Duct tape saves Apollo 17

I am aware of how incredibly random that is.

I believe that FE'ers have no proof at all. All you guys can say is "There's an ice wall surrounding the flat earth, but nobody has seen it. There's a conspiracy but nobody can prove it. The sun and moon are about 3000 miles above the earth circling overhead but we don't know why. Oh, and everything in the universe is moving up at a constant speed but we don't have a reason behind it." My thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20398.0) proves that the earth must be round. Tom hasn't posted in it for about a day or two, probably because he knows that I (as well as other people who posted in the thread) am right. You can't say that Snell's Law affects the sun's position, because if it did, it would do the opposite of what you say it would. Other than what you said about Snell's law against my evidence, you have no way of proving me wrong. So, I do believe you lose, Tom.

You're getting really anti-religion these days Tom. Whys that?

I've only related one mass delusion to another. A preacher may be absolutely certain that God exists, and a government official may be absolutely certain that man went to the moon.

There's no way to prove these delusions. I've never seen an Apollo lander on the moon and I've never seen a magical fairy in the sky. Yet we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

Would you rather we "plug our ears to the truth and go on muttering" "Tom Bishop said so" to ourselves? Or maybe we could do some opium and ask the flying dinasaur-tree whos right? I'd assume that is how you spend your nights, right?

No. Instead of an appeal to an authority I would rather you be able to demonstrate your beliefs to be true, be it God, the Moon Landings, or the existence of unicorns.

And no, responging "well .... prove it doesn't exist!" or "prove it didn't happen!!" is not a valid argument. It's impossible to prove a negative. See Russel's Teapot.

I believe that FE'ers have no proof at all. All you guys can say is "There's an ice wall surrounding the flat earth, but nobody has seen it. There's a conspiracy but nobody can prove it. The sun and moon are about 3000 miles above the earth circling overhead but we don't know why. Oh, and everything in the universe is moving up at a constant speed but we don't have a reason behind it." My thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20398.0) proves that the earth must be round. Tom hasn't posted in it for about a day or two, probably because he knows that I (as well as other people who posted in the thread) am right. You can't say that Snell's Law affects the sun's position, because if it did, it would do the opposite of what you say it would. Other than what you said about Snell's law against my evidence, you have no way of proving me wrong. So, I do believe you lose, Tom.

Opium is what made Miss CLeo think she was psycic, maybe it also made Tom think he had even a single shred of intelligence...

*****psychic***** sorry

*****psychic***** sorry

I guess you don't know how to edit a post...

EDIT: Oh my god! I edited this post!

I know that, I've done it, don't test me gnome!

Quote

Or to take 1 book as the be all and end all of the true shape of the earth. What you do is no different from some retard reading the bible and taking it as fact.

Nope. I took one book and then verified its truthfulness for myself.

How did you verify that NASA had really sent men to the moon?

Quote

So, where is Rowbotham's peer review?

Besides the many published studies by independent authors verifying that the earth is flat (see my signature link), I've verified Rowbotham's claims for myself. I have not been able to verify NASA's claims.

So, you have personally verified Rowbotham's claims, eh?  From your "sacred texts": http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm#page_99

so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.

You keep stating that the sun is 3000 miles above the earth.  So, who is right, you or Rowbotham?

Quote

And when are you going to give us the focal length of a proper telescope needed to restore the sunken part of a ship so we can verify that claim?

I don't have that information. You'll have to figure it out for yourself.

But if anyone tries to recreate the sunken ship experiment, you dismiss the optics as insufficient.  I want to know what is sufficient, otherwise it is an untestable, unverifiable experiment that can not be peer reviewed.

You keep stating that the sun is 3000 miles above the earth.  So, who is right, you or Rowbotham?

We're both right. After Rowbotham passed away it was found that the sun changes its altitude over the course of the year as it makes its cycles Northward and Southward. The sun is farthest from the earth during its Northern Annulus and closest to the earth during its Southern Annulus. This can be seen in the Sun's Analemma:

But if anyone tries to recreate the sunken ship experiment, you dismiss the optics as insufficient.  I want to know what is sufficient, otherwise it is an untestable, unverifiable experiment that can not be peer reviewed.

What's sufficient is the type of equipment described in the literature: A high-end astronomer's telescope.

If the earth was flat, I think that the diagram would be pretty similar for both the north and south hemisphere's. However, it's not. It's reversed.

Sorry, FE just lost that round.

Someone please, please PLEASE turn off this perl script...

Quote

Or to take 1 book as the be all and end all of the true shape of the earth. What you do is no different from some retard reading the bible and taking it as fact.

Nope. I took one book and then verified its truthiness for myself.

Fixed.

Quote

You keep stating that the sun is 3000 miles above the earth.  So, who is right, you or Rowbotham?

We're both right. After Rowbotham passed away it was found that the sun changes its altitude over the course of the year as it makes its cycles Northward and Southward. The sun is farthest from the earth during its Northern Annulus and closest to the earth during its Southern Annulus. This can be seen in the Sun's Analemma:

Tom, you do realize that the Sun's Analemma actually supports RE a lot better than FE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

There are three parameters that affect the size and shape of the analemma: obliquity, eccentricity, and the angle between the apse line and the line of solstices. For an object with a perfectly circular orbit and no axial tilt, the Sun would always appear at the same point in the sky at the same time of day throughout the year and the analemma would be a dot. For an object with a circular orbit but axial tilt similar to Earth's, the analemma would be a figure of eight with northern and southern lobes equal in size. For an object with eccentricity similar to Earth's, but no axial tilt, the analemma would be a straight east-west line along the equator

Quote

But if anyone tries to recreate the sunken ship experiment, you dismiss the optics as insufficient.  I want to know what is sufficient, otherwise it is an untestable, unverifiable experiment that can not be peer reviewed.

What's sufficient is the type of equipment described in the literature: A high-end astronomer's telescope.

What is not sufficient is the description of a "high-end astronomer's telescope".  Would you accept a 500mm lens on a 35mm film camera as sufficient?  Or a 500mm lens with a 2x tele-converter?

Tom, you do realize that the Sun's Analemma actually supports RE a lot better than FE:

No it doesn't The Analemma just shows how the sun moves North and South every six months. Where the figure eight crosses over is where the sun is directly overhead. As we can see from the diagram the observer is somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. We can see the short loop the sun makes around the North Pole in its Northern Annulus and the large loop it makes around the North Pole in its Southern Annulus.

What is not sufficient is the description of a "high-end astronomer's telescope".  Would you accept a 500mm lens on a 35mm film camera as sufficient?  Or a 500mm lens with a 2x tele-converter?

I said a telescope. I didn't say to use a camera lens, I didn't say to use a pair of binoculars, I said to use a telescope.

Quote

You're getting really anti-religion these days Tom. Whys that?

I've only related one mass delusion to another. A preacher may be absolutely certain that God exists, and a government official may be absolutely certain that man went to the moon.

There's no way to prove these delusions. I've never seen an Apollo lander on the moon and I've never seen a magical fairy in the sky. Yet we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

But you never used to be this anti-religion. Did you recently have a bad experience with a member of the clergy? Its ok, you can tell us, we're all friends here.

Quote

Tom, you do realize that the Sun's Analemma actually supports RE a lot better than FE:

No it doesn't The Analemma just shows how the sun moves North and South every six months. Where the figure eight crosses over is where the sun is directly overhead. As we can see from the diagram the observer is somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. We can see the short loop the sun makes around the North Pole in its Northern Annulus and the large loop it makes around the North Pole in its Southern Annulus.

So Tom, you expect us to believe that the sun's orbit takes it from an altitude of 3000 miles at its Northern Annulus, down to 700 miles altitude at its Southern Annulus?  A change of 2300 miles?  A change of more than 2/3 of its accepted altitude? And the sun never changes its apparent size during this six month trip?  And the people directly under the sun at its Southern Annulus never notice that the sun seems to be getting awfully big, and bright, and close?

Wait a minute, that's not right either.  That 3000 mile distance is calculated at equinox, not the Northern Annulus.  If you take a closer look at the Analemma, you will notice that the equinox, and therefore your 3000 mile distance, is somewhere around the midpoint of the figure eight while the top of the figure eight is closer to the norther annulus.  So, what is the distance to the sun at the northern annulus?  It must be much more than 3000 miles (probably closer to 6000 miles), and that would make the sun's annual rise and fall that much more fantastic.

C'mon Tom, this is a stretch, even for you.   

Quote

What is not sufficient is the description of a "high-end astronomer's telescope".  Would you accept a 500mm lens on a 35mm film camera as sufficient?  Or a 500mm lens with a 2x tele-converter?

I said a telescope. I didn't say to use a camera lens, I didn't say to use a pair of binoculars, I said to use a telescope.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/telescope

Main Entry:       tele·scope
Pronunciation:    \ˈte-lə-ˌskōp\
Function:    noun
Usage:    often attributive
Etymology:    New Latin telescopium, from Greek tēleskopos farseeing, from tēle- tele- + skopos watcher; akin to Greek skopein to look — more at spy
Date:    1648

1 : a usually tubular optical instrument for viewing distant objects by means of the refraction of light rays through a lens or the reflection of light rays by a concave mirror — compare reflector, refractor
2 : any of various tubular magnifying optical instruments

So, how does a  pair of binoculars or 500mm telephoto lens not fit the definition of a telescope?  My lens is even a mirror lens, so it would be considered a reflecting telescope.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2008, 09:37:16 PM

Quote

Tom, you do realize that the Sun's Analemma actually supports RE a lot better than FE:

No it doesn't The Analemma just shows how the sun moves North and South every six months. Where the figure eight crosses over is where the sun is directly overhead. As we can see from the diagram the observer is somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. We can see the short loop the sun makes around the North Pole in its Northern Annulus and the large loop it makes around the North Pole in its Southern Annulus.

So Tom, you expect us to believe that the sun's orbit takes it from an altitude of 3000 miles at its Northern Annulus, down to 700 miles altitude at its Southern Annulus?  A change of 2300 miles?  A change of more than 2/3 of its accepted altitude? And the sun never changes its apparent size during this six month trip?  And the people directly under the sun at its Southern Annulus never notice that the sun seems to be getting awfully big, and bright, and close?

Wait a minute, that's not right either.  That 3000 mile distance is calculated at equinox, not the Northern Annulus.  If you take a closer look at the Analemma, you will notice that the equinox, and therefore your 3000 mile distance, is somewhere around the midpoint of the figure eight while the top of the figure eight is closer to the norther annulus.  So, what is the distance to the sun at the northern annulus?  It must be much more than 3000 miles (probably closer to 6000 miles), and that would make the sun's annual rise and fall that much more fantastic.

C'mon Tom, this is a stretch, even for you.  

Quote

Quote

What is not sufficient is the description of a "high-end astronomer's telescope".  Would you accept a 500mm lens on a 35mm film camera as sufficient?  Or a 500mm lens with a 2x tele-converter?

I said a telescope. I didn't say to use a camera lens, I didn't say to use a pair of binoculars, I said to use a telescope.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/telescope

Quote from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/telescope

Main Entry:       tele·scope
Pronunciation:    \ˈte-lə-ˌskōp\
Function:    noun
Usage:    often attributive
Etymology:    New Latin telescopium, from Greek tēleskopos farseeing, from tēle- tele- + skopos watcher; akin to Greek skopein to look — more at spy
Date:    1648

1 : a usually tubular optical instrument for viewing distant objects by means of the refraction of light rays through a lens or the reflection of light rays by a concave mirror — compare reflector, refractor
2 : any of various tubular magnifying optical instruments

So, how does a  pair of binoculars or 500mm telephoto lens not fit the definition of a telescope?  My lens is even a mirror lens, so it would be considered a reflecting telescope.

I like to argue points without any science whatsoever, so my addition to this conversation is simply:
Suck on that Tom!