Science

Science is supposed to be based on observable phenomena and can be tested right?  So you want some proof that the earth is flat?  Okay, try this:

Go to the beach.  Take a picture of the horizon.  Go home.  Print out the picture.  Take out a ruler.  Draw a line using the ruler on the horizon.  You will see it perfectly matches a straight line.

But oh no, now you guys are going to come out with your rebuttals.  "Well, there is curvature... it's just too microscopic for a ruler to distinguish.  We need computers to process the information correctly since what your seeing is just an illusion."

Ha!  Mainstream science really doesn't trust the human senses at all.  Whenever anyone brings up anything that can be perceived by our sense as proof to refute the established sciences, they say you can't really trust your senses after all.  You have to use computers and complex mathematical formulas to "prove" that your senses cannot be relied on.  But what's the proof that these computers and mumbo jumbo abstract theories can be relied on?

Oh and those faked pictures from NASA is supposed to prove the earth is round?  Okay, how about this?  I want to prove that the planet Tatooine exists.  Here's my evidence.  Go to a movie theatre.  Watch Star Wars.  There you see it.  So Tatooine must exist.  Oh no, this doesn't work?  So when you see special affects on a movie screen it's not real, but when NASA produces a fake photo we are supposed to believe it?  Can you even tell a real picture from a fake one?  How about that picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and the shadow that supposedly didn't match where the sun was positioned?  What about those pictures of UFOs, the Lock Ness Monster, Big Foot?  Are they real or fake?  How can you even tell?  Are any of you experts?  Have you tried an experiment where you are shown different pictures to distinguish which ones are fake and real?  No, right?  Yet, I bet you guys claim to know a real picture from a fake one.

And now you are going to personally make fun of me, because you can't argue fairly.  You know your so-called theories are all a bunch of lies and therefore you must resort to ridicule and name calling.  Just like you are doing to that nice man Tom Bishop.  I'm never going to reveal anything about my true identity because you'll just use that against me in your "proofs."  Not to mention what the government might want to do with me if they got a hold of my true identity.

And now you are going to personally make fun of me, because you can't argue fairly.  You know your so-called theories are all a bunch of lies and therefore you must resort to ridicule and name calling.  Just like you are doing to that nice man Tom Bishop.  I'm never going to reveal anything about my true identity because you'll just use that against me in your "proofs."  Not to mention what the government might want to do with me if they got a hold of my true identity.

Proof that you are Tom. And also a little bit not right in the head.

THere is a small flaw in your logic.  I've done it.  I've taken a picture of the horizon with my own camera, drew a line on it using the ruler as an edge, and compared the straight line to the line of the horizon.  They did not match perfectly.  I also measured the distance between the top of the picture on the horrizon line in three different places:  each edge and the center.  It was approximately 1/19 of an inch greater on the edge than in the center, implying very slight curvature.

Tom, you simply cannot hide from me. Accept it.

THere is a small flaw in your logic.  I've done it.  I've taken a picture of the horizon with my own camera, drew a line on it using the ruler as an edge, and compared the straight line to the line of the horizon.  They did not match perfectly.  I also measured the distance between the top of the picture on the horrizon line in three different places:  each edge and the center.  It was approximately 1/19 of an inch greater on the edge than in the center, implying very slight curvature.

Really? Well that shows Tom

Admittedly, I don't have the picture available for posting becayse I don't own a digital camera or a scanner.  Had to use a regular camera.  However, the same method can be used to indicate very slight curvature on this picture:

http://www-atdp.berkeley.edu/1522/students/angel/kokocrater.hike/koko4.jpg

I'd like to mention, TruthSeeker, that I have made no mention of who you may or may not be and I have not personally attacked you. 

Looks curvy to me but I never trust my eyes

http://www-atdp.berkeley.edu/1522/students/angel/kokocrater.hike/koko4.jpg

That picture was taken with the wrong lens type. Not to mention we've seen it posted on this forum at least a dozen times already.

-

If a Round Earth did exist, ambiguous curvature wouldn't even be seen until 60,000 feet in altitude.

Every single day we get people on this forum who think they can see curvature from the beach, a mountain, or any airplane. The Flat Earth Society has a number pilots on this forum who constantly give direct personal quotes attesting they have never seen curvature.

I myself have been on an international flight and I've never seen curvature when comparing the horizon to a straightedge. I've even gone so far as to ask passengers near me if they could discern curvature. None of them could.

http://www-atdp.berkeley.edu/1522/students/angel/kokocrater.hike/koko4.jpg

That picture was taken with the wrong lens type. Not to mention we've seen it posted on this forum at least a dozen times already.

-

If a Round Earth did exist, ambiguous curvature wouldn't even be seen until 60,000 feet in altitude.

Every single day we get people on this forum who think they can see curvature from the beach, a mountain, or any airplane. The Flat Earth Society has a number pilots on this forum who constantly give direct personal quotes attesting they have never seen curvature.

I myself have been to 45,000 feet on an international flight and I've never seen curvature when comparing the horizon to a straightedge. I've even gone so far as to ask passengers near me if they could discern curvature. None of them could.

Once again, you post when the other you is gone.

http://www-atdp.berkeley.edu/1522/students/angel/kokocrater.hike/koko4.jpg

That picture was taken with the wrong lens type. Not to mention we've seen it posted on this forum at least a dozen times already.

-

If a Round Earth did exist, ambiguous curvature wouldn't even be seen until 60,000 feet in altitude.

Every single day we get people on this forum who think they can see curvature from the beach, a mountain, or any airplane. The Flat Earth Society has a number pilots on this forum who constantly give direct personal quotes attesting they have never seen curvature.

I myself have been to 45,000 feet on an international flight and I've never seen curvature when comparing the horizon to a straightedge. I've even gone so far as to ask passengers near me if they could discern curvature. None of them could.

You saying that doesn't prove anything.  I've flown around the world with my father who is a pilot.  I've flown along most of the cost of Antarctica with my father who is a pilot.  I've taken an approximately 26 hour long flight starting in Arizona AND landing in Arizona.  I'm not citing any of that as evidence because I cannot prove it.  

As for the wrong lens type thing, that doesn't matter even vaguely.  If the lens was at fault, the whole picture would have false curvature, not just the horizon line.  The only thing in that [icture that appears to have curvature where it wouldn't belong if the Earth was Flat is the horizon.  Everything else is crystal clear.  So it is NOT the lens.

Thank you, Tom.  It's obviously the lens.  I've never seen a beach that looks like that in real life.

And Mongerer, I agree that you have never attacked me.  I think I have to be more careful about lumping all round earth theorists together as they are some descent types such as yourself.  I was talking more of those people who put pictures and quotes by Tom in their posts to make fun of him.  Amazing how low they have to stoop down to prove something that is so obviously "true."

And Mongerer, I agree that you have never attacked me.  I think I have to be more careful about lumping all round earth theorists together as they are some descent types such as yourself.  I was talking more of those people who put pictures and quotes by Tom in their posts to make fun of him.  Amazing how low they have to stoop down to prove something that is so obviously "true."

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that most of the FE believers disagree with a lot of Tom's quotes too.

And for the record, I live in California.  I see beaches like that quite frequently.  Just saying.

Also, to clarify the lens thing, the following was taken on a digital camera.  Used the same technique.  Even a bit more than 1/19 of an inch great at the edges than in the center because this one is from a higher altitude.

http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi88.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk169%2Fplumkari%2FHiking%2FThe%2520Needle%2FDSCN0685.jpg&searchTerm=earth%20curve&pageOffset=4

Now, Tom, I know you're firly stupid but the fact that everyhting else is curving upwards should tell you that your cameras are nowehere near good enough to take photos like that or you need practice in photoshop. Besides, their images are far, far too small to hold any reasonable ground either way.

Ah yes, "truthseeker", distancing yourself from Tom, the oldest yet most rubbish trick in the book.
I myself an guilty of holding multis in the past, and now help on a forum to spot multis of rule breakers. And trust me, your attempt is pathetic.

http://www-atdp.berkeley.edu/1522/students/angel/kokocrater.hike/koko4.jpg

That picture was taken with the wrong lens type. Not to mention we've seen it posted on this forum at least a dozen times already.

-

If a Round Earth did exist, ambiguous curvature wouldn't even be seen until 60,000 feet in altitude.

Every single day we get people on this forum who think they can see curvature from the beach, a mountain, or any airplane. The Flat Earth Society has a number pilots on this forum who constantly give direct personal quotes attesting they have never seen curvature.

I myself have been to 45,000 feet on an international flight and I've never seen curvature when comparing the horizon to a straightedge. I've even gone so far as to ask passengers near me if they could discern curvature. None of them could.

Tom Bishop, you fucking weird penguin.

Ah yes, "truthseeker", distancing yourself from Tom, the oldest yet most rubbish trick in the book.
I myself an guilty of holding multis in the past, and now help on a forum to spot multis of rule breakers. And trust me, your attempt is pathetic.

Any moderator on here can vouch that I am not Tom.  Different email, different IP address.  We don't even have the same writing styles.  Ha, and I'm supposed to believe in your evidence.

Any moderator on here can vouch that I am not Tom.  Different email, different IP address.  We don't even have the same writing styles.  Ha, and I'm supposed to believe in your evidence.

So?  I'm not saying you are Tom, but making a new email address and changing your IP is not difficult.  I can do it.

I'm saying he's Tom

Im saying hes not Tom because he knows even less about science then TOM does.   He probably never went to college and in highschool took the art classes. 

I'm saying he's Tom

Show me your evidence.  Prove to me that we are the same person.  That shouldn't be to difficult for you right, as you also believe the earth is round.  If you can believe that, you can believe in anything.

Quote from: GeneralGayness on April 25, 2007, 01:05:40 PM

I'm saying he's Tom

Show me your evidence.  Prove to me that we are the same person.  That shouldn't be to difficult for you right, as you also believe the earth is round.  If you can believe that, you can believe in anything.

Prove that you aren't him.  Without mentioning IPs and emails.  I've got six different emails.  And as for IP, a laptop + home computer, 2 home computers, or a library make that extremely easy.  Of course, you could also just use dial up, causing your IP to change frequently...

Im saying hes not Tom because he knows even less about science then TOM does.   He probably never went to college and in highschool took the art classes. 

NO ONE, AT ALL, KNOWS LESS ABOUT SCIENCE THAN TOM DOES. NO ONE.

Quote from: sanity on April 25, 2007, 12:50:13 PM

Ah yes, "truthseeker", distancing yourself from Tom, the oldest yet most rubbish trick in the book.
I myself an guilty of holding multis in the past, and now help on a forum to spot multis of rule breakers. And trust me, your attempt is pathetic.

Any moderator on here can vouch that I am not Tom.  Different email, different IP address.  We don't even have the same writing styles.  Ha, and I'm supposed to believe in your evidence.

Oh come on. You think IP addresses can count as evidence that you're not him? Any idiot can download an IP changer. Thinking that no one else would know about this pretty much proves you have Tom's intelligence (ie, none).


Back to the thread...
In case you haven't noticed, Tom + Tom, every photo of the sea is always small. why? Camaeras can't take long ones. You need to be able to use the receptors oly that the human eye can to be able to compare one far end to the other. Moving a camera and putting two photos together also destroys this. Why?
Well, I recommend you learn about eyes and camera. It's all about the way the light is bent when it enters, especially if you're looking straight ahead at something far ahead.

And I've just seen you post to GG. Lol, that's funny. People who aren't idiots believe anything?

Quote from: TruthSeeker on April 25, 2007, 01:08:20 PM

Quote from: GeneralGayness on April 25, 2007, 01:05:40 PM

I'm saying he's Tom

Show me your evidence.  Prove to me that we are the same person.  That shouldn't be to difficult for you right, as you also believe the earth is round.  If you can believe that, you can believe in anything.

Prove that you aren't him.

I happen to know gen gay. She is a nice lass. You fail.

Prove that you aren't him.

Prove that you aren't GeneralGayness.

Quote from: GeneralGayness on April 25, 2007, 01:05:40 PM

I'm saying he's Tom

Show me your evidence.  Prove to me that we are the same person.  That shouldn't be to difficult for you right, as you also believe the earth is round.  If you can believe that, you can believe in anything.

Who said I believe the earth is round? Don't make assumptions. Unless of course you are Tom then you'd know what I apparently believe...

I don't need evidence, I got a hunch

And Mongerer isn't me, Mongerer is a NASA robot

Quote from: Mongerer on April 25, 2007, 01:09:19 PM

Quote from: TruthSeeker on April 25, 2007, 01:08:20 PM

Quote from: GeneralGayness on April 25, 2007, 01:05:40 PM

I'm saying he's Tom

Show me your evidence.  Prove to me that we are the same person.  That shouldn't be to difficult for you right, as you also believe the earth is round.  If you can believe that, you can believe in anything.

Prove that you aren't him.

I happen to know gen gay. She is a nice lass. You fail.

I'm not nice. You fail.

Quote from: Mongerer on April 25, 2007, 01:09:19 PM

Prove that you aren't him.

Prove that you aren't GeneralGayness.

Prove that anyone cares either way...
BTW, I mean people with intelligence, not you, or yourself, or your being or any of your multis - who probably make up all the FE believers by the way...

Quote from: midnight on April 25, 2007, 01:10:13 PM

Quote from: Mongerer on April 25, 2007, 01:09:19 PM

Quote from: TruthSeeker on April 25, 2007, 01:08:20 PM

Quote from: GeneralGayness on April 25, 2007, 01:05:40 PM

I'm saying he's Tom

Show me your evidence.  Prove to me that we are the same person.  That shouldn't be to difficult for you right, as you also believe the earth is round.  If you can believe that, you can believe in anything.

Prove that you aren't him.

I happen to know gen gay. She is a nice lass. You fail.

I'm not nice. You fail.

I never fail, I simple am incapable.

Quote from: Mongerer on April 25, 2007, 01:09:19 PM

Quote from: TruthSeeker on April 25, 2007, 01:08:20 PM

Quote from: GeneralGayness on April 25, 2007, 01:05:40 PM

I'm saying he's Tom

Show me your evidence.  Prove to me that we are the same person.  That shouldn't be to difficult for you right, as you also believe the earth is round.  If you can believe that, you can believe in anything.

Prove that you aren't him.

I happen to know gen gay. She is a nice lass. You fail.

o_O  I told Truth Seeker to prove that he wasn't Tom.  I didn't even say anything to General...

Quote from: midnight on April 25, 2007, 01:10:13 PM

Quote from: Mongerer on April 25, 2007, 01:09:19 PM

Quote from: TruthSeeker on April 25, 2007, 01:08:20 PM

Quote from: GeneralGayness on April 25, 2007, 01:05:40 PM

I'm saying he's Tom

Show me your evidence.  Prove to me that we are the same person.  That shouldn't be to difficult for you right, as you also believe the earth is round.  If you can believe that, you can believe in anything.

Prove that you aren't him.

I happen to know gen gay. She is a nice lass. You fail.

I'm not nice. You fail.

The earth is flat.  You fail.