Overview

So to review....

1) Nobody has any sources other than this website or an idea that was disproved on many occasions throughout time and history.

2) Photographic evidence from NASA, any government, or any international space team (Russia, Germany, U.S,  or even independent) is not acceptable proof because every government in the entire world is really united and working together on the sole purpose of getting everybody else in the world to believe that the Earth is round (even though doing this has no financial gain, political power, or no gain what so ever).

3) Photographic proof from anybody else taken via plane, spaceship, space elevator, or hot air balloons, even my model rocket that has a camera on it and takes video as it ascends and show the horizon clearly in the background as it falls back to the Earth is unacceptable because everybody knows how to use Photoshop and is also either in on the conspiracy (they'd know the truth from the experience) or a uninformed.

4) There is some great Ice Wall out at the edge of the world, although nobody has ever seen it (including long passed civilizations that documented everything they did from hunting whales to their own bowel movements that would have seen it when there weren't any proposed guards, or sailors who, to this day, use maps and taking coordinates the stars and a pair-of-compass, that metal thing we all used to use to stab each other back in school when the drafting teacher ha his back turned, that wouldn't work on any other map but the Round Earth Model; or people who take cruises to Antarctica -and there are quite a few- who own their own yachts.)

5) The curved horizon that is proven by ships sinking in the distance is supposed to be disproved by the atmosphere playing with our field of vision. Hasn't anybody ever looked straight up? Lie on your back and look straight up. You don't get that affect because you are looking away from the Earth, through the atmosphere I might add, and not at the Earth's curve. Go on try looking at airplanes and helicopters. If the atmosphere answer is true you should get the same effect.

6) And six, I have still not received an answer to the question about Alaska's sunlight. Why is it so bright there, yet this is not duplicated on any regions around it on the proposed map. As seen here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=10561.0

It seems to me that these are outrageous claims. In order for Flat Earth theory to exist, it must be a science (otherwise, it is a myth until a substantial amount of evidence is brought together to make it a proposed theory). Science is based around one thing: Proof. It is not based on lack of proof for your opponents or those that you have proposed the myth/idea to.

Simple example:
The sun exists. We know this to be true due to the following evidence - We can see it.

A little more complex:
Fire is hot. - People who touch fire get burned and feel an increase in temperature.   

A little more:
People need to eat to survive. - under strict observation, people who have not eaten have starved to death.

In each of these examples I have show that observation and evidence are key. Let's do some more.

Islands are formed by lava from underwater volcanoes:
Scientists have discovered that lava rising to the surface of the ocean forms islands. There is a lot of studying, observation and information involved.

Gravity exists:
(For the sake of argument we can pretend that we are using either gravity from the point of view of Round Earth Theory, or that which happens when objects fall to the ground in the proposed Flat Earth Theory. Right now it doesn't matter) Accreditation goes to Sir Isaac Newton, who observed objects falling to the ground and did multiple experiments and soon found out that all objects fall at the same speed after x amount of time do the terminal velocity (not accounting for wind speed).

Theory of Relativity, Splitting the atom, etc... The list goes on.

The point is you cannot say that something is because somebody doesn't have proof that it isn't. You have to have your own proof (at least a bit of it, anyhow) to back your arguments. There has to be an intellectual aspect to it, not just arguing to the contrary to anything the other person says, but this is exactly what happens here. Somebody points out a reason that your theory may not work and asks for your input on the idea, and you immediately take up the exact opposite argument and/or ridicule them, even if you have used their question as an argument to another question. I have review the previous post and watched it happen more times than I can count.

Holding an argument in the way most of you do, I could claim that there is a giant plug on the bottom of the ocean that lets out all the water or that clouds are made of buffalo droppings. And, you couldn't say that I was wrong because you don't have evidence that it isn't.

In closing, I would like to say that if you want to believe the Earth is flat, then go ahead and do so. BUT, get some evidence. You can't say that you're right just because nobody can prove you wrong. Oh, and I'm still waiting on the sources that I requested above. 

Very nice write up. I agree with you to the fullest.

to the FE'rs - we have our proof, where is yours?

I just let go of my pen and it was hit by the floor.  Proof of acceleration.

I just let go of my pen and it was hit by the floor.  Proof of acceleration.

uhh, you must mean gravity. throw your pen in the air and see it come down. guess what causes it to come down. GRAVITY!

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 20, 2007, 09:21:29 PM

I just let go of my pen and it was hit by the floor.  Proof of acceleration.

uhh, you must mean gravity. throw your pen in the air and see it come down. guess what causes it to come down. GRAVITY!

Oh boy.

Engineer is refering to acceleration. Which funny enough occurs in both models. The Earth accelerates towards the pen on either model.

I have no idea how to explain this, I just know that it works either way for either model.

I just let go of my pen and it was hit by the floor.  Proof of acceleration.

Some engineer you are. What clown college did you get your degree from?

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 20, 2007, 09:21:29 PM

I just let go of my pen and it was hit by the floor.  Proof of acceleration.

Some engineer you are. What clown college did you get your degree from?

Please explain to me how is NOT proof of acceleration. Seriously...I have no idea what else you could possibly be thinking that could cause that to happen.

~D-Draw

So to review....

1) Nobody has any sources other than this website or an idea that was disproved on many occasions throughout time and history.

Let me stop you right there, and quote a Tom Bishop speel with plenty of sources for you to go through.

Step 1. Look outside your window

Step 2. Read the FAQ

Step 3. Read the book "Earth not a Globe" by Samuel Birley Rowbotham

Step 4. Perform the experiments described in the book for yourself

Step 5. Read the book "One hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe" by William Carpenter

Step 6. Perform the experiments described in the book for yourself

Step 7. Read the back-issues of "Flat Earth News Quarterly"

Step 8. Perform the experiments described in the newsletters for yourself.

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 20, 2007, 09:21:29 PM

I just let go of my pen and it was hit by the floor.  Proof of acceleration.

Some engineer you are. What clown college did you get your degree from?

What part did you disagree with, exactly?

The FAQ cannot be used a source. Not because it is full of holes, contradictory, or (as seems the case with some of you) a religious book, but because it is an online source. And here at the Flat Earth Society we are trying to keep out rift-raft and material that is easily adulterated (at least that is the story that you stick to for pictures and proof that we produce for you). And it is much easier to write a sentence out in a forum than it is to edit a picture. I think it is also important to note that anybody can publish a book. I could write a book on how the Earth does better without the rain forest, and we are doing wonders by cutting it down. It would still be published, Point being the FAQ is not a source because it is not written by a credible member of society.

In regards to the text by  Rowbotham:
I am glad at least one of you have a source. And how many of you have actually read it? Apparently one of the experiments (number 2, I believe it was) that the author suggests that you perform (done with flags getting a great distance away) shows that the distance does not affect the height that the object appears, however, reading through the actual text, where (flags are used yet again) in this instance they are the height appears to change as you look out across them. Funny, how the author would tell you to do one thing, and explain it differently in his book. And it isn't just that part. The whole text is littered with points, contradictory points, and then points that contradict both.
I cannot find those news letters and, though I have not had the chance to read the other book, I am sure it is filled with similar contradictions and other experiments that don't quite work the way the author says that they should, mostly because he either doesn't think that anybody is going to go try them out, especially after he's told everybody that they work.
I shall post later this week after I grab the book form the local library and check out theses so called 101 proofs.

P.S.
Just one question before I go; If somehow all of you managed to make it to this "ice wall" at the same time, would the Earth tip over?


   

Apparently one of the experiments (number 2, I believe it was) that the author suggests that you perform (done with flags getting a great distance away) shows that the distance does not affect the height that the object appears, however, reading through the actual text, where (flags are used yet again) in this instance they are the height appears to change as you look out across them.
   

That's because he is showing you how they should look if the earth is flat vs. round.

No it isn't. He is trying to use one experiment to prove one point, but in a different scenario, he tries to use the opposite of what was previously said to make another point. Basically, what hes says is "The world cannot be round because of x. However, x^-1 proves that the Earth is flat, but only the way I want it too, not if it works out for anybody who believes in a round Earth. I am right, and anybody who disagrees is wrong. Even if I really am wrong."

Apparently, the library where I live don't carry the other book in question, but the librarian said it sounded like a good title for a fiction work. So, I checked out the new Terry Pratchett instead, which by the way, is a fiction/fantasy book. I still can't believe some of you tried to use his work in some of your arguments. Pratchett, while an outstanding author, writes fiction, fantasy, satire, parodies, and spoofs. His work is a comedy, not a basis for an argument. It'd be like the world leaders watching "Saturday Night Live", and to make their decisions.
 
And for all of you writing me random insults and getting mad at me for "doubting your beliefs" or not taking part in your little conspiracy:
If you're going to run around with your underwear on your head proclaiming that you are king of the jellyfish, be prepared for others to have a laugh at your expense. Even if you are right. (Nobody believed Newton, Einstein, or any other philosophers or scientists for years after they had passed, and many who have been right were executed for holding a different views.) And at least if you took the jellyfish belief and ran with it, you might come up with some evidence that is less disputable or harder to disprove.

I came here open minded attempting to learn why you believe what you do, but it seems the best argument any of you have is in the form of an insult. If people do laugh at you, it's because you've given them nothing but ammo in their case. You are the kid the wet himself in front of the whole school back in high school (although, some of you are just reaching that stage, let me tell you there's a long road ahead of you), and all the jocks made you the new target because of easy it was to do so.
   
Oh, and having read most of your responses and arguments, I am sure that at least one of you has read "Earth Not a Globe", but I hope he talked real slow when he was explaining it to the rest of you. Judging by your replies and limited vocabulary (which seems to include nothing more than a few big words that you practiced and your choice profanity), I doubt more than half of you could read the first chapter by yourself.

So every time I jump, the earth rushes up to hit me. Earth is an asshole!!!

I hate to step in on the side of the FE'rs but Relativistically speaking (Einstein) Gravity and Acceleration are one in the same. Acceleration creates gravity and gravity creates acceleration. So any arguments as to the acceleration vs gravity are pretty much just arguments over wording.

However you twist it though abstract math still works, and will always work and will always produce the expected answer to the stated boundaries (i.e. 1+1 = 10 in binary because the stated boundary is that it is in binary math.) So saying that 1+1 doesn't always = 2 because you applied some other boundary to the equation is not a valid argument to debunk math. hence why I have challenged FE'ers to prove their hypothesis using abstract math. Abstract math has been used countless times to prove that the earth is round.