Are FE'rs open to the possibility that the Earth may be round?

From my understanding, FE'rs struggle to prove the Earth is flat just as much as RE'rs fail to prove that the Earth is round.

After reading many of the posts here, it appears that most FE'rs are convinced that the Earth is flat and that it cannot be round.

With this in mind, do FE'rs accept the posibility that the Earth may be round? Or do they not accept the possibility?

I get the feeling that they are telling us to be more open minded when theirs are closed. They live in a fantasy of government conspiracy and fake physics and any evidence presented must have been doctored because it shows the Earth is round. I'm deleting my account now.

I'm deleting my account now.

Good riddance.

With this in mind, do FE'rs accept the posibility that the Earth may be round? Or do they not accept the possibility?

Can only speak for myself, and I am open to the possibility that the Earth may be any shape. What I have observed so far though is that the Earth looks flat.

Quote from: Gravy on January 23, 2009, 11:16:29 AM

With this in mind, do FE'rs accept the posibility that the Earth may be round? Or do they not accept the possibility?

Can only speak for myself, and I am open to the possibility that the Earth may be any shape. What I have observed so far though is that the Earth looks flat.

What observations have you done exactly? Don't say you've been looking out your window.

With this in mind, do FE'rs accept the posibility that the Earth may be round? Or do they not accept the possibility?

More people here argue that the earth could be flat than that the earth is definitely flat. 

Quote from: WastedTime on January 23, 2009, 11:41:40 AM

Quote from: Gravy on January 23, 2009, 11:16:29 AM

With this in mind, do FE'rs accept the posibility that the Earth may be round? Or do they not accept the possibility?

Can only speak for myself, and I am open to the possibility that the Earth may be any shape. What I have observed so far though is that the Earth looks flat.

What observations have you done exactly? Don't say you've been looking out your window.

If you are going to tell me what not to say, you might just tell me what to say, or, to save everyone's time, just pretend that I answered whichever way you prefer.
Any time i looked at the "horizon" my view was limited by the things other than "earth curvature".

Quote from: svenanders on January 23, 2009, 11:45:40 AM

Quote from: WastedTime on January 23, 2009, 11:41:40 AM

Quote from: Gravy on January 23, 2009, 11:16:29 AM

With this in mind, do FE'rs accept the posibility that the Earth may be round? Or do they not accept the possibility?

Can only speak for myself, and I am open to the possibility that the Earth may be any shape. What I have observed so far though is that the Earth looks flat.

What observations have you done exactly? Don't say you've been looking out your window.

If you are going to tell me what not to say, you might just tell me what to say, or, to save everyone's time, just pretend that I answered whichever way you prefer.
Any time i looked at the "horizon" my view was limited by the things other than "earth curvature".

So since you see no horizon there isn't one?

Quote from: Gravy on January 23, 2009, 11:16:29 AM

With this in mind, do FE'rs accept the posibility that the Earth may be round? Or do they not accept the possibility?

Can only speak for myself, and I am open to the possibility that the Earth may be any shape. What I have observed so far though is that the Earth looks flat.

What do you observe in this picture?



Or this picture?



Please dont make some claim that these photos are doctored to portray a round Earth by "The Conspiracy".

So since you see no horizon there isn't one?

To clarify, I do see the horizon, which, by definition is the line separating earth from sky. It's just not the earth curvature that causes it to be there. Now, to answer your question precisely, you are absolutely right, if I do not see the horizon, it is not there. That's because everyone has their own horizon - it's observer-specific.

What do you observe in this picture?

...

Or this picture?

...

Please dont make some claim that these photos are doctored to portray a round Earth by "The Conspiracy".

Why do you guys keep telling me what to say and what not to say? How would you like it if I start ending each of my post by saying "Please don't make some claim that the Earth is round".
As for your pictures, the first could be the result of optical distortion in the wide-angle lense, and the second one could be due to a wave passing between the photographer and the background, or somply due to the optical illusion due to the warm air lense above the water.

Repeated thread is boring. 

Quote from: Gravy on January 23, 2009, 12:33:56 PM

What do you observe in this picture?

...

Or this picture?

...

Please dont make some claim that these photos are doctored to portray a round Earth by "The Conspiracy".

Why do you guys keep telling me what to say and what not to say?

Because its not fair to lay out a blanket statement like "The photos must be doctored by the conspiracy" to avoid having to explain what you see here.

As for your pictures, the first could be the result of optical distortion in the wide-angle lense

Ill accept that as a plausible explanation for the curvature of the Earth in this picture.

the second one could be due to a wave passing between the photographer and the background, or somply due to the optical illusion due to the warm air lense above the water.

If this were a wave, it would have to be a tidal way that surely would have demolished most of Toronto. Now look at this photo of Toronto....



So are we now looking at a monster tidal wave or an amazing warm air lense illusion? The Earth may indeed be round, and these photos present a virtually indisputable argument to support it.

I think I can see the Loch Ness monster in that pic.

Repeated thread is boring. 

I agree. Now, where did I put that NORAD picture of Santa?

So are we now looking at a monster tidal wave or an amazing warm air lense illusion? The Earth may indeed be round, and these photos present a virtually indisputable argument to support it.

Nope. The sinking ship is a known perspective effect. It has been found that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs for a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex earth.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read the following accounts of half-sunken ships which have been restored with a telescope:

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/ships/index.html

There have also been experiments on Lake Michigan where the hulls of half-sunken ships have been restored by looking at them through a telescope:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

The above accounts of restored hulls prove that the hulls are not really behind "hills of water" and act as evidence that the disappearance of the hull is not due to any curvature to the earth, but due to the angular limits of perspective.

Quote

So are we now looking at a monster tidal wave or an amazing warm air lense illusion? The Earth may indeed be round, and these photos present a virtually indisputable argument to support it.

Nope. The sinking ship is a known perspective effect. It has been found that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

One thing that has not been found, however, is the specifications of "a good telescope with sufficient zoom". 

I believe Tom.

I believe Tom.

No you don't! 

Why do you guys keep telling me what to say and what not to say? How would you like it if I start ending each of my post by saying "Please don't make some claim that the Earth is round".
As for your pictures, the first could be the result of optical distortion in the wide-angle lense, and the second one could be due to a wave passing between the photographer and the background, or somply due to the optical illusion due to the warm air lense above the water.

I guess you could claim wide-angle distortion caused the curvature in the first picture; but wouldn't that also distort the wing of the plane?  Not trolling, but that explanation doesn't make much sense.  Distortion should be evident at the edges of the frame...you know...where the wing is?

Welcome to the forums. Good question about the wing. The answer is either that the wing is also distorted or that the image of the wing was overlayed on top of the picture for the artistic effect.

Quote

So are we now looking at a monster tidal wave or an amazing warm air lense illusion? The Earth may indeed be round, and these photos present a virtually indisputable argument to support it.

Nope. The sinking ship is a known perspective effect. It has been found that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs for a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex earth.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read the following accounts of half-sunken ships which have been restored with a telescope:

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/ships/index.html

There have also been experiments on Lake Michigan where the hulls of half-sunken ships have been restored by looking at them through a telescope:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

The above accounts of restored hulls prove that the hulls are not really behind "hills of water" and act as evidence that the disappearance of the hull is not due to any curvature to the earth, but due to the angular limits of perspective.

Hi Tom,

Just want to say I'm surprised that you put stock in the "hull restoration" story - anyone with half a brain knows that couldn't possibly be true. Regardless of how powerfull, a telescope can not "change perspective" - it simply enlarges it. So any trick of perspective that would give the illusion of a ship sinking below the horizon would simply be magnified when looked at through a telescope. If the ship appears "intact" through said telescope, it must appear "intact" to the naked eye, even if very very small. Basic optics.

So this story neither supports or debunks any theory. because it's wrong.

Just want to say I'm surprised that you put stock in the "hull restoration" story - anyone with half a brain knows that couldn't possibly be true. Regardless of how powerfull, a telescope can not "change perspective" - it simply enlarges it. So any trick of perspective that would give the illusion of a ship sinking below the horizon would simply be magnified when looked at through a telescope. If the ship appears "intact" through said telescope, it must appear "intact" to the naked eye, even if very very small. Basic optics.

Human perspective ends at the vanishing point.

On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of the human eye - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent beyond the resolving power of the human eye. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge to human eyesight is called the Vanishing Point. The Vanishing Point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:



However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:



This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to shrink into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point from the bottom up. As the boat recedes into the distance its hull is gradually and perceptively appearing closer and closer to the surface of the sea. At a far off point the hull of the ship is so close to the sea's surface that it is impossible for the observer to tell ocean from hull. From the limits of the human eye, the two appear merged.

While the sails of the ship may still be visible while the hull is perceptively merged, it's only a matter of time before it too shrink into the vanishing point which rests on the surface of the sea and becomes indiscernible from the surface.

We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at it through a telescope.

We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at it through a telescope.

And yet, no one here has presented any photographs of this phenomenon. 

And yet, no one here has presented any photographs of this phenomenon. 

There are many detailed first-hand accounts of the phenomenon in the literature.

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2009, 06:31:16 AM

And yet, no one here has presented any photographs of this phenomenon. 

There are many detailed first-hand accounts of the phenomenon in the literature.

There are also many detailed first hand accounts of big foot encounters and alien abductions.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2009, 07:28:32 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2009, 06:31:16 AM

And yet, no one here has presented any photographs of this phenomenon. 

There are many detailed first-hand accounts of the phenomenon in the literature.

There are also many detailed first hand accounts of big foot encounters and alien abductions.

Plus, in order to be able to quote the literature you need to demonstrate your ability to understand the literature, and Tom's post on Eclipse prediction in the Falsification thread was a proof that he does not.

There are also many detailed first hand accounts of big foot encounters and alien abductions.

If there are many corroborating first hand accounts of a group of people seeing something that looked like a big foot, that's pretty good evidence that they saw something that looked like a big foot, isn't it?

You see this quote made by Tom on page 1?   ''This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.''

He made that up in under a minute, i would bet my life on it. Dood, you can't just make up BullShite comments like that and expect people to beleive anything you say atall.
It's like me saying. The moon HAS TO BE FAKE because i havent been there...  i can say it, but it is not true.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

Maybe that'll serve as sufficient evidence. If virgin are sending up non government people into sub orbital heights, how could the conspiracy possibly continue? They wouldn't take that big a risk. You're going to have find more solid ideas for how the world appears round besides "a curved lense".

Also, hill of water. It's called a wave. A wave.