Rather than argue, lets see the facts

Ok, rather than demanding proof of the FE theory, lets just straighten out the so-called facts, for both RE and FE fans.

First of all, FE-ers believe the world is flat, at least on the 'top'. That statement has hundreds of meanings, the world could be 90% spherical and have a small section shaved off the roof to become 'flat'. The world could be in the shape of  a gingerbread man and still fit the theory. But ine similarity between FEs and REs is that both involve the earth being circular in some way. The world could be semi-circular (not including the 'sky dome') and fit the theory.

Both FEs and REs seem to believe in some form of gravity. REs believe it comes from the mass of the earth itself, FEs believe it is the earth catching up to us when we jump as it rushes upwards through space. Remember Newton's law of inertia? if the FEs believe in it, no object can 'cathc up' with the earth unless it is constantly accelerating. REs, it must be admitted that photographs are not solid proof as they can indeed be manipulated quite easily, so photo's cant be classed as evidence.

Both FEs and REs believe that there is more to the universe than just Earth, theres the planets to consider (thats another thing, do FEs consider Earth to be a 'planet'?). REs believe all planets to be spherical and to have their own forms of gravity, dependent upon mass. Do FEs believe the moon and the sun to be spherical? I've heard that the rising and setting of the sun and the moon are just optical illusions but the differences in temperature cause by these actions suggest otherwise.

In a final blab, it is possible that the earth is indeed flat and was previously part of a larger body, but derelict it broke off and collected matter over the millions and billions of years until it could sustain life.

Lets hear it

What about all those photos from the apollo era and indeed pre-dating the apollo missions. How can Flat Earthers claim photos were edited if the photos existed and were seen years before technology sufficiant to acploplish the goal they claim even existed.

More to the point, Timmy, do you think that what you're doing is somehow novel?

It isn't.  All newcomers to this site make the same demands you're making, get no response from FEers (there's your derelict, btw), and come back wondering why.  Eventually you make the realization that we're not working in the domain of facts and reason anymore, so you polish your rhetoric shoes and go for a walk -- that's what this post is all about, of course.

-Erasmus

More to the point, Timmy, do you think that what you're doing is somehow novel?

It isn't.  All newcomers to this site make the same demands you're making, get no response from FEers (there's your derelict, btw), and come back wondering why.  Eventually you make the realization that we're not working in the domain of facts and reason anymore, so you polish your rhetoric shoes and go for a walk -- that's what this post is all about, of course.

-Erasmus

I don't think what i am doing is novel, since i am just another hillbilly trying to get sense from a bunch of FEs who would make good politicians the way they duck and weave when asked a direct question.

I don't see what makes you think I am wondering why i don't get a proper response, but whoever you are you seem to only comment on posts without actually taking sides, so you don't seem to be in the greatest position to say if this site is sposed to be based on facts and reason. If it is, is that not why it was made in the first place, not so the members and guests can sling mud at each other before getting down to why they have even come to this site (if not to fling mud?)?

you seem to only comment on posts without actually taking sides, so you don't seem to be in the greatest position to say if this site is sposed to be based on facts and reason.

First of all the two statements aren't connected.  Just because I don't take sides doesn't mean I don't know how debate works on this forum.  Both "sides" claim to be interested in fact and reason, but for the most part they haven't the first idea how to go about applying reason, and they wouldn't know a fact if it got up on the table and started singing "Oh, facts are back again."

Secondly, I almost always take a side.  I'd say that I've taken a side in at least 214 of my 428 posts -- my own side; it's a side that nobody really recognizes.  At least all the people who send me private messages saying, "Whose side are you on, anyway?" don't recognize it.

Whose side are you on, anyway?

-Erasmus

Rather than argue...

you seem to only comment on posts without actually taking sides

Erm, doesn't that mean he is not arguing and is merely evaluating the facts? As you suggested we do in the title of your thread?

This thread, while well-intentioned, is nothing new. In fact, it seems to almost follow a formula now:

1) New member joins site, at first believing it to be a hoax but then discovering that it is real.

2) Said member may now proceed to angry rantings to flame FE'ers (but may also move straight to 3)

3) Member gets tired of rantings, and moves to general discussion.

4) Member posts thread asking for proof of FE theory, or pointng out flaws in FE theory, or providing evidence for RE.

5) No flat Earther answers the thread.

Well, there you have it. At least you were summing up the facts rather than debating, but the formula is still the same.

REs, it must be admitted that photographs are not solid proof as they can indeed be manipulated quite easily, so photo's cant be classed as evidence.

FE's cannot produce any photos while there are thousands of photos that show a RE. Sure you can fiddle photos but to fiddle thousands to the point where there is no evidence of tampering, not even a forgotten shadow or a few pixels out of place. Of course all the governments around the world are using a copy of PaintShop Pro that isn't available to the general public.

Hi Tim, thanks for posting here. I will go against the said formula and answer the gentleman for he has made an effort to get answers, I say that if there are any Flat Earther’s who are reading this that we should use this post to set up a discussion about the points that were raised.

Hi Tim, thanks for posting here. I will go against the said formula and answer the gentleman for he has made an effort to get answers, I say that if there are any Flat Earther’s who are reading this that we should use this post to set up a discussion about the points that were raised.

So... those answers... they'll be coming in future posts, I'm guessing?

yep, anytime now...

one day... *maybe*