"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

Quote from: KingBunny on August 17, 2007, 05:29:07 PM

Nope.
Neither do most people. Hence the absence of evidence. Sort of like the impossible-to-disprove space-squid.
I think you missed the point.

Well, you're using the lack of evidence as some justification for lack of believability. But you can clearly see why there is no evidence. Just doesn't make sense to me.

No, I'm using lack of evidence as justification for lack of REASON to believe.
People don't normal beleive things without evidence.
...well.. there's religion.. but as far as scientific theories go.. evidence = a reason to believe. Unless people randomly pick a belief (the earth is a triangle maybe?) and then try to prove why it can't be dis-proven, or why the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Evidence creates belief.. normally.

Quote

Neither do most people. Hence the absence of evidence. Sort of like the impossible-to-disprove space-squid.

In Earth Not a Globe Dr. Rowbotham conducts several experiments analyzing the convexity of long bodies of water.

Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Experiment 3
Experiment 4
Experiment 5
Experiment 6
Experiment 7
Experiment 8
Experiment 9
Experiment 10
Experiment 11
Experiment 12
Experiment 13
Experiment 14
Experiment 15

Interesting. Has anyone else tried these experiments besides Tom?

Interesting. Has anyone else tried these experiments besides Tom?

Yep. Most FES members have proven the shape of the earth to themselves by reproducing Dr. Rowbotham's simple experiment over a nearby body of water. There is so much bias against the idea of a Flat Earth that looking at the evidence for your own eyes is absolutely necessary.

A woman named Lady Blount was the first to demonstrate evidence concerning the convexity of water through photography:

"The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

Quote

Interesting. Has anyone else tried these experiments besides Tom?

Yep. Most FES members have proven the shape of the earth to themselves by reproducing Dr. Rowbotham's simple experiment over a nearby body of water. There is so much bias against the idea of a Flat Earth that looking at the evidence for your own eyes is absolutely necessary.

A woman named Lady Blount was the first to demonstrate evidence concerning the convexity of water through photography:

"The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

And where are the photographs? I meant has anyone else on this forum besides Tom done these experiments.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 17, 2007, 06:05:14 PM

Quote

Neither do most people. Hence the absence of evidence. Sort of like the impossible-to-disprove space-squid.

In Earth Not a Globe Dr. Rowbotham conducts several experiments analyzing the convexity of long bodies of water.

Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Experiment 3
Experiment 4
Experiment 5
Experiment 6
Experiment 7
Experiment 8
Experiment 9
Experiment 10
Experiment 11
Experiment 12
Experiment 13
Experiment 14
Experiment 15

Interesting. Has anyone else tried these experiments besides Tom?

According to wikipedia these unscientific tests "conducted" by random people have been tried more recently and usually with very different results.

And where are the photographs? I meant has anyone else on this forum besides Tom done these experiments.

Forum member Midgard provides a modern reproduction of the water-convexity tests:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=9343.msg111765#msg111765

According to wikipedia these unscientific tests "conducted" by random people have been tried more recently and usually with very different results.

Wikipedia is wrong. According to "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" by historian Christine Garwood the Flat Earth proponent John Hampton won the experiment on the Old Bedford Canal when the referee for the wager concluded that visual evidence across the Old Bedford Canal suggested a Flat Earth.

Also, Wikipedia references a later experiment in the very same article you are referencing which suggests a Flat Earth.

Quote

And where are the photographs? I meant has anyone else on this forum besides Tom done these experiments.

Forum member Midgard provides a modern reproduction of the water-convexity tests:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=9343.msg111765#msg111765

Quote

According to wikipedia these unscientific tests "conducted" by random people have been tried more recently and usually with very different results.

Wikipedia is wrong. According to "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" by historian Christine Garwood the Flat Earth proponent John Hampton won the experiment on the Old Bedford Canal when the referee for the wager concluded that visual evidence across the Old Bedford Canal suggested a Flat Earth.

What makes you think wikipedia is wrong, and not the pro-flat-earth book? There are books about how reptillian aliens control the world.
Apart from randam vandalism Wikipedia is normally unbiased, unlike books with agendas.

What makes you think wikipedia is wrong, and not the pro-flat-earth book?

Historian Christine Garwood is not a Flat Earther. Indeed, she makes it very clear at the introduction. The book is simply a historical look at the life and legacies of Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, John Hampden, William Carpenter, Lady Blount, Samuel Shenton, Dr. Leo Ferarri, and other Flat Earth proponents. Historian Christine Garwood provides an excellent starting point for anyone interested in learning more about the colorful beginnings of the Flat Earth Society.

Christine Garwood the Flat Earth proponent

That's the fastest self contradiction yet, Tom! At this rate, by November you'll contradict yourself in a single word! (You'll find a way)

That's the fastest self contradiction yet, Tom! At this rate, by November you'll contradict yourself in a single word! (You'll find a way)

John Hampden is the Flat Earth proponent in the sentence. Not Christine Garwood. Reread your source.

I was beaten logically by Tom Bishop. I'll never live it down. You and your damned lack of punctuation!

Historian Christine Garwood provides an excellent starting point for anyone interested in learning more about the colorful beginnings of the Flat Earth Society.

I'd rather see modern, scientific evidence of a flat earth (see thread name..) but colourful history is .. okay too.

All you'll ever get here is history, because there is no scientific evidence. I only come here to close my eyes and slowly shake my head at the mere thought of the fantasy world Tom lives in, where Earth:Not A Globe really does have all the answers.

/thread fail

/thread fail

I didn't see any photos, videos, or non-ancient scientifically documented evidence.

I think I won. I won the INTERNET.

All with my first post ever.

This just goes to prove how much I rock. (the internet)

Sorry for destroying your entire site and concept here, guys.

I didn't see any photos, videos, or non-ancient scientifically documented evidence.

Firstly, we have plenty of photographic evidence. Samuel Shenton once published a nice long beach shot with a telescopic camera lens, showing an image which could not be possible on a Round Earth. Likewise, on a recent thread on this very forum I have displayed a landscape of the the Toronto Skyline and calculations showing that the scene in the image is physically impossible on a Globe Earth.

Secondly, if you truly believe that truth has an expiration date, then you must logically also disregard Darwin's theory of Natural Selection (1840 A.D), Calculus (1400 A.D), Trigonometry (140 A.D), the theory of Buoyancy (280 B.C.), and so on.

Thus we wee that your ignorant view destroys most of modern science. That the concentrated prejudice you demonstrate in your post is pathetic to the extreme. There have been modern reproductions of Rowbotham's work. Dr. Leo Ferrari, Samuel Shenton, and Charles K. Johnson are all modern FES presidents who have published evidence proving beyond doubt that the Globe Earth theory is inaccurate in its predictions.

Since you are unable to accept clear evidence contradicting your world view we see that you fall in line with the other REers, that your opinion invalid, that you have chosen to plug your ears to the truth and follow media hype like a dog to the whistle.

Quote from: Midnight on August 17, 2007, 08:31:16 PM

/thread fail

I didn't see any photos, videos, or non-ancient scientifically documented evidence.

I think I won. I won the INTERNET.

All with my first post ever.

This just goes to prove how much I rock. (the internet)

Sorry for destroying your entire site and concept here, guys.

That's just precious.

Quote from: Midnight on August 17, 2007, 08:31:16 PM

/thread fail

I didn't see any photos, videos, or non-ancient scientifically documented evidence.

I think I won. I won the INTERNET.

All with my first post ever.

This just goes to prove how much I rock. (the internet)

Sorry for destroying your entire site and concept here, guys.

Good job! Now do Christianity.

Quote

I didn't see any photos, videos, or non-ancient scientifically documented evidence.

Firstly, we have plenty of photographic evidence. Samuel Shenton once published a nice long beach shot with a telescopic camera lens, showing an image which could not be possible on a Round Earth. Likewise, on a recent thread on this very forum I have displayed a landscape of the the Toronto Skyline and calculations showing that the scene in the image is physically impossible on a Globe Earth.

Secondly, if you truly believe that truth has an expiration date, then you must logically also disregard Darwin's theory of Natural Selection (1840 A.D), Calculus (1400 A.D), Trigonometry (140 A.D), the theory of Buoyancy (280 B.C.), and so on.

Thus we wee that your ignorant view destroys most of modern science. That the concentrated prejudice you demonstrate in your post is pathetic to the extreme. There have been modern reproductions of Rowbotham's work. Dr. Leo Ferrari, Samuel Shenton, and Charles K. Johnson are all modern FES presidents who have published evidence proving beyond doubt that the Globe Earth theory is inaccurate in its predictions.

Since you are unable to accept clear evidence contradicting your world view we see that you fall in line with the other REers, that your opinion invalid, that you have chosen to plug your ears to the truth and follow media hype like a dog to the whistle.

I don't think you can compare random people's experiments to Darwin, no matter how eloquently you put it. There have been many ancient experiments which fail under modern scrutiny. The experiments linked also hardly seemed scientific, and/or were conducted on much too small a scale.

I don't see any photos.. but you speak of 2. I find it unlikely that flat earthers believe the Earth is flat based on 2 photos posted on this forum.. and a simple google image search finds dozens of random people's photos showing a curve.. In the very least.. if you're going to automatically discount the countless thousands of photos from NASA and high-altitude aircraft without even looking for signs of tampering.. why assume these 2 random photos posted on a forum are real? (considering they're the only real evidence I've even heard of)

PS: What part of EXTRAORDINARY evidence don't guys get. The idea that the earth is flat, accelerating upwards, being orbited by tiny flat discs... etc, etc, etc.. it goes on.. is quite EXTRAORDINARY, whether you think so or not. Ancient (claimed) tests + 2 photos does NOT = extraordinary.

And my failing to believe 2 photos (well.. a story about 2 photos) and some ancient tests (well.. someone who claimed to have performed some ancient tests) is NOT the same as "plugging my ears from the truth".   

(Considering how incredibly, unbelievably rediculous "the truth" is.. I think I'm surprisingly "open" to it)

Quote from: KingBunny on August 17, 2007, 09:57:31 PM

Quote from: Midnight on August 17, 2007, 08:31:16 PM

/thread fail

I didn't see any photos, videos, or non-ancient scientifically documented evidence.

I think I won. I won the INTERNET.

All with my first post ever.

This just goes to prove how much I rock. (the internet)

Sorry for destroying your entire site and concept here, guys.

Good job! Now do Christianity.

Umm...

..uhhh..

..hmm..

*cough* http://zeitgeistmovie.com/ *cough*

..Actually you can't "prove" Christianity wrong any more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russel's Teapot, Invisible Pink Unicrons, or my Gravity Emitting Space Squid. (or the flat earth, it seems..)

Quote from: Jimmy Crackhorn on August 17, 2007, 11:16:11 PM

Quote from: KingBunny on August 17, 2007, 09:57:31 PM

Quote from: Midnight on August 17, 2007, 08:31:16 PM

/thread fail

I didn't see any photos, videos, or non-ancient scientifically documented evidence.

I think I won. I won the INTERNET.

All with my first post ever.

This just goes to prove how much I rock. (the internet)

Sorry for destroying your entire site and concept here, guys.

Good job! Now do Christianity.

Umm...

..uhhh..

..hmm..

*cough* http://zeitgeistmovie.com/ *cough*

..Actually you can't "prove" Christianity wrong any more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russel's Teapot, Invisible Pink Unicrons, or my Gravity Emitting Space Squid. (or the flat earth, it seems..)

Well congratulations on destroying the beliefs of like two people on here. And you're effort is practically nothing compared to the Primer. My point is, you're not going to disprove anyone's belief in FE here as much as you're going to disprove Christianity.

I encourage you to continue to challenge the conspiracy theory, but only to an extent. As far as I'm concerned and as the RE Primer recommends, there is not much use in debating the conspiracy as it's not falsifiable.

Which quite literally, and summarily, ends the debate on an intrinsic level so profound, it leaves people dead from toxic shock. There is simply no way to end the debate, and thus there is 100% zero meaning to the site, the 'society' or the arguing verbatim that goes on until the end of time.

There is no theory at all. It is an argument with no purpose, no winner, and no loser. Thus, it has no meaning. Thus, the only reason people talk on here back and forth, is because it entertains them.

I can live with that. You dipshits entertain me in spades.

Quote from: KingBunny on August 17, 2007, 02:06:46 PM

..but.. I want proof of why anyone would think the Earth is flat

Could be a number of reasons:

That it appears flat, therefore must be flat.
They read Earth: Not a Globe.
They are looking to be different.

And possibly many more.

I read that and the first thing I thought was or brain tumors.


Also I'm with midnight. There is much entertainment here.

Also I'm with midnight. There is much entertainment here.

Unfortunately I think that's why most people are here.

I am reminded of the Simpsons "phone sex" thing where there were entirely men.
(they didn't call it phone sex.. whatever it was supposed to be)

Quote from: Gulliver on August 17, 2007, 02:10:43 PM

I encourage you to continue to challenge the conspiracy theory, but only to an extent. As far as I'm concerned and as the RE Primer recommends, there is not much use in debating the conspiracy as it's not falsifiable.

Which quite literally, and summarily, ends the debate on an intrinsic level so profound, it leaves people dead from toxic shock. There is simply no way to end the debate, and thus there is 100% zero meaning to the site, the 'society' or the arguing verbatim that goes on until the end of time.

There is no theory at all. It is an argument with no purpose, no winner, and no loser. Thus, it has no meaning. Thus, the only reason people talk on here back and forth, is because it entertains them.

I can live with that. You dipshits entertain me in spades.

mids the first time i saw your new sig i though it was an actual message. Jackass.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 17, 2007, 02:10:43 PM

I encourage you to continue to challenge the conspiracy theory, but only to an extent. As far as I'm concerned and as the RE Primer recommends, there is not much use in debating the conspiracy as it's not falsifiable.

Which quite literally, and summarily, ends the debate on an intrinsic level so profound, it leaves people dead from toxic shock. There is simply no way to end the debate, and thus there is 100% zero meaning to the site, the 'society' or the arguing verbatim that goes on until the end of time.

There is no theory at all. It is an argument with no purpose, no winner, and no loser. Thus, it has no meaning. Thus, the only reason people talk on here back and forth, is because it entertains them.

I can live with that. You dipshits entertain me in spades.

Hehe.. "100% zero meaning".. is that like.. more than 37% zero meaning? Or is it caclulated mathamatically? IE: 37% * 0 = 0

PS: What's that disturbing little avatar of yours from? I've seen it a few times but dunno what it's from.

Quote from: Midnight on August 18, 2007, 01:59:59 AM

Quote from: Gulliver on August 17, 2007, 02:10:43 PM

I encourage you to continue to challenge the conspiracy theory, but only to an extent. As far as I'm concerned and as the RE Primer recommends, there is not much use in debating the conspiracy as it's not falsifiable.

Which quite literally, and summarily, ends the debate on an intrinsic level so profound, it leaves people dead from toxic shock. There is simply no way to end the debate, and thus there is 100% zero meaning to the site, the 'society' or the arguing verbatim that goes on until the end of time.

There is no theory at all. It is an argument with no purpose, no winner, and no loser. Thus, it has no meaning. Thus, the only reason people talk on here back and forth, is because it entertains them.

I can live with that. You dipshits entertain me in spades.

mids the first time i saw your new sig i though it was an actual message. Jackass.

Stare into my colon of the future.