Something doesnt add up

So not only is the earth flat, but it lacks focus as well.  Interesting.

Well these 'round earth' guys are a bit backwards - they've not embraced modern camera technology yet and are still stuck at asking the Earth to 'stand still' for 5 minutes while the film exposes.

Well these 'round earth' guys are a bit backwards - they've not embraced modern camera technology yet and are still stuck at asking the Earth to 'stand still' for 5 minutes while the film exposes.

So you admit it is round, Victory for RE!

Quote from: Matrix on February 09, 2009, 01:42:39 PM

Well these 'round earth' guys are a bit backwards - they've not embraced modern camera technology yet and are still stuck at asking the Earth to 'stand still' for 5 minutes while the film exposes.

So you admit it is round, Victory for RE!

Erm, no, I admit it moves.  lrn2read

So yeh, I feel we are digressing, the matter at hand FE'rs. Can you disprove it? I have yet to read a reliable counter-argument.

Well these 'round earth' guys are a bit backwards - they've not embraced modern camera technology yet and are still stuck at asking the Earth to 'stand still' for 5 minutes while the film exposes.

Right here you admit the earth is round since you acknowledge the picture is real and you also acknowledge that the earth rotates, so like I said..


Victory for RE!!

Quote from: cbarnett97 on February 09, 2009, 01:45:29 PM

Quote from: Matrix on February 09, 2009, 01:42:39 PM

Well these 'round earth' guys are a bit backwards - they've not embraced modern camera technology yet and are still stuck at asking the Earth to 'stand still' for 5 minutes while the film exposes.

So you admit it is round, Victory for RE!

Erm, no, I admit it moves.  lrn2read

I thought Rowbotham proved that it doesn't?    Maybe you need to read ENAG again.

So yeh, I feel we are digressing, the matter at hand FE'rs. Can you disprove it? I have yet to read a reliable counter-argument.

I think not.  The common FE response to a challenge that stumps them is change the subject as quickly as possible by picknig out a minor side issue and challenging that.  The best you'll get out of this thread now is petty debate far off the mark of the core issue, or perhaps another challenge to 'show them the data'.

The best you'll get out of this thread now is petty debate far off the mark of the core issue, or perhaps another challenge to 'show them the data'.

If you don't have the raw data to back up your claims I'm not sure why we should bother debating with you.

Quote from: fenterb on February 10, 2009, 06:14:11 AM

The best you'll get out of this thread now is petty debate far off the mark of the core issue, or perhaps another challenge to 'show them the data'.

If you don't have the raw data to back up your claims I'm not sure why we should bother debating with you.

Seriously, is that all you say? As i've stated several times, we do not need raw data...

Ok, on our Earth, it takes 24 hours to get to Australia from the UK, that's a fact, it takes about 24 hours.
It does NOT take 24 hours to get to South America... which on the FE map, is the same distance away.
OK, your maps are hypothetical yes...so let's move South America so it's the right distance away so one can fly to the UK in however long it takes, let's call it...12 hours.
BUT, in doing so, it means that the time it takes from South America to any other place on the planet changes, correct? yes.
Ok, so, let's say...Russia, if you move South America so it takes the empirically accurate estimated correct amount of time, the distance from S. America to Australia/UK wherever else we have just worked out, ALSO changes, meaning that BOTH CALCULATIONS cannot be correct.

Viz. The Earth is Round because the maximum time it takes for a flight is always correct, and we have calculations for it.

So, now you state your data... seeing as you've yet to post any at all.


Oh and airlines aren't in the conspiracy because as you've stated it's to do with money, see above cos someone else posted the reason in full.
Or, just admit you're wrong tbh.

Seriously, is that all you say? As i've stated several times, we do not need raw data...

Actually, you do. You need the raw data to demonstrate each and every one of your claims.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 10, 2009, 12:04:17 PM

Quote from: fenterb on February 10, 2009, 06:14:11 AM

The best you'll get out of this thread now is petty debate far off the mark of the core issue, or perhaps another challenge to 'show them the data'.

If you don't have the raw data to back up your claims I'm not sure why we should bother debating with you.

Seriously, is that all you say? As i've stated several times, we do not need raw data...

Ok, on our Earth, it takes 24 hours to get to Australia from the UK, that's a fact, it takes about 24 hours.
It does NOT take 24 hours to get to South America... which on the FE map, is the same distance away.
OK, your maps are hypothetical yes...so let's move South America so it's the right distance away so one can fly to the UK in however long it takes, let's call it...12 hours.
BUT, in doing so, it means that the time it takes from South America to any other place on the planet changes, correct? yes.
Ok, so, let's say...Russia, if you move South America so it takes the empirically accurate estimated correct amount of time, the distance from S. America to Australia/UK wherever else we have just worked out, ALSO changes, meaning that BOTH CALCULATIONS cannot be correct.

Viz. The Earth is Round because the maximum time it takes for a flight is always correct, and we have calculations for it.

So, now you state your data... seeing as you've yet to post any at all.


Oh and airlines aren't in the conspiracy because as you've stated it's to do with money, see above cos someone else posted the reason in full.
Or, just admit you're wrong tbh.

How do you know the airplanes are flying along the shortest route possible? If they're using faulty maps, of course some journeys are going to take much longer than you would expect. And the maps are all based on round earth theory, so of course they're wrong.

Quote from: fenterb on February 10, 2009, 06:14:11 AM

The best you'll get out of this thread now is petty debate far off the mark of the core issue, or perhaps another challenge to 'show them the data'.

If you don't have the raw data to back up your claims I'm not sure why we should bother debating with you.

Tom, there is a world of difference between data and information.

How do you know the airplanes are flying along the shortest route possible? If they're using faulty maps, of course some journeys are going to take much longer than you would expect. And the maps are all based on round earth theory, so of course they're wrong.

Which is exactly why I've said several times that FE'ers could make a truck load of money by making and selling accurate FE maps so that airlines and shipping companies could use more efficient routes.

Tom, there is a world of difference between data and information.

Well when you guys have anything approaching evidence for your claims we can continue the discussion.

Quote from: markjo on February 10, 2009, 12:44:53 PM

Tom, there is a world of difference between data and information.

Well when you guys have anything approaching evidence for your claims we can continue the discussion.

Do published On-Time Performance reports for airlines operating in the souther hemisphere count as evidence?
http://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/otp_month.aspx

Tiger Airways achieved the highest on time arrivals among the major domestic airlines at 78.6 per cent, followed closely by Jetstar at 78.4 per cent, Qantas at 78.2 per cent, and Virgin Blue at 73.1 per cent.  Skywest was also the best performing regional airlines for on time arrivals at 85.5 per cent, followed by QantasLink (76.2 per cent), MacAir (75.7 per cent) and Regional Express (72.8 per cent).

A flight is considered "on time" if it's arrival is within 15 minutes of it's published scheduled time.  Since those schedules are based on RE navigation and FE trips should be much longer, I would say that this evidence does not support the assertion that the southern hemiplane of the FE is much larger than the southern hemisphere of the RE.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 10, 2009, 12:50:21 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 10, 2009, 12:44:53 PM

Tom, there is a world of difference between data and information.

Well when you guys have anything approaching evidence for your claims we can continue the discussion.

Do published On-Time Performance reports for airlines operating in the souther hemisphere count as evidence?
http://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/otp_month.aspx

Quote

Tiger Airways achieved the highest on time arrivals among the major domestic airlines at 78.6 per cent, followed closely by Jetstar at 78.4 per cent, Qantas at 78.2 per cent, and Virgin Blue at 73.1 per cent.  Skywest was also the best performing regional airlines for on time arrivals at 85.5 per cent, followed by QantasLink (76.2 per cent), MacAir (75.7 per cent) and Regional Express (72.8 per cent).

A flight is considered "on time" if it's arrival is within 15 minutes of it's published scheduled time.  Since those schedules are based on RE navigation and FE trips should be much longer, I would say that this evidence does not support the assertion that the southern hemiplane of the FE is much larger than the southern hemisphere of the RE.

Were any of those flights using jet streams?

How do we know how close Australia and South America are in FE? You would need to find an airline which is taking the "long" way around in order to come to any conclusion.

How do we know how close Australia and South America are in FE?

It's your theory, how the hell am I supposed to know?  Maybe it's time that you guys start providing some information for a change.

It's your theory, how the hell am I supposed to know? 

If you don't know what you're trying to prove or disprove then it doesn't seem like your evidence means anything, does it?

Maybe it's time that you guys start providing some information for a change.

When you guys start donating we'll be happy to begin charting the earth mile by mile.

Quote

It's your theory, how the hell am I supposed to know? 

If you don't know what you're trying to prove or disprove then it doesn't seem like your evidence means anything, does it?

Quote

Maybe it's time that you guys start providing some information for a change.

When you guys start donating we'll be happy to begin charting the earth mile by mile.

Go to the archives and you can get all the original data you need

Quote from: zeroply on February 10, 2009, 12:24:46 PM

How do you know the airplanes are flying along the shortest route possible? If they're using faulty maps, of course some journeys are going to take much longer than you would expect. And the maps are all based on round earth theory, so of course they're wrong.

Which is exactly why I've said several times that FE'ers could make a truck load of money by making and selling accurate FE maps so that airlines and shipping companies could use more efficient routes.

Not even that, Airlines would always choose shorter routes if possible, to save money, if they were in on the conspiracy. But as they're not, they are using RE systems, and therefore they should get lost, when trying to get from Australia to anywhere, because if they leave going east, they should hit the icewall theoretically.

Jet streams, Tom? it's already been stated why they're not important. Read the thread then reply.
And we HAVE information, we've already all posted it for fuck's sake! You really don't actually read do you? Because if you do, I don't understand why your posts are just "Get some information" or "get some evidence".
and here's the kicker: Our THEORY disproves flat earth, and it is undeniable. So ok, as you're not going to post evidence, try to use theory to disprove our theory. You can't, it's undeniable, therefore, as our theory is correct, and any information of ours would make no difference to it's factual status, there is no point. But EVEN SO, we have posted information, it disproves Flat Earth Theory, we've gone beyond the port of call. FET has neither another theory to counter this, or any counter-evidence from the empirical world. Therefore, at the moment, our theory should be accepted as fact. Until a counter claim can be made by FET.
FET's move.
And if you post "Show us some evidence" again, it just proves that you have no idea what you're talking about and actually have no working theory or basis for your flat earth claim

ok? Got that?

Go to the archives and you can get all the original data you need

So you want me to go out and find your evidence for you again?

The problem that is had is that there is no "accurate" Flat Earth Map that can be used.

What exactly are the dimensions of a Flat Earth? The same as Round Earth but not as high? How much height does it have then?

Quote

It's your theory, how the hell am I supposed to know?

If you don't know what you're trying to prove or disprove then it doesn't seem like your evidence means anything, does it?

Since when is your lack of evidence my problem? 

Quote

Maybe it's time that you guys start providing some information for a change.

When you guys start donating we'll be happy to begin charting the earth mile by mile.

Since when is your lack of funding my problem? 

Quote

Go to the archives and you can get all the original data you need

So you want me to go out and find your evidence for you again?

No, we want you to go out and find your evidence. 

No, we want you to go out and find your evidence. 

At TFES, the burden of proof is always on RET.  Them's the rules an you knows it!

Quote from: markjo on February 10, 2009, 03:02:41 PM

No, we want you to go out and find your evidence. 

At TFES, the burden of proof is always on RET.  Them's the rules an you knows it!

So RET has to provide FET's evidence too? 

Since when is your lack of evidence my problem? 

You kind of have to know what you're trying to disprove if you're making an augment against something. If you don't know, then you don't have much of an argument.

Since when is your lack of funding my problem? 

When you're demanding that someone spends thousands or millions of dollars to explore and carefully map out the earth's surface it certainly is your problem to fund them.

No, we want you to go out and find your evidence.

My evidence for what? I haven't made any claims in respect to the distance between the southern continents.

So RET has to provide FET's evidence too?

If you're making a claim the burden of proof is on you and no other. Several of you RE'rs have made claims of a certain configuration of the continents in this thread. The burden is on you to prove it. There's nothing for me to prove because I haven't made any claims.

Quote

Since when is your lack of evidence my problem? 

You kind of have to know what you're trying to disprove if you're making an augment against something. If you don't know, then you don't have much of an argument.

How do we know how close Australia and South America are in FE?

How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?

Quote

Since when is your lack of funding my problem? 

When you're demanding that someone spends thousands or millions of dollars to explore and carefully map out the earth's surface it certainly is your problem to fund them.

No, it isn't.  Especially when it's for a cause that I don't believe in. 

Quote

No, we want you to go out and find your evidence.

My evidence for what? I haven't made any claims in respect to the distance between the southern continents.

No, but you have dismissed RE claims in respect to the distance between the southern continents without providing any evidence to the contrary.  If you don't know what the true FE distance is between Australia and South America, then how can you prove that the RE distances are wrong?

Quote

So RET has to provide FET's evidence too?

If you're making a claim the burden of proof is on you and no other. Several of you RE'rs have made claims of a certain configuration of the continents in this thread. The burden is on you to prove it. There's nothing for me to prove because I haven't made any claims.

No Tom, I'm just asking you to provide specific evidence that supports your theory of the true size and form of the flat earth.

How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?

You're not.

No, it isn't.  Especially when it's for a cause that I don't believe in.

Then don't ask for evidence if you're not willing to foot the bill.

No, but you have dismissed RE claims in respect to the distance between the southern continents without providing any evidence to the contrary.  If you don't know what the true FE distance is between Australia and South America, then how can you prove that the RE distances are wrong?

I haven't dismissed anything. I just want your evidence which you say exists.

No Tom, I'm just asking you to provide specific evidence that supports your theory of the true size and form of the flat earth.

Provide me the funds and I'll be happy to provide some. Until then you can look up the evidence the Flat Earth Society has already collected in the Flat Earth Literature.

Quote

How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?

Your not.

Quote

No, it isn't.  Especially when it's for a cause that I don't believe in.

Then don't ask for evidence if you're not willing to foot the bill.

Quote

No, but you have dismissed RE claims in respect to the distance between the southern continents without providing any evidence to the contrary.  If you don't know what the true FE distance is between Australia and South America, then how can you prove that the RE distances are wrong?

I haven't dismissed anything. I just want your evidence which you say exists.

Quote

No Tom, I'm just asking you to provide specific evidence that supports your theory of the true size and form of the flat earth.

Provide me the funds and I'll be happy to provide some. Until then you can look up the evidence the Flat Earth Society has already collected in the Flat Earth Literature.

So no actual rebuttal of my informational evidence, which actually has real theory and figures? Didn't think so.