I would claim that due to the wealth of evidence for a RE and a lack of evidence for a conspiracy to fake that evidence we have to give the burden of proof to the FE theorists to prove their model.
I do not concur with these claims, but it is no big deal as I figured you would believe as such which is fine. We can agree to disagree on this which is actually what I expected.
It seems that the notion of bouncing a radio signal off the moon and that signal returning to the earth the exact time it would take for a radio signal to travel the distance REers claim the moon is, also being different from a FE model.
Before we examine statistics, it is apparent we perhaps have some significant diffferences in approach. I have two comments reguarding this statement.
First, "IF" radio signals can indeed be bounced back from the Moon with the amount of time giving a measure of the distance (which is a question in itself - perhaps this is true but I am largely ignorant of this science as I have already stated), then the difference between the two models would be more a matter of a difference in the DISTANCE of the moon from the Earth rather than the shape of the Earth. In other words, the 200,000 miles claimes by most modern astronomers or the 3000 miles or even 700 miles claimed by most flat Earth believers. I should point out that belief in the closeness of the stars is a characteristic of some spherical geocentrists.
Second, as to the ability of radio signals themselves to determine distance (irreguardless of which of our views is correct), my understanding is that it is based on the alleged wavelengths of a given frequency. I have read that the wave theory itself is just that - a nineteenth century THEORY. I am certainly not denying that signals exist, but a hypothetical distance or model serving as the basis for alleged facts which are claimed to crush an opponents theory is rather flimsy in my opinion. Again, someone with more technical knowledge of radio signals themselves and/or their history is more than welcome to comment on this.
I am willing to bet you can bounce the signal off the moon at a certain angle and predict where it will return to earth based on angles and other maths.
So far I see no reason why this is not possible, but I am not at all afraid of statistical reality being a threat to flat Earth science as I am convinced that it would support it. However, I am concerned about the habitual misrepresentation of statistics to accomodate a deeply ingrained or prejudiced viewpoint.
You would have to admit that proof of this phenomenon would lead to a shattering of the FE model.
If proof of this phenomenon confirmed a flat Earth model, would you admit that it shattered round Earth theory?
your not allowed to just change everything you think if this turns out bad for you, no new moon models based on pure conjecture.
The view of the Moon which I posited as a ball of fire which I qualified upon close questioning to be technically only a vehicle for the light rather than the light itself is a view which I have held a long time as I first learned of it from Saint Basil's 'Hexameron' which I have posted a link to in the Flat Earth Believers section long before this discussion took place. In other words, I have held the view of the Moon itself as technically a vehicle for light for a long time. I did not just make it up on the spot to win an argument as finding such details buried in the works of stuff like Saint Basil requires more time than a quick fix in an internet debate can tolerate. I cannot vouch for others, but my views are the same as they have been for a while. Of course, if you point out a genuine fault in my reasoning or facts, I would intend to correct it.