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 - zarg

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 38
31
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 17, 2012, 04:32:50 PM »
A disk.

I asked you for a map. A globe is a map. "A disk" is not a map. Here are some globes: http://store.randmcnally.com/globes.html - now show me your undistorted disk map.


You lost.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Danth%27s_Law

32
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Ichimaru Gin is a sourpuss
« on: May 17, 2012, 04:27:33 PM »
If you ask me, actually moderating (deleting and moving things) is far preferable to spamming threads with low-content posts about low-content posting. I'm looking at you, markjo.

33
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 17, 2012, 04:22:53 PM »
Let me put it this way:

All distorted RE maps are distortions of the globe map. What are your distorted FE maps distortions of?

34
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 17, 2012, 04:05:21 PM »
If an artist makes a collage from other bits of art, is their work not original?

You referred to yourself as a cartographer, not an artist. Which is it?



Do you have one?
Yes, we call it a globe. Your turn.
I didn't ask you what the earth looks like. I asked you what a non-distorted map looks like. Read: Do you have one?

What a hypocrite! ::)

Yes. A globe is an undistorted RE map.

Do you have an undistorted FE map?

35
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 17, 2012, 03:27:02 PM »
There is no other version. We created them ourselves. They aren't copies. We made them.

If they are RE distortions of RE maps, they are not original works.


Do you have one?

Yes, we call it a globe. Your turn.

36
So this thread has gone for 3 pages and nobody bothered to do any actual research, in favor of wild speculation. Typical.

The video obviously wasn't made by a camcorder; it's a rather heavily post-processed timelapse of individual photos, so calling it computer-animated or CGI would be accurate.  But the source photos themselves are genuine.

As I pointed out in the recent thread about a similar video, the original, high resolution, unedited photos (every single one of them, whether included in videos or not) along with extensive background information on each one, can be downloaded directly from the source: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/.

Feel free to try to find any inconsistencies in the actual photos and come back when you have any concerns that aren't addressed in the articles on the site.

37
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 17, 2012, 03:09:49 PM »
Which ones are originals?
If you'd only bothered to read a few posts further back.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=54320.msg1347275#msg1347275

Are those the only two? In what way are they original? Describe your process.


The south pole is the rim of the earth. ::)

No, the rim of the earth is the rim of the earth. A pole is a fixed point.


A Mercator's distortion is spherical. How do you reverse-engineer it to result in an equally flat shape? What does a non-distorted map look like?
It looks like a large disk with the continents laid out on it. If I'd asked you what it looks like, you would have said "a globe" so don't expect any more of a comprehensive answer.

I didn't ask you what the earth looks like. I asked you what a non-distorted map looks like. Read: Do you have one?

38
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 17, 2012, 02:53:03 PM »
In short the answer to the OP is that some of our maps are from various internet sources, and some of them are originals.

Which ones are originals?



Why can't we distort maps as well? If I want to make the polar regions more prominent, I'll use a Mercator. Distorting maps is just an aid to help the reader.

"Polar regions"? I thought there was only one pole, you blasphemer. Anyway, what would the purpose of your distortion be? A Mercator's distortion is spherical. How do you reverse-engineer it to result in an equally flat shape? What does a non-distorted map look like?

39
If I posted in the Wiki that Flat Earthers believe that the winds are caused by angles stationed on the four corners of the earth you would have a right to ask an apology from me.

Or to, you know, edit the wiki. That's what it's for, after all.

Oh by the way Tom -- I just thought I'd throw this out there -- what if Rowbotham wasn't zetetic?

40
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 15, 2012, 09:43:51 PM »
Distortions are supposedly added to explain how a flat map can represent a round earth, but frankly that tenuous excuse is RET's charge to answer. Earth's flat, maps are flat, QED. Occam's razor etc etc.

Hey, ever seen a globe?

Learn geometry. Distortion is a tool, not an excuse.

Explain this:

I measure the distance from the center of that map to any other point on it; for example, let's say the southeastern corner of Australia. Now if I take a globe which has a circumference equal to the diameter of your map, and wrap a string from the north pole of that globe to the southeastern corner of Australia, the length of the string will be exactly the same measurement. This will work for a line from the north pole to anywhere else on the map. How do you explain this phenomenon?

41
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 15, 2012, 09:40:17 PM »
Because it's irrelevant.

No it isn't. Answer this question:

What exactly are you trying to say? That Trekky was a lost RE'er when he uploaded Flat_earth.jpg, and a year later he had reformed and uploaded a True Zetetic rendering, Flat_earth.png?



I'm not claiming that he believes anything. All I'm doing is pointing out what he has or hasn't said.

How predictably weasely of you.



Trekky's map is derived from Rowbotham and Voliva's maps.

Thanks for your vote!

42
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity
« on: May 14, 2012, 06:03:10 PM »
Gary, the FET idea for gravity is constant upward acceleration, so indeed it accelerates to meet you when you jump, but also continues to, accelerating you along with it, after you land. This solves the problem of others not feeling a difference when you jump, but not the problem of variable force, nor those experiments, and it necessitates denying GR.

43
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 14, 2012, 05:48:32 PM »
;D Let's take a real good look here. Tell me what differences you see between Flat_earth.jpg and Flat_earth.png. It's utterly laughable that you are pursuing this argument; if you were any other than the Lord Willmire I would think you were trolling. What exactly are you trying to say? That Trekky was a lost RE'er when he uploaded Flat_earth.jpg, and a year later he had reformed and uploaded a True Zetetic rendering, Flat_earth.png?

Tell me, why does he use the exact same description from 2007 for the new file?
Quote
Original upload log

The original description page is/was here. All following user names refer to en.wikipedia.
2008-11-14 14:33 Trekky0623 543543 (405315 bytes) {{PD-self|date=17 August 2007}} I made this map myself by creating an azimuthal projection of the entire Earth.
The reason for the change is given on the original page:
Quote
Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."
He reformatted it to PNG for a transparent background. And added some graticules. That's it. It's the same map.


It looks different, is in a different format, and was uploaded at a different time. It's a different map, and was uploaded shortly before Trekky became an official member of TFES, and after he made any posts in support of RET. You were wrong.

You haven't addressed any of the above.



that it was created here, at FES ... is all that Tom originally claimed

Incorrect.



Read more closelier:


So let me get this straight. You're saying that it's more likely that the UN stole this to produce this than it is likely that the FES stole this to produce this.

Those are all versions of the FE map. We came up with the design, not the UN, and not some guy in the 1970's. There have been intermittent maps we've made between Rowbotham's time and the creation of the UN, which has Australia and New Zealand in proper proportions. See this one we made in the 1930's for instance, published in Modern Mechanics, 1931.

I have read that. Now you read it again, as well as the other parts I highlighted. Pay particular attention to the first sentence.



Where did he say it was stolen from us?

Quote
He clearly refers to the northern azimuthal equidistant projection as "ours" multiple times and suggests that the formula which produces the same map was manufactured specifically to copy the FES design much like graphing calculators can produce swastikas.

How about you stop digging yourself into this hole? Ask Tom if he believes the northern azimuthal formula was designed to copycat FES material. Ask him if he believes the UN stole their design from the FES. Stop embarrassing yourself by falsely proclaiming what he believes. You have already upset him at least once for doing so.



The fact that you jumped to conclusions before reading the OP doesn't make it two different questions! I have always been asking the same question: the source of the map. I ask if it's derived independently from Rowbotham and co., (FES), or if it is a RE map (elsewhere). Merriam-Webster defines source as a firsthand document or primary reference work. If the primary reference work were FES material (the works of Rowbotham or Voliva or pure zeteticism), how do we have a RE projection as a result?

Goalpost shifting. Nobody claimed 'FES' exclusively meant Rowbotham or Voliva. Rowbotham wasn't even a member of the UZS, which in any case was not called the FES. You're defining 'FES' in unduly (and indeed inaccurate) terms.

"Unduly terms"? Typical Wilmorian pseudointellectual nonsense. ::)

Reading comprehension, Wil. I never meant FES exclusively meant Rowbotham or Voliva either. Focus. Primary reference work. For the source to be within, the map would need to be either a completely original work or the next iteration directly derived from past internal original works.

44
I don't think he was talking about research.

If not, then he does not understand what "peer review" means.

Not that that matters, since making up new definitions for old terms is a time-honored tradition around here, as the current discussion exemplifies.

45
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Answer me this
« on: May 13, 2012, 07:08:16 PM »
Yes, just imagine being a few meters away from the north pole; naturally you are going to have to physically walk in a circle to get around that point. Trouble is, that path becomes less and less circular as you approach the equator, yet the FE model purports that it remains perfectly circular at any latitude.

Well... no.  In fact on a RE the path remains perfectly circular at all latitudes except one (the one where it is perfectly straight).

Not at all.

You do understand there is quite a difference between "curving" and "perfectly circular", yes?



This thread is a perfect example of RE'ers poorly understanding their own model, yet arguing for it nevertheless.
Are there problems with either, or both, of the posts I made in this thread?

I was speaking generally, not exclusively about you.

Was your general statement inclusive of 29silhouette or not?

46
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Answer me this
« on: May 12, 2012, 06:51:51 PM »
Perhaps you should read all my posts rather than mining out a quote from the middle.

I didn't quote mine. <-- Ski's nitpicking applies equally to that post.


I'll just brush over them.

Evidently not.

47
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Answer me this
« on: May 12, 2012, 04:35:12 PM »
Ok i get it now, you are suggesting that because on the equator you are standing on the rim of the circle you can follow that straight, but since you are at an angle at other points you have to turn left when traveling east.

Yes, just imagine being a few meters away from the north pole; naturally you are going to have to physically walk in a circle to get around that point. Trouble is, that path becomes less and less circular as you approach the equator, yet the FE model purports that it remains perfectly circular at any latitude.



I don't like your tone.

Funny thing is, Pongo made the same mistake:

While always heading East?  Practically everywhere.

^ False. No matter where you are, "always heading east" will successfully get you back to where you started. Looks like the teacher of the class isn't "keeping up" either.

48
If it were up to me the standard map would be a blank white image with a question mark in it.

So Rowbotham's is wrong?

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The horizon is curved.
« on: May 12, 2012, 02:50:51 PM »
Yawn. If perception is distorted, the definitions of "flat" and "curved" would be normalized. Flatness is no apparent curvature and vice versa. If a ruler appears flat and the horizon does not, then the horizon is not the same shape as a ruler. If you believe the horizon is flat, then you believe the ruler is curved. You can't pick and choose when your eyes are correct.

Let us know when that favorite teacher finally lets you graduate elementary, then come back with a more sensible argument.

50
Flat Earth General / Re: Lunar Laser Ranging
« on: May 11, 2012, 10:33:05 PM »
It doesn't matter because he was paid by NASA.

Paid to lie? Is he a conspirator? Yes or no.


As far as we know he doesn't exist at all and the picture on his bio page is a flipped, contrast adjusted picture of a German national named Hans.

How? You do understand that UCSD is an actual university and his page is hosted on their servers, correct? Are you saying the entire physics department is a NASA fabrication?

51
But rest assured if you do front the money the expedition shall be mounted!

You're starting to smell more like a con artist than a troll.

52
Samuel Birley Rowbotham and company studied the matter deeply, collecting data from all manner of nautical and surveying sources of the day. Ship logs were consulted, navigators were interviewed, and surveyors consulted, all to create an accurate map of 1/8th of the earth's surface - a slice of pie containing Europe and Africa. It was proven by these sources that Africa is wider than it is long, thus contradicting the globular assumption. A great bulk of data went into this map.

There is even a poster sized foldout of the 1/8th map in the hardcover edition.

Then why is it not "the most widely accepted"?

It's not the most widely accepted map because the most widely accepted map is the one that looks like the UN map. Do I have to spell it out for you?

I did not ask you which was most widely accepted. I asked you why it is. What facts or events caused this to be the popular choice if it's not the accurate one? If it were up to you, which one would be the standard?

53
Flat Earth General / Re: Lunar Laser Ranging
« on: May 11, 2012, 04:19:34 PM »
So you're saying the authors of the documents were being dishonest? This could only be the case if they were aware of the truth. Were they? Tell me, yes or no.

Why no answer to this?

Tom, is Eric Michelson a liar?

It's not a difficult question, Tom. Did Eric Michelson knowingly write false documentation and/or non-working code? Yes or no?

54
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The horizon is curved.
« on: May 11, 2012, 04:14:28 PM »
Two weeks and still no explanation has been presented, other than "it's the edge" which must falsely assume that every such photo is taken directly above the center of the disk. Tom Bishop himself has avoided the issue completely.

55
Samuel Birley Rowbotham and company studied the matter deeply, collecting data from all manner of nautical and surveying sources of the day. Ship logs were consulted, navigators were interviewed, and surveyors consulted, all to create an accurate map of 1/8th of the earth's surface - a slice of pie containing Europe and Africa. It was proven by these sources that Africa is wider than it is long, thus contradicting the globular assumption. A great bulk of data went into this map.

There is even a poster sized foldout of the 1/8th map in the hardcover edition.

Then why is it not "the most widely accepted"?

56
My concern was never addressed, but as the permanoobs seem to be determined monopolize this discussion, it doesn't look like there's any chance of that happening, so I might as well let it go.

Generally, they pretend that the distortion doesn't exist. They say that flights in the southern hemisphere (where distortion is the greatest) are so rare that they can't be used to verify whether their map is inaccurate or not. See here and here, for example.

57
No, you don't get it.  You are unable to act in a civil manner I'm not continuing this conversation with you ... In fact, I'm adding you to my ignore list.

How laughably immature. Answer the toughest questions with "you don't get it" and then brush them under the carpet with blatant ad hominem.

There is nothing "uncivil" about these questions:
  • Can you disprove the accuracy of any RE map?
  • How does the existence of "functionally different yet accurate" maps discredit the accuracy of maps?
  • How does your "recursive circles" model account for the increasing distortion of east-west (circular) distances?
You can plug your ears and pretend I don't exist like a child, but these questions won't disappear. All you've done is delayed them and proven your intellectual dishonesty.

58
The point being is that two different maps can function in completely different ways or topologies and still yeild the same accuracy in results.  This illustrates one of the many flaws in the line of logic you've been trying to use here.

No, that was a separate point. What we were discussing was how to "disprove a map". You agree that a map's accuracy can be disproved, yet insist that maps can't be disproved. Let's back up and try again: Using the method I described, disprove the accuracy of the results of a RE map (these are your words; you said this is possible to do). Can you do it? Here is the method again:

Indicate points A and B on a map. Go to the location the map represents at A. Travel in the direction of B the proper distance according to the map's scale (this is where you get to use your math skills!). Demonstrate that the location you stop at is different from the location represented at B.



Quote
The possible of existence of functionally different yet equally accurate maps make the whole point moot though.

If you are referring to different projections, you are wrong and once again demonstrating your mathematical illiteracy. They all equally map a globe.
They don't "equal" a globe.  I was not, in particular, referring to different projects.  I am certainly not mathematically illiterate.

This answer provides no information. My response was predicated on "if you are referring to different projections". You say that is not "in particular" what you refer to. Okay -- so what do you refer to? And yes, they all map a globe equally. All you need to do is reverse the transformation formula to work back to globular coordinates, and the result is the same regardless of projection. The fact that different projections can be successfully used does not in any way prove that maps are inaccurate.


East-West distances are predicted accurately within the model

Demonstrate this. Your "model" is nothing but two circles without any actual mapping involved, so without further information from you I can only assume that it's merely a duplicate of the classic northern azimuthal, which switches to a southern azimuthal when you reach the edge. As we all know, these only address north-south distances.

59
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 09, 2012, 10:19:46 PM »
If you want to get really picky, we can look at the upload date on Wikipedia: August 17, 2007, by user Trekky0623. Which still falls prior to the other three links I posted. Nice try.

That is not the map used in our FAQ. You didn't even use it in your OP. The map you used in the OP, and which is in the FAQ, was not uploaded until the 11th of November, 2008.

;D Let's take a real good look here. Tell me what differences you see between Flat_earth.jpg and Flat_earth.png. It's utterly laughable that you are pursuing this argument; if you were any other than the Lord Willmire I would think you were trolling. What exactly are you trying to say? That Trekky was a lost RE'er when he uploaded Flat_earth.jpg, and a year later he had reformed and uploaded a True Zetetic rendering, Flat_earth.png?

Tell me, why does he use the exact same description from 2007 for the new file?
Quote
Original upload log

The original description page is/was here. All following user names refer to en.wikipedia.
2008-11-14 14:33 Trekky0623 543543 (405315 bytes) {{PD-self|date=17 August 2007}} I made this map myself by creating an azimuthal projection of the entire Earth.
The reason for the change is given on the original page:
Quote
Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."
He reformatted it to PNG for a transparent background. And added some graticules. That's it. It's the same map.



How am I supposed to provide evidence of what isn't in there? You posted a link to the post - have you read it? It does not contain "RE sentiments" as you claimed.

Ah, a copout. Of course. Do you or do you not claim that he was not a RE believer at the time that he produced his map? If you do, provide evidence. I have provided strong evidence to the contrary, and all you have are excuses.



First of all, yes he obviously does need to have been a FE'er at the map's creation. If he was not, then it is a false statement that the map was created by a FE'er. This is extremely basic logic.

This is nonsense. Most people would agree that the Theory of Special Relativity was created by the scientist, Albert Einstein. This is not a controversial statement. But of course he was not a scientist at the time, so by your reasoning, the above statement is false. This is a classic case of you making an argumentative mountain out of a semantic molehill.

Actually, I'll give you that. Indeed there are two ways to interpret a sentence like "X was done by a Y". I tend to take it literally and look at Y in the context where/when X was done, but you could say for instance, "Mrs. X married Mr. X" while she of course didn't exist as Mrs. X at the time.

However, in this particular case, the distinction matters a great deal. We are dealing with the claim that the map is a Flat-Earth design. We are talking about polar opposite schools of thought, so we certainly must consider which side motivated it. For example, it would be misleading to say that superstition is endorsed by science if someone who dabbled with it in his youth later became a scientist.



Moreover, Tom's claim was not that FE'ers created the map. He claimed that "we" created the map, referring to "FES" in your original post:

Yes, exactly -- Tom's "we" did not refer to himself or the forum, but the FES in general spanning back to Rowbotham. It's this distinction that I refer to when I say:

This is not about who was directly responsible for bringing this particular image file into being, it's about the lineage of its development

Tom's claim is that the lineage of its development traces back to Rowbotham, and that others that resemble it (RE maps) are imitations; plagiarism from the FES. However, as yet, we have no evidence of this claim, only evidence of the opposite -- that your current map is an imitation/plagiarism of RE material.



Why is Tom Bishop telling me that this map was developed independently from the azimuthal projection formula?

When did Tom make the bolded claim with respect to the map Trekky created?

Read closely:

Quote
Because that map is a direct result of the formula. It's not traced or adapted from a drawing, it's constructed mathematically by applying a distortion formula to a globe. Therefore, when you claim that they based it off of your "design", you must be claiming at least one of the following:
  • You created the globe.
  • You created the distortion formula.
If you can't back up either of these, then you're lying.

I didn't make any claims about a formula. If someone made a formula for turning a Mercator map into our Northern Azimuthal map, then they made a formula to do that. It's still our map. We're the ones who published and popularized it.

Tom, this is the result of applying that formula to a globe:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg

And this is the map that you claim the FES "designed":

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png <-- Trekky's map

You're telling me this is a coincidence?

I can make a mathematical formula to draw swastikas on graphic calculators. It doesn't mean that I invented the swastika.

A Mercator map can be turned into a Northern Azimuthal map, and it doesn't matter. It's our map. We came up with it. We published it. We popularized it. End of story. I'm right on the "Flat Earther" subject, and I'm right on this one. My time here is done.



All Tom is claiming is that the map from Earth Not a Globe inspired Trekky to create the map in the FAQ, and to replicate the geographic layout seen in Earth Not a Globe.

Wrong. As you can see above, he claimed that the mainstream azimuthal projection was stolen from the FES, not the other way around. He clearly refers to the northern azimuthal equidistant projection as "ours" multiple times and suggests that the formula which produces the same map was manufactured specifically to copy the FES design much like graphing calculators can produce swastikas.

Tom makes his position very clear in that thread, and has confirmed my interpretation of it in this one. If you don't agree with Tom's bold accusations, you can say so (that was the original point of this thread), but it'll do you no good to sit in denial that they occurred.



The scope of your OP has nothing to do with what is the appropriate response to the poll.

::) Good grief, you're really reaching. The whole point of the OP was to ask the question. What would you have me do -- cram the whole post into the title? The OP has everything to do with the poll. Did you forget what you were trying to prove here? I supposedly moved the goalposts, remember? Unless you're trying to say that the moving of goalposts happened sometime in between me writing the title and poll answers, and in writing the OP (which for all you know happened in the reverse order ;D), what is your point?



It is not a matter of us not paying attention. Simply put, you asked one question in the poll and another in the OP. The correct answer to the question posed in the poll is 'FES'.

The fact that you jumped to conclusions before reading the OP doesn't make it two different questions! I have always been asking the same question: the source of the map. I ask if it's derived independently from Rowbotham and co., (FES), or if it is a RE map (elsewhere). Merriam-Webster defines source as a firsthand document or primary reference work. If the primary reference work were FES material (the works of Rowbotham or Voliva or pure zeteticism), how do we have a RE projection as a result?



and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question

Please show me where in this thread I concluded specifically that one person in particular was lying. You'll find that I said "someone is lying -- who?". It's basic inference -- when you have two mutually exclusive claims, at least one of them is clearly not the truth.

Sorry, what? All I said is that you "claim[ed] LIES", which you did. Is this another strawman under construction?

Fair enough, I suppose. I presumed Roundy thought I was directly levelling an accusation against someone of lying. I don't know why you're saying "I said you claimed lies..." when it was never you who said it. Perhaps you should let Roundy speak for himself. Or have we just uncovered an alt? ;D

60
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 08, 2012, 11:56:36 PM »
May 4th, 2007: Trekky posts the original version his map. [link]


Funny, that isn't the map you posted in the OP. Did you make a mistake?

No, you did. Please try to pay attention.

edit: If you want to get really picky, we can look at the upload date on Wikipedia: August 17, 2007, by user Trekky0623. Which still falls prior to the other three links I posted. Nice try.


Moreover, the only post you provide that was made after he created the map used in the OP in no way indicates belief in a RE. Meaning you're wrong again.

Elaborate, with evidence.


Uh... the map in question was created here, at tFES, for tFES, by someone who is an Official Member of tFES, and a long-time defender of FET. Now you're saying he has to have been a FE'er at the time of the map's creation, which is neither in your poll nor your OP.

First of all, yes he obviously does need to have been a FE'er at the map's creation. If he was not, then it is a false statement that the map was created by a FE'er. This is extremely basic logic.

Secondly, again, whether it was produced here and/or by a FE'er does not fully address the question. Again, this is from the OP, not something new I pulled out of my ass. The Original Post:

Quote
designed by Flat Earthers and that all maps which resemble it were stolen from the FES, and even that the geometrical transformation formulae which project the globe into this configuration were actually concocted after the fact

So, let's pretend that Trekky0623 is/was a die-hard FET proponent. How would that even address the above? Why is he using / claiming to use a globular map for FET? Why is Tom Bishop telling me that this map was developed independently from the azimuthal projection formula? Where is the lineage between this map and Rowbotham's (see Kendrick's post)? If you are going to stand by the claims of Tom Bishop / James etc., there are many, many unanswered questions.



So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.

No it doesn't.

Yes. The poll answers are and always were what I am looking for: Does the map design originate from within or without?


The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".

Again, read the freaking OP. You gave a knee-jerk answer in your first reply, having only paid attention to the thread title, which I immediately corrected by quoting the OP. Regarding your reply, I said, quote: It was answered with an apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the question.


I can see using a simple poll question as a springboard for discussion, of course; it just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to make that question completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand

It's not irrelevant, however I will concede that if people answered without paying close attention to the question, as you did, then the results aren't meaningful. That said however, we still have at least 3 who explicitly stand by the allegation: Tom Bishop, Irushwithcvs, and James.


and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question

Please show me where in this thread I concluded specifically that one person in particular was lying. You'll find that I said "someone is lying -- who?". It's basic inference -- when you have two mutually exclusive claims, at least one of them is clearly not the truth.



And you have to wonder, what point of value did he aim to make anyway?

Originally, it was merely a question, to find out if Tom was on his own. I'm also trying to encourage the claimants to either provide evidence or admit that they were making shit up. If you read carefully, you'll notice I have avoided actually making any positive claims in this thread. All I'm doing is asking for explanations.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 38