Theories VS hard evidence.

  • 60 Replies
  • 12267 Views
?

Jikan

  • 58
  • Supernova pic... taken from space.
Theories VS hard evidence.
« on: November 12, 2007, 08:49:26 PM »
Before I even start, let me say: yes, I have read the FAQ... twice.

I'm just curious, is there any hard evidence to support FET yet, or will FEers just keep pointing to opinions and "literature" as "proof?"

Also, why do people believe in this "ice wall" if, according to the conspiracy theory, nobody that has seen it has lived to tell the tale? Isn't that a little too convenient?

Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to understand why FEers believe the things they believe and I have an open mind, but I have yet to see any evidence that is even remotely convincing.
"Bring down the curtain, the farce is played out." --Francois Rabelais--

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2007, 09:34:46 PM »
I'm just curious, is there any hard evidence to support FET yet, or will FEers just keep pointing to opinions and "literature" as "proof?"
Well, because there aren't any evidence at all. Most of the evidence for FE comes from the Round Earth, just like how TomB uses a picture of the Antarctican Peninsula as proof for the existence of Ice Wall.

Also, why do people believe in this "ice wall" if, according to the conspiracy theory, nobody that has seen it has lived to tell the tale? Isn't that a little too convenient?
Why do some people believe in God? Because they believe He is there. FE'ers believe the Ice Wall is there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to understand why FEers believe the things they believe and I have an open mind, but I have yet to see any evidence that is even remotely convincing.
Finding a real evidence to prove flat Earth is like winning a Jackpot, really.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2007, 04:09:56 AM »
Correction:
Finding Evidence to prove Flat Earth Theory is like trying to find sense in Tom Bishop's explanations. It cannot be done.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2007, 04:36:51 AM »
I'm not sure why people ask for evidence; all the observations made are the same in both models.

The only things you could collect as evidence, would be information on the conspiracy (which...is a conspiracy, so good luck), or well-designed, alternative explanations to phenomena.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2007, 06:28:13 AM »
I'm not sure why people ask for evidence; all the observations made are the same in both models.

The only things you could collect as evidence, would be information on the conspiracy (which...is a conspiracy, so good luck), or well-designed, alternative explanations to phenomena.

Observations are the same in both models? Lakes are curved. Rowbathom's experiments have made up results to convince people they are flat. Besides, people should ask for evidence that proofs are correct for each model. For instance: asking for proof the ship's hull disappears over the horizon is pointless. But asking for evidence that perspective fails to include some portions of your vision if far enough away seems relevant. Without evidence, FET is just as likely as that leprechaun theory I found in the archives.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2007, 07:24:56 AM »
Simply, RE has evidence. FE has faith.

Faith owns evidence.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2007, 12:44:44 PM »
Nothing and nobody I mean nobody could keep something like that secret for hundreds of years. Furthermore your conspiracy theory blows, no one knows who conspiring against what, all you say is that somehow they control every government on Earth, furthermore the governments are part of the conspiracy without their knowledge. This is impossible, you can not conspire accidentally. But I'd like to try whatever you guys smoke.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17861
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2007, 01:16:04 PM »
Nothing and nobody I mean nobody could keep something like that secret for hundreds of years.
Why not?
Quote
Furthermore your conspiracy theory blows, no one knows who conspiring against what, all you say is that somehow they control every government on Earth, furthermore the governments are part of the conspiracy without their knowledge.
We don't say that at all.
Quote
This is impossible, you can not conspire accidentally. But I'd like to try whatever you guys smoke.
"You are a very reasonable man John." - D1

"The lunatic, the lover, and the poet. Are of imagination all compact" - The Bard

Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2007, 01:45:00 PM »
Because that would require a divine higher power to facilitate conspiracy on a massive scale like this would have to be. I mean we're not talking about hiding an alien spaceship that crashed in New Mexico 60 years ago, this (FE) theory goes against almost everything 6 billion people know about our planet, the universe around us and countless laws of physics that were established by some highly intelligent people. I mean come on.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2007, 01:55:57 PM »
The conspiracy is multipolar.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2007, 02:01:53 PM »
The conspiracy is multitalented.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2007, 02:04:33 PM »
Quote
I'm just curious, is there any hard evidence to support FET yet, or will FEers just keep pointing to opinions and "literature" as "proof?"

All the hard evidence for Flat Earth Theory is in the Flat Earth Literature. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham conducts a good number of tests, trials, and experiments which directly contradicts Round Earth doctrine and shows mathematically that there is no curvature to the surface of the earth.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2007, 02:12:30 PM »
Observations are the same in both models? Lakes are curved.

They appear curved.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2007, 02:18:32 PM »
Our Lord Has Spoken.
The Earth Be Flat.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2007, 02:24:32 PM »
Quote from Wiki:
"After Rowbotham's death, his thousands of followers"

Ha ha ha, this says it all, thousands of followers

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2007, 02:35:41 PM »
Bet TB put that into wikipedia.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17861
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2007, 03:41:28 PM »
Because that would require a divine higher power to facilitate conspiracy on a massive scale like this would have to be. I mean we're not talking about hiding an alien spaceship that crashed in New Mexico 60 years ago, this (FE) theory goes against almost everything 6 billion people know about our planet, the universe around us and countless laws of physics that were established by some highly intelligent people. I mean come on.
We are wrong about countless laws of physics regardless of whether the earth is flat or not.  Just because 6 billion people believe the earth is round, doesn't mean anything.  We used to think alot of things that in retrospect are pretty funny.

Why would it require a divine higher power to facilitate the conspiracy?
"You are a very reasonable man John." - D1

"The lunatic, the lover, and the poet. Are of imagination all compact" - The Bard

?

Jikan

  • 58
  • Supernova pic... taken from space.
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2007, 07:32:18 PM »
Quote
I'm just curious, is there any hard evidence to support FET yet, or will FEers just keep pointing to opinions and "literature" as "proof?"

All the hard evidence for Flat Earth Theory is in the Flat Earth Literature. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham conducts a good number of tests, trials, and experiments which directly contradicts Round Earth doctrine and shows mathematically that there is no curvature to the surface of the earth.

Ok, so you ARE going to keep pointing towards "literature."

Also, if (RE) science shows that you CAN put a man in space, (which it does) then who are you (FEers in general, not JUST you) to say that science is wrong? The math proves that it can and has been done. If you are going to ignore this fact, then why should anybody believe the "math" that Rowbotham put forth in his "literature?"
"Bring down the curtain, the farce is played out." --Francois Rabelais--

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17861
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2007, 12:34:31 AM »
Quote
I'm just curious, is there any hard evidence to support FET yet, or will FEers just keep pointing to opinions and "literature" as "proof?"

All the hard evidence for Flat Earth Theory is in the Flat Earth Literature. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham conducts a good number of tests, trials, and experiments which directly contradicts Round Earth doctrine and shows mathematically that there is no curvature to the surface of the earth.

Ok, so you ARE going to keep pointing towards "literature."

Also, if (RE) science shows that you CAN put a man in space, (which it does) then who are you (FEers in general, not JUST you) to say that science is wrong? The math proves that it can and has been done. If you are going to ignore this fact, then why should anybody believe the "math" that Rowbotham put forth in his "literature?"
Math can't prove anything outside of math.
"You are a very reasonable man John." - D1

"The lunatic, the lover, and the poet. Are of imagination all compact" - The Bard

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2007, 09:02:15 AM »
Quote
Ok, so you ARE going to keep pointing towards "literature."

Also, if (RE) science shows that you CAN put a man in space, (which it does) then who are you (FEers in general, not JUST you) to say that science is wrong? The math proves that it can and has been done. If you are going to ignore this fact, then why should anybody believe the "math" that Rowbotham put forth in his "literature?"

Man cannot land on the moon because the Universal Accelerator prevents it. In order to travel against the Universal Accelerator a rocket would need to push out infinite mass. This can be shown with simple math.

The Flat Earth Literature is all very straight forward, requiring only a little patience and interest. Before you ask any of us a question about the earth please consult the literature.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2007, 09:15:05 AM »
There is no evidence that the Universal Accelerator exists, Tom.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2007, 09:17:57 AM »
There is no evidence that the Universal Accelerator exists, Tom.

The existence of the Universal Accelerator can be demonstrated quite easily. Simply walk off the edge of a three foot high drop-off and observe the surface of the earth carefully. You will notice that when you go into free fall the entire earth accelerates up to you.

Indeed, modern science agrees that the universe is accelerating.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2007, 09:20:38 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2007, 09:41:47 AM »
However, the thread is called theories vs. hard evidence.

This is a theory. There is another theory that you accelerate to the earth.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2007, 10:37:12 AM »
However, the thread is called theories vs. hard evidence.

This is a theory. There is another theory that you accelerate to the earth.

Which there's also no evidence of. Hmmm...


~D-Draw

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2007, 10:38:37 AM »
i know, that was my point, smartass
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Jikan

  • 58
  • Supernova pic... taken from space.
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2007, 02:25:36 PM »
Quote
Ok, so you ARE going to keep pointing towards "literature."

Also, if (RE) science shows that you CAN put a man in space, (which it does) then who are you (FEers in general, not JUST you) to say that science is wrong? The math proves that it can and has been done. If you are going to ignore this fact, then why should anybody believe the "math" that Rowbotham put forth in his "literature?"

Man cannot land on the moon because the Universal Accelerator prevents it. In order to travel against the Universal Accelerator a rocket would need to push out infinite mass. This can be shown with simple math.

The Flat Earth Literature is all very straight forward, requiring only a little patience and interest. Before you ask any of us a question about the earth please consult the literature.

I never mentioned man landing on the moon. :)

I said man can and has gone into space. Again, if you're going to ignore the FACTS, then why should I (or anybody else, for that matter) bother to read any FE "literature?"

I agree that man has probably not been to the moon, based simply on one question: how did they get enough boost to leave the moon? They left their boosters on earth. :)
"Bring down the curtain, the farce is played out." --Francois Rabelais--

?

Jikan

  • 58
  • Supernova pic... taken from space.
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2007, 02:29:45 PM »
There is no evidence that the Universal Accelerator exists, Tom.

The existence of the Universal Accelerator can be demonstrated quite easily. Simply walk off the edge of a three foot high drop-off and observe the surface of the earth carefully. You will notice that when you go into free fall the entire earth accelerates up to you.

Indeed, modern science agrees that the universe is accelerating.

That also proves that gravity exists, so...
"Bring down the curtain, the farce is played out." --Francois Rabelais--

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2007, 02:32:02 PM »
Quote
I said man can and has gone into space. Again, if you're going to ignore the FACTS, then why should I (or anybody else, for that matter) bother to read any FE "literature?"

Sure, I agree that man has been to space. In FE there is lagrange point between the stars and the earth where bodies can become weightless, trapped between the gravitation of the stars and the acceleration of the earth. Reaching this point is what can cause the weightlessness seen in space shuttle videos.

The earth appears curved at an altitude of 100 miles. Most pictures of the earth are not doctored. Flat Earth Theory holds that there is elliptical curvature from the edge of space, one hundred miles in altitude. Any photograph showing a curved elliptical horizon from very high altitudes poses no affront to FE.

Example: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/

Curvature results from the fact that on a flat earth we are looking down at a flat circle. And a circle is always curved in two dimensions. The Antarctic coast and other distant continents of the earth are still tens of thousands of miles away horizontally from the observer at an altitude of 100 miles (edge of space), and thus beyond the resolution of the human eye and merged with the line of the horizon, indiscernible and faded with the thickness of the atmosphere. This is why the view is limited to the immediate vicinity below the observer, and why the land fades into a blueish fog as it recedes.

We can confirm that we are looking down at the circle of the earth by noting that shots from amateur high altitude balloons show an elliptical horizon. If the earth were a globe, curving downwards in three dimensions, all curvature seen in photographs would appear as an arc of a circle. However, curvature does not appear as an arc of a circle. The Earth is elliptical in Russian, Chinese, and amateur space photographs. A striking indication of a Flat Earth.

The only pictures which show the horizon as an arc of a circle are NASA's Apollo shots. The Apollo missions did not occur.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2007, 02:33:35 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2007, 02:53:38 PM »
Quote
Ok, so you ARE going to keep pointing towards "literature."

Also, if (RE) science shows that you CAN put a man in space, (which it does) then who are you (FEers in general, not JUST you) to say that science is wrong? The math proves that it can and has been done. If you are going to ignore this fact, then why should anybody believe the "math" that Rowbotham put forth in his "literature?"

Man cannot land on the moon because the Universal Accelerator prevents it. In order to travel against the Universal Accelerator a rocket would need to push out infinite mass. This can be shown with simple math.

The Flat Earth Literature is all very straight forward, requiring only a little patience and interest. Before you ask any of us a question about the earth please consult the literature.

I never mentioned man landing on the moon. :)

I said man can and has gone into space. Again, if you're going to ignore the FACTS, then why should I (or anybody else, for that matter) bother to read any FE "literature?"

I agree that man has probably not been to the moon, based simply on one question: how did they get enough boost to leave the moon? They left their boosters on earth. :)

The lunar module had an ascent propulsion system much smaller than the Saturn V boosters. Moon has 1/6th of Earth gravity, plus the ascent stage of the lunar module was only 4,000 kg, as opposed to the Saturn V which weight in at 118,000 kg, which means it required a hell of a lot less effort to get into orbit than from Earth. Simple math

?

Jikan

  • 58
  • Supernova pic... taken from space.
Re: Theories VS hard evidence.
« Reply #29 on: November 14, 2007, 02:54:57 PM »
Why then, are there photos from space that show the earth as a "disk" but you cannot see every nation at the same time? If the earth is indeed flat, shouldn't we be able to see every nation?

Please don't dodge the question, despite it being your M.O.
"Bring down the curtain, the farce is played out." --Francois Rabelais--