What alternative should not mean...

  • 4 Replies
  • 1300 Views
What alternative should not mean...
« on: March 11, 2007, 09:41:50 PM »
I posted a similar statement to this elsewhere, just can't find it now. The FE model and many of its endorsers use shitty science.

What I am saying is, science should be the collection of observations that lead to a feasible answer.

However, a lot of FE theories start at an answer that explains the observations.

Example:

The shadow object.

There is no observable data on this thing, but it does explain lunar eclipses within the FE model.

Anyone else have other examples.

?

Tom Bishop

Re: What alternative should not mean...
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2007, 10:57:49 PM »
The Shadow Object is described and detailed in Earth Not a Globe, actually.

See the Lunar Eclipse chapter.

*

unclegravy

  • 957
  • I feel so fucking high!!!!!!
Re: What alternative should not mean...
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2007, 02:51:26 AM »
Yeah, because it's true if it's published in a book.
This from a guy who won't accept photographs and video as evidence. ::)
Quote
The people who feast on exclamation marks will never go hungry agaaaain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

?

Anger

Re: What alternative should not mean...
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2007, 07:18:35 AM »
The round shadow is in fact a massive disc in space.

*

Pyrochimp

  • 577
  • Senator Awesome
Re: What alternative should not mean...
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2007, 01:53:18 PM »
The Shadow Object is described and detailed in Earth Not a Globe, actually.

See the Lunar Eclipse chapter.

Yup, some random 19th century English bumblefuck observed and explained the shadow object in excellent detail, but no amateur or professional astronomer in the history of man itself has ever found evidence pointing towards the existence of a shadow object (besides lunar eclipses, which RE already has an excellent non-mysterious-shadow-object explanation for).

Edit: By the way, what's your opinion on the lunar eclipse a while ago not covering up any stars with the mysterious shadow object?  Well, it didn't cover up any stars I saw...
« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 01:56:59 PM by Pyrochimp »
Some people are ****ing stupid! ~ George Carlin

Mathematical proof of the flat Earth:
[{(Diameter of Earth)*(tan[distance from Earth to sun/distance from North pole to equator])}2]/0