Why accept FE over RE?

  • 21 Replies
  • 4858 Views
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Why accept FE over RE?
« on: April 12, 2007, 02:10:40 PM »
I posted this in Questions and Clarification, got one response from a FEer, and realized that it's more a topic of debate than a question.  So I pose it here:

I've been on this site for a couple weeks now.  I've seen all arguments for and against the Flat Earth.  I understand why you believe there is reason to believe in a Flat Earth.

What I haven't figured out is, why change your perception in the first place?  Unless you were all brought up in Fundamentalist Christian households (and I know that's not the case), you must have come to a conscious decision that the earth was flat rather than round.  I, and any other REer here, can tell you that this isn't something that is easy to do.  I have yet to see someone come on here as a REer, see the opposing viewpoints and whatnot, and change his mind about the shape of the earth. 

How was the experience of FE theory different for you than it was for us?  There must be some personal motive for wanting to think the earth is flat; I can tell you with utter certainty that your "evidence" is not enough to sway a rational person to your side.  Which isn't necessarily to say that it doesn't have merit.  It's only to say that you're brought up in life to believe something, and this is so radically different, and in order to believe it, you must:

Change a couple of rules of science, as we know them;
Accept that no viable map has been created in 150 years of modern FET existence;
Accept a conspiracy for which there is no evidence;
Accept that there are some things that we think we understand under RET that are still not fully explained in FET;
Mostly just take the word of a single man who died over a century ago.

It's such a leap of faith, and there's not much reason for a rational person to make it.  I just want to know, so that I may understand this concept better, what initially led you to throw out RET and accept FET, given the natural obstacles to believing such a thing?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2007, 02:12:31 PM »
I got one response from a FEer, one [][][]:

Quote
Direct observation, that is what motivates my "beliefs".
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2007, 02:13:35 PM »
a/s/l?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2007, 02:14:10 PM »
This was my response:

Yes, I had a feeling this would be a response.  "The world looks flat, and that's all I need."

In my time, I have directly observed that the sun stays the same size overhead no matter where it is in the sky, implying that it does not change relative distance from me.  This is direct observation that seems to refute the FE model, where the sun's orbit is many times the size of the sun itself, meaning that it is always either moving closer or further away from me as an observer, but makes perfect sense in the RE model, where the sun is never going to deviate in distance more than a tiny fraction of a percentage point relative to its distance from the earth.

I have also directly observed the sail of a sailboat disappearing last as it floats over the horizon.  It was pointed out to me at a very young age.  This is direct observation that there is a curve in the earth.  You have to accept a lot on faith to believe the alternative that this is all a question of perspective, because as Samuel Rowbotham himself states, he had to kind of fudge our understanding of perspective to allow this as a possibility on a Flat Earth.

Kind of like his explanation of lunar eclipses.  The conventional explanation is elegant and fits perfectly well with what we observe in the RE model, but in the FE model, we have to take the existence of an invisible moon on faith to accept this phenomenon.  This kind of observation can be made about any number of observable phenomena.  They fit like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle under the RE model, but under the FE model, you have to add or subtract a lot of what we thought we knew.

I could also say that I've directly observed hundreds of photographs taken from space from a multitude of sources as proof of a RE.  But I won't, because I know the standard FE answer to this.

What I wanted to know is, [][][], were you brought up to believe in a FE, or did Earth Not A Globe really sway you?  And if so, was it really simply because you look down and see a flat ground?  Surely you've observed that the larger a circle is, the less pronounced its curve.  Surely common sense dictates that this would be the same with a sphere.  Surely you recognize that the Earth is huge; it is so in both RE and FE models, in fact.

Logic would seem to dictate that when a circle has a circumference of 25,000 miles, you would not expect to be able to perceive a curve, if you are just a relatively tiny speck of an observer right on the surface.  This is important, because it means that the fact we see a flat surface even though it is curved makes perfect sense without resorting to alternative theories, like FET.

I guess the crux of my question, if you really believe in a flat earth based on direct observation, is, when you were first told that the earth was round (assuming that is what you were raised to believe), and you looked down at the flat ground, did you really say, "That's impossible, I believe the earth is flat, and I will seek proof that it is such"?  If so, why?  What leads you to immediately disbelieve the explanation everybody else accepts on the basis that it makes logical sense, and all mainstream scientific observation points in the direction of a RE?

And then, given the alternative explanation (FET), what leads you to accept all that you have to accept in order for it to be true:

Change a couple of rules of science, as we know them;
Accept that no viable map has been created in 150 years of modern FET existence;
Accept a conspiracy for which there is no evidence;
Accept that there are some things that we think we understand under RET that are still not fully explained in FET;
Mostly just take the word of a single man who died over a century ago.

Surely, at best, FET merely casts a shadow of doubt on the idea of a round earth.  But only if you make a conscious choice to reject much of what we have come to understand about the world and the cosmos.  What logical reason do you have to automatically do that, and accept FE as truth?

Any other FEers care to weigh in?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2007, 02:14:39 PM »
13/f/ca here.

Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2007, 02:20:17 PM »
This was my response:

Yes, I had a feeling this would be a response.  "The world looks flat, and that's all I need."

In my time, I have directly observed that the sun stays the same size overhead no matter where it is in the sky, implying that it does not change relative distance from me.  This is direct observation that seems to refute the FE model, where the sun's orbit is many times the size of the sun itself, meaning that it is always either moving closer or further away from me as an observer, but makes perfect sense in the RE model, where the sun is never going to deviate in distance more than a tiny fraction of a percentage point relative to its distance from the earth.

I have also directly observed the sail of a sailboat disappearing last as it floats over the horizon.  It was pointed out to me at a very young age.  This is direct observation that there is a curve in the earth.  You have to accept a lot on faith to believe the alternative that this is all a question of perspective, because as Samuel Rowbotham himself states, he had to kind of fudge our understanding of perspective to allow this as a possibility on a Flat Earth.

Kind of like his explanation of lunar eclipses.  The conventional explanation is elegant and fits perfectly well with what we observe in the RE model, but in the FE model, we have to take the existence of an invisible moon on faith to accept this phenomenon.  This kind of observation can be made about any number of observable phenomena.  They fit like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle under the RE model, but under the FE model, you have to add or subtract a lot of what we thought we knew.

I could also say that I've directly observed hundreds of photographs taken from space from a multitude of sources as proof of a RE.  But I won't, because I know the standard FE answer to this.

What I wanted to know is, [][][], were you brought up to believe in a FE, or did Earth Not A Globe really sway you?  And if so, was it really simply because you look down and see a flat ground?  Surely you've observed that the larger a circle is, the less pronounced its curve.  Surely common sense dictates that this would be the same with a sphere.  Surely you recognize that the Earth is huge; it is so in both RE and FE models, in fact.

Logic would seem to dictate that when a circle has a circumference of 25,000 miles, you would not expect to be able to perceive a curve, if you are just a relatively tiny speck of an observer right on the surface.  This is important, because it means that the fact we see a flat surface even though it is curved makes perfect sense without resorting to alternative theories, like FET.

I guess the crux of my question, if you really believe in a flat earth based on direct observation, is, when you were first told that the earth was round (assuming that is what you were raised to believe), and you looked down at the flat ground, did you really say, "That's impossible, I believe the earth is flat, and I will seek proof that it is such"?  If so, why?  What leads you to immediately disbelieve the explanation everybody else accepts on the basis that it makes logical sense, and all mainstream scientific observation points in the direction of a RE?

And then, given the alternative explanation (FET), what leads you to accept all that you have to accept in order for it to be true:

Change a couple of rules of science, as we know them;
Accept that no viable map has been created in 150 years of modern FET existence;
Accept a conspiracy for which there is no evidence;
Accept that there are some things that we think we understand under RET that are still not fully explained in FET;
Mostly just take the word of a single man who died over a century ago.

Surely, at best, FET merely casts a shadow of doubt on the idea of a round earth.  But only if you make a conscious choice to reject much of what we have come to understand about the world and the cosmos.  What logical reason do you have to automatically do that, and accept FE as truth?

Any other FEers care to weigh in?

The best post this forum has ever seen.
Best SNL skit ever: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I predict Michale Crichton's next book will be based on the Flat Earth Society.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2007, 02:21:51 PM »
It is a long post
long posts suck.

Keep it simple for us flat-earthers.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2007, 02:25:20 PM »
Why isn't there a fucking ignore button on these forums?

Go away, narcberry.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2007, 02:26:33 PM »
What are you asking anyways? That is a lot to read.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2007, 02:32:06 PM »
To be fair, it's not as much to read as Earth Not A Globe, or the FAQs.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2007, 02:32:17 PM »
What are you asking anyways? That is a lot to read.
Hes saying that since a volley ball is round the earth must be too.  
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2007, 04:02:46 PM »
What are you asking anyways? That is a lot to read.
Hes saying that since a volley ball is round the earth must be too.  

No, since there are billions of waves, the earth must be wave shaped.

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2007, 04:22:49 PM »
Narcberry: Keeping it REALLLLLLLL since Tuesday. Fucking nitwit.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2007, 04:28:56 PM »

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #14 on: April 12, 2007, 04:31:10 PM »
Newsflash.

Preliminary evidence suggests that I now OWN every supposed "FEer" on this forum.

More at 11.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2007, 06:07:27 PM »
Just thought I'd bump this.

On the off chance that the reason why FEers haven't answered is that it's gotten buried under some other topics and not because they know their "belief" is bullshit and they don't have an answer.

PWND


Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2007, 07:46:50 PM »
What I haven't figured out is, why change your perception in the first place?  Unless you were all brought up in Fundamentalist Christian households (and I know that's not the case), you must have come to a conscious decision that the earth was flat rather than round.  I, and any other REer here, can tell you that this isn't something that is easy to do.  I have yet to see someone come on here as a REer, see the opposing viewpoints and whatnot, and change his mind about the shape of the earth. 

How was the experience of FE theory different for you than it was for us?  There must be some personal motive for wanting to think the earth is flat; I can tell you with utter certainty that your "evidence" is not enough to sway a rational person to your side.  Which isn't necessarily to say that it doesn't have merit.  It's only to say that you're brought up in life to believe something, and this is so radically different, and in order to believe it, you must:

I pretty much just weighed up the evidence and believablity of each argument and went from there. How you could still conclude that the Earth is a sphere after rigorous examination and consideration is beyond me (as is the opposite with you). Yes, I was brought up, like everybody else in the modern world, in a Round Earth preaching society. Impartially considering the evidence and argument yielded clear Flat Earth results for me. I'm not religious either - I see unquestioning religious faith as just another manifestation of Round Earther mentality - the refusal to accept evidence and logic which do not support a preassumed hypothesis (God exists, Earth is Round, whatever other unfounded belief).

Change a couple of rules of science, as we know them;
Since even Round Earth "scientists" are constantly re-evaluating their positions on key issues, why would doing this again be a problem?

Accept that no viable map has been created in 150 years of modern FET existence;
Define "viable". We've got a shitload of maps, and I fail to see what's wrong with them.

Accept a conspiracy for which there is no evidence;
There's certainly evidence for the conspiracy, though a lot of it is well covered up. Consider the death of Scott of the Antarctic (I believe I addressed the obvious fake-journal-swap and murder in a previous thread, citing fairly conclusive evidence) and other conspiracy hijinks. By its nature though, the conspiracy is bound to cover up as much evidence of its existence as possible.

Accept that there are some things that we think we understand under RET that are still not fully explained in FET;
There are plenty of things which aren't nearly adequately enough explained by RET.


Mostly just take the word of a single man who died over a century ago.
He's 300 years younger than Newton, yet you schmucks still believe in gravity. Since when was the age of a piece of scientific documentation a valid criticism of it?


It's such a leap of faith, and there's not much reason for a rational person to make it.  I just want to know, so that I may understand this concept better, what initially led you to throw out RET and accept FET, given the natural obstacles to believing such a thing?

The only natural obstacle I could see when I began to consider the possibility of a Flat Earth was the fact that hardly anyone else believed it. I think this is the primary reason people find it so hard to take FET seriously - it's hard to go against a huge majority, it's arguably human nature to copy everyone else and just take their word for it (seriously, what percentage of the population do you think actually work out science for themselves? I'd say the number of people who just take scientist's words for it is almost as large as the number of the people who believe in a Round Earth. Coincidence?)
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2007, 09:06:17 PM »
Quote
I pretty much just weighed up the evidence and believablity of each argument and went from there. How you could still conclude that the Earth is a sphere after rigorous examination and consideration is beyond me (as is the opposite with you). Yes, I was brought up, like everybody else in the modern world, in a Round Earth preaching society. Impartially considering the evidence and argument yielded clear Flat Earth results for me. I'm not religious either - I see unquestioning religious faith as just another manifestation of Round Earther mentality - the refusal to accept evidence and logic which do not support a preassumed hypothesis (God exists, Earth is Round, whatever other unfounded belief).

i could use the same argument against you.

Quote
Since even Round Earth "scientists" are constantly re-evaluating their positions on key issues, why would doing this again be a problem?

You mean go back up into space and double check? You're fucking kidding me, right?


Quote
Define "viable". We've got a shitload of maps, and I fail to see what's wrong with them.

I look at an FE map and think to myself. I can i start at the southern tip of South America, circumnavigate Antarctica and end up at the Southern tip of Australia. Now, on an FE model you would follow the ice wall, and the entire trip takes a much longer time. Your "shitload" of maps are all completely flawed.


Quote
There's certainly evidence for the conspiracy, though a lot of it is well covered up. Consider the death of Scott of the Antarctic (I believe I addressed the obvious fake-journal-swap and murder in a previous thread, citing fairly conclusive evidence) and other conspiracy hijinks. By its nature though, the conspiracy is bound to cover up as much evidence of its existence as possible.

What you are saying here is "There is evidence, but we don't know of any."


Quote
He's 300 years younger than Newton, yet you schmucks still believe in gravity. Since when was the age of a piece of scientific documentation a valid criticism of it?

FE has been proven ultimately false with the dawn of space travel. Gravity still keeps me on the ground.

I'll end with this:

Quote
I pretty much just weighed up the evidence and believablity of each argument and went from there. How you could still conclude that the Earth is a sphere disk after rigorous examination and consideration is beyond me (as is the opposite with you). Yes, I was brought up, like everybody else in the modern world, in a Round Earth preaching society. Impartially considering the evidence and argument yielded clear Flat Round Earth results for me. I'm not religious either - I see unquestioning religious faith as just another manifestation of Round Flat Earther mentality - the refusal to accept evidence and logic which do not support a presumed hypothesis (God exists, Earth is Round Flat, whatever other unfounded belief).

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2007, 09:33:40 PM »
i could use the same argument against you.
That wasn't an argument, I was just answering his question.

Quote
You mean go back up into space and double check? You're fucking kidding me, right?

That's not what I meant (since we never went there in the first place). He implied that re-evaluation of scientific dogma was somehow problematic, when clearly it isn't.

Quote
I look at an FE map and think to myself. I can i start at the southern tip of South America, circumnavigate Antarctica and end up at the Southern tip of Australia. Now, on an FE model you would follow the ice wall, and the entire trip takes a much longer time. Your "shitload" of maps are all completely flawed.
Have you circumnavigated Antarctica?

Quote
What you are saying here is "There is evidence, but we don't know of any."
Nope. I already referenced one piece of evidence, and then explained why evidence may be a little sparse (albeit completely existant and valid).

Quote
FE has been proven ultimately false with the dawn of space travel. Gravity still keeps me on the ground.
Well no, it wasn't because man has never travelled in space. If it had been proven so ultimately false in the 60's, by the way, why would the FES still exist well into the 21st century, maintaining a website bustling with heavy discussion?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2007, 09:50:06 PM »
Thank you for responding.  This is what I was hoping to see.  I believe you honestly think the earth is flat.  That's fine, we're all entitled to our opinions.

I will say, point me in the direction of a good map.  I have yet to see one.  I saw the model with the north pole sticking up in the middle and the sun and moon overhead; frankly that's been the best one yet.  There's one where you get a vaguely defined sense of what the continents would look like on a Flat Earth, and an interesting 3-dimensional projection that, unfortunately, is just a 3-dimensional projection.  I'd like to see a good map.

I'll take a look at the evidence you bring up.  I've found some of the stuff posted on this forum pretty laughable.

You're right that science is constantly being reevaluated, of course.  But we're talking about experiments that have been repeatedly performed successfully, over and over again.  We're talking about centuries of discovery in the fields of astronomy and physics down the tubes.  You seemed pretty selective in what you commented on; I think the fact that Samuel Rowbotham seemed to rely on speculation and, occasionally, folklore to make a Flat Earth "work" is a questionable way to perform a scientific inquiry.  I also think that the fact that a Round Earth explains things so easily while a Flat Earth requires a lot of extra work to fill in the details that don't fit with a Flat Earth shows that the Round Earth explanation makes more sense, because it's simpler.  Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

And saying that the entire space program, and the space programs of every country around the world, is a fraud just because it doesn't fit in with Flat Earth Theory is a bit short-sighted.  What I'd really like to know is, what leads to such paranoia?

I certainly don't think that a Round Earth is an "unfounded belief", and find it amazing that such a thing could even be argued.  You have to peel back layers and layers of conspiracy for that to be the case.  There's plenty of evidence, whether you see it or not.

Anyway, forgive the vitriol, if you sensed it.  I thought it would be the only way to get a good response from a real FEer.  I'd still like to see some other FEers weigh in with their thoughts.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2007, 09:55:57 PM »
Quote
That wasn't an argument, I was just answering his question.

Then i could ask the same question of you.
Quote
That's not what I meant (since we never went there in the first place). He implied that re-evaluation of scientific dogma was somehow problematic, when clearly it isn't.

Oh, these are those unfounded claims you were talking about. But, why are you making them?

Quote
Have you circumnavigated Antarctica?

Many people have.

Quote
Nope. I already referenced one piece of evidence, and then explained why evidence may be a little sparse (albeit completely existant and valid).

So, you can this man was killed because he discovered the "truth"?


Well no, it wasn't because man has never travelled in space. If it had been proven so ultimately false in the 60's, by the way, why would the FES still exist well into the 21st century, maintaining a website bustling with heavy discussion?

More unfounded claims, but why are you making them? Anyways, i doubt the government gives a shit about your little piss ant website. You know how many government conspiracy websites there are out there? They all claim to be telling the truth. Another one to the pile means nothing, it's throwing a leaf into a leaf pile.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Why accept FE over RE?
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2007, 10:08:16 PM »

Quote
Oh, these are those unfounded claims you were talking about. But, why are you making them?
What, re-evaluating scientific dogma IS problematic? Care to explain?

Quote
Many people have.
Many people have seen ghosts. What? No, I can't say I've ever seen a ghost. But people say they have! It must be true, why would they lie?

Quote

So, you can this man was killed because he discovered the "truth"?

Yep. Search function on terms like "Scott of the antarctic" and "murder" and "journal" should turn up my conclusions on the subject, along with assorted evidence.

Quote
More unfounded claims, but why are you making them?
"We sent people into space" is the claim. I'm calling bullshit on the claim.

Quote
Anyways, i doubt the government gives a shit about your little piss ant website. You know how many government conspiracy websites there are out there? They all claim to be telling the truth. Another one to the pile means nothing, it's throwing a leaf into a leaf pile.[/size]
I don't quite understand what you're saying here, or how it relates to what I was saying. I've never claimed, tin-foil-hatishly, that the government might try and shut down this website. If anything, the constant public ridicule of the truth is good for the conspiracy.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901