Since, continual bumps got no legitimate response to the OP in
this thread, I decided to make a thread that couldn't be as easily stereotyped and cast aside.
In court, an objective observer such as an arbitrator, mediator, or judge takes on the active listening role as both sides present their evidence and conclusions (
Burden of Proof and
Burden of Refutation so to speak).
In any case, RE'ers have countless threads explaining the reasons why they believe in RE and not FE. For instance, one small reason I believe in RE because I have seen NASA's images of earth from space, and I have no reason to think they are not legitimate.
FE'ers have failed to present any reasons why they believe in FE, except maybe Tom who constantly cites Rowbotham and also constantly fails to back up Rowbotham's theories. The most recent example of this is
here.
A. Point
1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.
Point
2: You have come to a conclusion of a Flat Earth.
Point
3: If you use logic and reasoning you must have evidence.
I can see no reason why such evidence can't readily be shared with us, under such premises.
FE'rs are incorrect in asserting that the public supported and common view should bear the burden of disproving every deviant view. That argument aside, is it a lack of evidence or laziness on your behalf that prevents FE'ers from presenting the reasons they side with FE?
B. This simplified proof also begs questions with 'the conspiracy'. You believe in it yet readily admit to not having witnessed a shred of evidence for it. The only reply I have ever seen suggests the conspiracy because it makes sense if FE is true. If this is the case, the logical structure is
still incomplete due to its dependence on part A of my post. The conspiracy is a theory perched upon purely faith-based logic.
It is biased to not post your reasons in an attempt to avoid having your reasons disproved.