# The Unrefuted

• 65 Replies
• 16579 Views
?

#### ∂G/∂x

• 1536
• All Rights Reversed
##### The Unrefuted
« on: April 25, 2007, 03:41:37 PM »
ONE
Quote
1. Zetetic thought relies on the evidence of DIRECT OBSERVATION.

2. FE theory requires a giant international conspiracy to operate for it to be valid.

3. There is not DIRECT OBSERVATION for such a conspiracy.

4. Conclude either:
a) There is no conspiracy, and the Earth is round.
b) The zetetic method does not operate in FE theory.
c) Both.

TWO
Quote
1. FE rotates once every 24 hours, as Foucault's pendulum appears to indicate (even you must agree here Tom, in the Northern hemisphere the experiment demonstrates as much).

2. The North Pole is the centre of this rotation.

3. Melbourne is latitude 37.5 degrees South, putting it approximately 14,000 km from the North Pole.

4. The circle around the North Pole described by Melbourne is then approximately 88,000 km in circumference.

5. Melbourne travels 88,000 km in 24 hours, which is around 1 km/s or 3600 km/h.

6. On a flat Earth this would mean a 75 kg person in Melbourne leaning against a wall facing north would feel a force of around 5.360 N pressing him to the wall, as in any rotating system there is constant acceleration toward the centre and it is natural in any reference frame for a body to resist acceleration (it is the basis of FE gravitation). This effect would be noticeable and definitely measurable.

7. This does not occur.

8. Either:
a. The Earth is not flat.
b. The Earth does not rotate.

9. We have shown (b) to be false in part 1.

10. The Earth is not flat.

THREE

Quote
1. The Sun is 3000 miles vertical distance from the Earth, equivalent to 4828 km (I prefer metric).

2. For the sun to set, let us assume it has to get within 5 degrees of the horizon (this is for wave crests etc. to take over, and is a very generous estimate. 5 degrees is quite large in the sky - 10 sun-widths up from the horizon). The sun has an angular size, RE and FE, of 0.52 degrees.

3. It is assumed in FET that sunset occurs by the sun moving further away, and, as Rowbotham said, apparently 'sinking' as a result of perspective.

4. Using an angle of 5 degrees to the horizon and 4828 km vertical elevation, we may deduce that when the sun is at this angle, the horizontal distance to it (the distance to the point at which it is directly overhead) is 4828/tan5  (opposite side divided by (opposite over adjacent) equals adjacent).

5. This places the sun at a horizontal distance of 55,184.3 km from the observer during sunset.

6. 55,184.3 km is well in excess of the diameter of the entire flat earth (around 40,000km - the pole-to-pole distance doubled), let alone the sun's supposed above-equator orbital path.

7. The sun must, during sunset, have moved at the very least 15,000 km away from the edge of the earth (assuming the sunset is over the FE from some point on the ice wall, in most cases e.g. USA the distance is much greater).

8. If it is this far away it is clearly not following a regular orbital path, as all countries must observe sunset once per day (excluding north pole/ice wall) and it cannot be this distance away from one country while being directly above another.

9. Two possible conclusions: the Earth is not flat, or the model of the sun, especially its rising and setting, is totally wrong.

These are cross-posted from some other threads, and were either ignored or ineffectively argued against. I understand that not all FEers agree the Earth rotates, so if you are not of that disposition please ignore Two.

The second one has been edited following the discovery of an inaccuracy (a lack of metres-kilometres conversion during the process) in the calculations, and is now correct.

If anyone can show mathematically why these are wrong, or in some scientific way show faults in them or their assumptions then that would be cool. Otherwise, the Earth is starting to look awfully round....

Edit: Please try to stay on topic to the arguments presented here, the threads these were in descended into discussion of magnetic fields and solar wind etc While those are perfectly good topics for debate, they are less clear cut than the above, which I would like to see a real FEer have a go at.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 03:47:46 PM by Gin »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

#### ∂G/∂x

• 1536
• All Rights Reversed
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2007, 04:51:28 PM »
*Bump*

I can see these are to remain unrefuted. RE wins?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

#### Roundy the Truthinessist

• Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
• The Elder Ones
• 27043
• I'm the boss.
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2007, 04:59:29 PM »
RE always wins.  RE kicks ass.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

#### Mrs. Peach

• Official Member
• 6258
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2007, 05:03:46 PM »
Well that nailed the hide to the wall for sure.

#### ﮎingulaЯiτy

• Arbitrator
• Planar Moderator
• 9074
• Resident atheist.
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2007, 06:00:56 PM »
Feel free to add that to the collection of evidence at:
http://roundearth.informe.com/viewforum.php?f=2

If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

#### ﮎingulaЯiτy

• Arbitrator
• Planar Moderator
• 9074
• Resident atheist.
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2007, 06:02:32 PM »
...Although there is overlap, that logic trap is yet to be established there.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

#### ∂G/∂x

• 1536
• All Rights Reversed
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2007, 06:04:09 PM »
I am going to sleep soon, but feel free to copy all that over. I don't demand credit or anything as I'm sure it's been done before...
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2007, 06:26:35 PM »
Maybe I will just adopt the RE 'hand waving' way of answering questions: "That's how it is."

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### ∂G/∂x

• 1536
• All Rights Reversed
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2007, 06:27:42 PM »
Huh?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

#### Game_Guru777

• 108
• Truth knows no bounds...
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2007, 06:37:25 PM »
Or the FE way of responding:

1) A vague response that will have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand.

2) An insult directed at you for your inability to grasp their 'logic' and 'proof'. When in reality there 'logic' and 'proof' has more holes in it than swiss cheese. They just choose to ignore it.

3) A quote from a book made by some guy who said the Earth is flat and proves it in a book that is so majority biased, and its claims are so ridicules that it is best used for toilet paper in an out house. Even that is giving the book too much credit.

By the looks if it number four is the winner so far... maybe two... yet to decide...

Objection!!! Your claims make no sense! Think about what you are going to say before you say it!

Evidence is everything...

• Official Member
• 35374
• Former President of Iraq
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2007, 06:44:44 PM »
Those logical arguments seem convincing, however, you forgot the #1 rule of the FE theory:

If you can't explain something logically, just say "It's a conspiracy!"

#### Midnight

• 7671
• RE/FE Apathetic.
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2007, 06:46:19 PM »
Those logical arguments seem convincing, however, you forgot the #1 rule of the FE theory:

If you can't explain something logically, just say "It's a conspiracy!"

Nonononon...no...no...nooopoodojfugty4ey..................no

That's when they remain silent just long enough to realize the jig (wave's at hara) is nearly up. Then something happens. Usually, Tom disappears it, or pastes more copy pasta.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18003
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2007, 07:08:17 PM »
Quote
There is not DIRECT OBSERVATION for such a conspiracy.

NASA says the world is a sphere. It's not.

Quote
On a flat Earth this would mean a 75 kg person in Melbourne leaning against a wall facing north would feel a force of around 5.360 N

The Flat Earth is not rotating.

The Foucault Pendulum as a proof for roundity is debunked in Chapter 14, Section 12 and Chapter 14, Section 21 of Earth not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Even if it was rotating, however, I've already shown you in the rotation thread how little of an effect rotation would have. You will need to use the real Centripetal Force equations instead of making them up yourself.

Quote
This places the sun at a horizontal distance of 55,184.3 km from the observer during sunset.

4828/tan5 isn't remotely correct. See Earth Not a Globe for accurate calculations.

?

#### ∂G/∂x

• 1536
• All Rights Reversed
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2007, 07:14:59 PM »
Tell me why it is not correct. On a Flat Earth it seems very, very correct. If you can't explain why, then don't tell me I'm wrong.

Quote
NASA says the world is a sphere. It's not.

This, as expected, is a totally circular argument, of the order of:

1. There are pictures that prove the Earth is round.
2. The Earth is flat.
3. Therefore the pictures are faked.
4. Therefore the Earth is flat.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

#### ∂G/∂x

• 1536
• All Rights Reversed
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2007, 07:19:01 PM »
Rowbotham's 'proofs' in Earth Not A Globe are simply assertions. They are baseless, and any fool with a typewriter could make equally ridiculous assertions. I have seen a Foucault pendulum tell the time (unassisted). I'm sure you're aware that others have also seen this, and they aren't all idiots/conspirators.

Edit: RE: Centripetal Force Equations, how many times must I tell you I used your calculator for the edited post, after you called into question my original work.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

#### sokarul

• 19303
• Extra Racist
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2007, 07:44:03 PM »
Usually when you debunk something you prove it not to work.  Foucault pendulums work.  I saw one working.  Are you telling me what I saw was fake?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18003
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2007, 08:07:45 PM »
Quote
This, as expected, is a totally circular argument

Over the last 150 years of its active and colorful history, the proof for a Flat Earth has been detailed throughout its books and magazines. I can list hundreds of references.

There are detailed accounts of people seeing the North Star from 20 degrees below the equator, et cetera.

We've known about the Conspiracy long before the Royal Astronomical Society allegedly sent Sputnik into space.

Quote
Usually when you debunk something you prove it not to work.  Foucault pendulums work.  I saw one working.  Are you telling me what I saw was fake?

What you saw was a powered Foucault Pendulum in a children's museum. Nothing more.

Now explain to me how you can make a pendulum be completely unaffected by external stimuli except for the phantom "spinning of the Earth". An electromagnet? But the electromagnet IS an external stimulus!
« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 08:45:06 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### ∂G/∂x

• 1536
• All Rights Reversed
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2007, 08:09:24 PM »
The one I saw had no electromagnet, and yes the external stimuli could not be eliminated, but they would not produce predictable rotation. Not all museums are for children.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

#### sokarul

• 19303
• Extra Racist
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2007, 08:26:24 PM »
No I saw this one, the one in the Panthéon in PAris.  The one wiki has a picture of.

Books talking about people who thought the earth was flat do not prove the earth was flat.  You have one list, which you got from a government site, that has many books, most of which talk about people thinking the earth was flat.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 08:27:57 PM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

#### Mongrelman

• 701
• Blasphemy!
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2007, 08:42:00 PM »
Over the last 150 years of its active and colorful history, the proof for a Flat Earth has been detailed throughout its books and magazines. I can list hundreds of references.

« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 08:58:31 PM by Mongerer »
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18003
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2007, 08:59:49 PM »
Quote
Books talking about people who thought the earth was flat do not prove the earth was flat.  You have one list, which you got from a government site, that has many books, most of which talk about people thinking the earth was flat.

It's a dangerous thing to publish a book which directly attacks the Conspiracy. Most FES books come from the perspective of a neutral third party.

Quote
I could take painstaking effort and lists hundreds upon thousands of science textbooks that cite the Earth as round. I could find journey logs of people who have circumnavigated!

1 - No one has proved the earth as round. No one has proved it spun on it's axis. No one has proved that it rotated around the sun. No one has proved universal gravitation. That's a bunch of silly rot.

2 - Rowbotham does indeed prove the earth is flat in his monumental work. His original work is what sparked the society.

3 - Circumnavigation is possible on a Flat Earth.

Quote

I'm not your savant. I don't care either way what you choose to believe. I came upon my conclusion for a Flat Earth by reperforming Dr. Rowbotham's experiments, a few of my own, and coming to my own conclusion. From there I researched into how astronomers got their measurements for the AU, looked up a few flight logs, et cetera. Don't rely on me to lead your way. Do your own honest inquiry if you are so curious about the shape of the earth.

Quote

Each and every question you have has been answered on this forum hundreds of times. Go to the General Discussion forum and work backwards, reading each and every thread.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 09:11:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### ∂G/∂x

• 1536
• All Rights Reversed
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2007, 09:08:19 PM »
And yet Tom, you have totally failed to show why ANY of my arguments are wrong, apart from the convenient and somewhat large adjustment from a finite FE to an infinite plane. You realise that UA now needs to not only be a inexhaustible force, but an INFINITE force?

The other two arguments still stand, and no, they aren't answered by Rowbotham. I was inspired by reading Earth Not A Globe to ask those questions as Rowbotham doesn't answer them. Can you?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

#### Mongrelman

• 701
• Blasphemy!
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2007, 09:13:02 PM »
1 - No one has proved the earth as round. No one has proved it spun on it's axis. No one has proved that it rotated around the sun. That's a bunch of silly rot.

2 - Rowbotham does indeed prove the earth is flat in his monumental work. His original work is what sparked the society.

3 - Circumnavigation is possible on a Flat Earth.

I'm not your savant. I don't care either way what you choose to believe. I came upon my conclusion for a Flat Earth by reperforming Dr. Rowbotham's experiments, a few of my own, and coming to my own conclusion. Don't rely on me to lead your way.

Each and every question you have has been answered on this forum hundreds of times. Go to the General Discussion forum and work backwards, reading each and every thread.

You've somehow managed to miss the entire point of my little rant there.  Maybe I was rushed by annoyance and was too very subtle.   I'll quickly address each of your points in order before I restate my own.

1. True.  It's been proven in dozens of ways, but I can't prove that those proofs were indeed proof.

2. False.  The only way he could physically prove it is to find an edge of the world and take a bunch of people with him.  Images can be faked, videos can be faked.  If they couldn't you'd already have to accept images of a Round Earth.  So if Rowbotham wants to prove to the entire world beyond doubt that the earth is flat, he should lead the entire world across Antarctica.  Nothing else would prove anything.  Mathematical formulas from either side of this arguement can be ignored with the simple fact that nature has its own laws.  If we took everybody into space and saw that the Earth is round, that'd be the only true way to prove a Round Earth.  But the same applies to FE.

I know you aren't here for the specific reason of helping me, you're here for... oh wait, what are you here for?  Half the true FE believers here have disowned you, all of the RE believers have disowned you... you're just here to argue.  And you don't even do that!  You just tell us what books to read!

I don't want to read every thread here because I'm afraid they will all just tell me to read Earth Not a Globe.  If you want proof of an RE, read every science text book ever used in a classroom.  Enticing idea?  Didn't think so.  Neither is reading through 18 pages of threads that all have the same bullshit.  Truth is, I am not curious as to the shape of the Earth.  I believe I know for fact what the shape of the Earth is.  I'm bhere because I'm bored and I enjoy debating.

Now, the actual point of my post was not to try and prove an RE.  It was basically saying "if you know all, why don't you answer our questions?  Stop pointing us to books.  It'd be much faster to summarize those books in understandable terms and then we could all move on."

I'm not even sure if any of the people on this board like me.  In fact, I bet Gin is probably angry at me for giving you something to reply to in order to avoid his issues altogether.  I just have something very strongly against you, Tom.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 09:20:12 PM by Mongerer »
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

#### Midnight

• 7671
• RE/FE Apathetic.
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2007, 10:07:41 PM »
Once again, I will remain alone in my mission:

Those are not answers. A blanket statement grocery list of items, with no backed up data.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

#### Game_Guru777

• 108
• Truth knows no bounds...
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2007, 05:31:36 PM »
Ah Rowbotham... Tom's ace in the hole... that man I was talking about in number three (Quotes from a crackpot book that isn't even worth using as toilet paper.) Hmm... you know what? One book stated something and he follows blindly... sounds kinda like every religion I've ever heard of. Meanwhile... every other science book that has information about the Earth claims it as round. This includes child text books to the books in colleges. The book that you continuously cite has been disproved time and time again. Yet you clutch to straws and use it as evidence of a Flat Earth. If you want to see proof of a round earth look in any school text book (Even 'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' is good).

Now... let me guess... conspiracy right? Wrong... think about how much they would have to dole out to keep all these people quiet? And what if someone leaked it? Big issues. Now about you... have you ever been offered a bribe to keep quiet about this? About this 'Truth' you have found out. Someone like you, they would have to pay to keep you quiet. After all you have been telling everyone. If they really had as tight of handle as they did they you would have been quieted years ago.

Objection!!! Your claims make no sense! Think about what you are going to say before you say it!

Evidence is everything...

?

#### ∂G/∂x

• 1536
• All Rights Reversed
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2007, 05:39:09 PM »
That would attract too much attention apparently.... Though if they burned down the FES library then knocking off one little bishop wouldn't be too hard.

Anyway, Rowbotham's 'Bedford Level' experiment was reproduced by H Youle Oldham and Alfred Russel Wallace and shown to be proof of RE both times. Rowbotham is dead and his theories still deader.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

#### Agent_0042

• 1419
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2007, 06:58:35 PM »
You don't even have to do the experiments to challenge "Earth: Not A Globe." Just read the following passage.
Quote from: Earth: Not a Globe
The light of the moon is damp, cold, and powerfully septic; and animal and nitrogenous vegetable substances. exposed to it soon show symptoms of putrefaction. Even living creatures by long exposure to the moon's rays, become morbidly affected. It is a common thing on board vessels going through tropical regions, for written or printed notices to be issued, prohibiting persons from sleeping on deck exposed to full moonlight, experience having proved that such exposure is often followed by injurious consequences.

It is said that the moon has a pernicious effect upon those who, in the East, sleep in its beams; and that fish having been exposed to them for only one night, becomes most injurious to those who eat it.

At Peckham Rye, a boy named Lowry has entirely lost his sight by sleeping in a field in the bright moonlight.

If we place in an exposed position two pieces of meat, and one of them be subjected to the moon's rays, while the other is protected from them by a screen or a cover, the former will be tainted with putrefaction much sooner than the other.

Professor Tyndall describing his journey to the summit of the Alpine Mountain, Weisshorn, August 21st, 1861, says: "I lay with my face towards the moon (which was nearly full), and gazed until my face and eyes became so chilled that I was fain to protect them with a handkerchief."

I think that just about kills Rowbotham's credibility.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2007, 07:42:27 PM by Agent_0042 »
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18003
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2007, 08:56:42 PM »
Quote
Anyway, Rowbotham's 'Bedford Level' experiment was reproduced by H Youle Oldham and Alfred Russel Wallace and shown to be proof of RE both times. Rowbotham is dead and his theories still deader.

Alfred Wallace was a spiritualist hack who made a rather large wager and tried to fudge the results and discredit Rowbotham when he lost. Oldham was a nobody who made idiot articles like "Special Relativity swindle detected and exposed!"

The Flat Earth Society has successfully reproduced Rowbotham's experiments hundreds of times. It wouldn't have persisted for over 150 years if we couldn't.

Quote
I think that just about kills Rowbotham's credibility.

Nope. It just destroys your credibility.

Dr. Rowbotham was well ahead of his time on that issue, too. The light from the full moon creates positive ions in the air, which can affect human and animal behavior.

http://www.policeops.com/full-moon-ion-effect.htm
« Last Edit: April 26, 2007, 09:21:35 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### ∂G/∂x

• 1536
• All Rights Reversed
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2007, 02:58:43 PM »
That source looks real credible, and character assassination of Wallace without evidence is not exactly a great way to argue.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

#### trig

• 2240
##### Re: The Unrefuted
« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2007, 03:38:23 PM »

Over the last 150 years of its active and colorful history, the proof for a Flat Earth has been detailed throughout its books and magazines. I can list hundreds of references.

There are detailed accounts of people seeing the North Star from 20 degrees below the equator, et cetera.

We've known about the Conspiracy long before the Royal Astronomical Society allegedly sent Sputnik into space.

Please compare these assertions with the OP: Tom Bishop is not capable of supporting his arguments with any kind of numbers! While the OP has clear, repeatable calculations, direct arguments in this thread instead of assertions that somebody else has already answered, Tom Bishop relies on the hearsay. When will we ever see some calculations, measurements of any other kind of numbers from Tom Bishop?

By the way, I live near the Equator an I can tell you, the North Star is just above the horizon, exactly where it should be, seen from my point of view. Tom Bishop relies on the idea that if you cannot travel to faraway places you cannot catch him in his lies. Truth is, anyone can measure the position of the stars from two places that are some 500 kilometers apart in a North-South direction and see for himself if flat earth models explain those observations.