see easily, but if you looked through a telescope you could still see tall objects appear to sink as they moved along it.
I would like you to tell me how you know you are not looking at a flat plane and not a really really big globe, when as I have just shown, they look very similar apart from the globe has the telltale sinking ship effect. You cant cite Rowboatham for this, since you are claiming you are observing the flat plane yourself. What observations tell you it is a flat plane rather than a massive globe?
BTW trying to say I am incorrect in my description of the curve on globes of different sizes is disputing the mathematical fact that a smaller sphere has a greater curvature per unit distance than a larger one, so you cant get out of it that way.

85

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Persieds Meteor shower

« on: August 13, 2011, 06:22:42 PM »

Of course the particles are being accelerated "upwards" at 9.8 m/s/s. This acceleration does not preclude a net velocity or net acceleration "downwards".

Ski will reconcile this statement of upwards acceleration at 9.8m/s/s with the fact that it varies between 9.78m/s/s and 9.832m/s/s, a variation of about 0.5%, depending on where you are. I have popcorn to eat while I watch him flail about explaining how different bits of his flat plane are moving at different speeds.

86

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA Proponents

« on: August 13, 2011, 06:14:07 PM »

Subsitute the word NASA with FES in both these posts and you have a near perfect description of this site.

And who would the Flat Earthers be working for (in your model)?

The point is that alleged FE believers flood posts with chaff to bury facts that show conclusively that the world is a geoid

Yes, Bobos reply to me being a good example of that. Irrelevant sidetracking. I wonder whose alt he is?

87

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Persieds Meteor shower

« on: August 13, 2011, 03:36:38 PM »

if the Earth (as with everything above it)is accelerating at 9.8 m/sec objects from space can never hit the Earth (even is "cast off" from planets or stars they would still accelerate upwards), otherwise Universal Acceleration would be false.

UA has been proved false by variations in strength of gravity in different places on earth, something that is utterly impossible with UA. Just accept it doesnt exist, OK?

88

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Persieds Meteor shower

« on: August 13, 2011, 01:50:27 PM »

Periodicity may be the result of recurrent stellar novae. If the ejecta is directly above the observer it will, of course,  be closer and more visible.

ITT: Ski knows nothing at all about astronomy.

89

Flat Earth General / Re: WARNING: Stay Inside Tonight. (3-19-11)

« on: August 13, 2011, 01:03:27 PM »

It is reported that a full moon Saturday has more hospital emergency room activity?  Police departments also report more activity?  People also experience various medical and mental anomalies during this time (unrelated to Saturdays)? 

Some would say that it is just because of weekend reveling but if I am not mistaken there are higher levels reported on full moons.


It's here, btw...   

And as has been established, this has not been shown to have any connection with moonlight. I requested many times for anyone with information linking light exposure to these things to come forward, without success.

90

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The proof of the fallacy of the FE - FE'ers (You, Tom), read this and face it.

« on: August 13, 2011, 10:15:44 AM »

And yet another thread has been derailed. This 'fake math' thing seems to be a really effective tactic to derail threads.

Feel free to contribute to the mind numbingly complicated mathematics in the OP that almost none of us can understand, as I have already stated.