About the "believer", not the "theories"...

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 17, 2009, 06:33:40 AM

Clarke, Alexander Ross
"Note on the figure of the earth."
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astonomical Society, 19: 36-38 (1859)

I gather that it presents evidence that The Earth is an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid ...

What of it?

The reason thy think the earth is an oblate spheroid is because things weigh slightly less at the equator than at the North Pole. Such measurements can and are interpreted differently under a Flat Earth model. Many members of the FES question those g-meter measurements altogether, believing the error margin in g meters to be far too great to come to any conclusion.

The researchers are assuming that the earth is a globe, as always. Elsewhere whenever any member of the Royal Astronomical Society provides reasons for believing that the earth is a globe, they quote the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotile verbatim. It's always neglected that Aristotle's work (observations) have been demolished in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Oh, so now the video is rejected because it's "too long" and you don't have the attention span. What a terrible excuse to shut your eyes from confrontation and go on believing your tarnished belief system.

The evidence is there for all to see. Not one area has been contradicted.

Look up James Val Allen's work. It's apparent that you don't know even the very basics of your model or the work which founds it. I'm not in the business of providing remedial education. Look up the works which describe the Van Allen belts for yourself and then provide your evidence which demonstrates it to be incorrect. You can learn more at your public library.

Lethal doses of radiation on the Apollo craft would do a little more than "damage complex electronic equipment".

Radiation passes through solids. Pleas watch the video and go over the sources. Thick lead shielding is necessary to block radiation.

This has been a most fascinating thread. One thing I think you're overlooking is the fact that these are mostly kids you are dealing with.

The reason thy think the earth is an oblate spheroid is because things weigh slightly more at the equator than at the North Pole.

Or the upward "pull" of The Sun which circles above The Flat Earth Equator.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 17, 2009, 11:05:10 AM

Or the upward "pull" of The Sun which circles above The Flat Earth Equator.

Except Tom doesn't believe in gravitation, so it must be centrifugal force.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 17, 2009, 06:33:40 AM

Clarke, Alexander Ross
"Note on the figure of the earth."
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astonomical Society, 19: 36-38 (1859)

I gather that it presents evidence that The Earth is an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid ...

What of it?

The reason thy think the earth is an oblate spheroid is because things weigh slightly more at the equator than at the North Pole. Such measurements can and are interpreted differently under a Flat Earth model. Many members of the FES question those g-meter measurements altogether, believing the error margin in g meters to be far too great to come to any conclusion.

The researchers are assuming that the earth is a globe, as always. Elsewhere whenever any member of the Royal Astronomical Society provides reasons for believing that the earth is a globe, they quote the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotile verbatim. It's always neglected that Aristotle's work (observations) have been demolished in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

The book you have referenced a few thousand times is a religious text written by a pseudoscientist about pseudoscience.  There is nothing scientific about Rowbotham's work, his book or anyone who follows his teachings.  I point out the domain name of the link you provided.  You are a liar once again.

That is not true Tom - as well you know!

Here is just one example where you espouse your belief in "celestial disks":

Now kindly resume your debate with me about the nature of the night sky.

It's more the fact I don't have the time. My life's kind of busy right now, so I can't really sit down for several hours wading through the videos. If you want me to refute points, give me points. Don't give me hours of video. The first ten or so minutes of the video I saw could have been summarised as 'We don't think people could have got though the radiation belts'. If the rest of the video's going to be as terse as this, it might as well be summarised as a handful of points. I'm not going to organise your evidence for you.

Why? Is his work the absolute truth on the matter?

Scientific survey evidence (simple straight lines measured with theodolites) that The Earth is round and not flat ...

In The Proceedings of The Royal Astronomical Society ...

As I suspected ...

Even though you said that there wasn't.

Quote

That is not true Tom - as well you know!

Here is just one example where you espouse your belief in "celestial disks":

Now kindly resume your debate with me about the nature of the night sky.

The nature of the night sky is unknowable since we cannot conduct tests to reach the truth of the matter. That's all there is to it.

If "the night sky *is* "unknowable" ...

Why did you ever say that you believed in Gear-Driven Star-Systems?

You are deliberately avoiding that direct question ...

You are deliberately avoiding that direct question ...

And I am finding that quite annoying.

I also strongly believe that you are deriving some kind of perverse pleasure in refusing my requests to engage ...

Therefore I am going to stop.

In conclusion, though, I must say that I think that you are being highly unreasonable and obstructive for no good reason ...

And for my sanity I must withdraw from this little game that you appear to have drawn me into.

There isn't. The work likely isn't discussing whether the earth is round or flat.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

Tesla and Skeptek:

This has been a most fascinating thread. One thing I think you're overlooking is the fact that these are mostly kids you are dealing with. I'd expect you two to be honest about your respective ages (I'm 41). But I don't think you'll get ANY truth from these bored college students engaged in what is really a futile excercise. I would love them to explain to their children that the earth is flat.

 I can tell just through my experience by the way they talk they are less than 25 (my 15 year old still says noob). The only one I can't quite figure out is Tom, but I'm SURE of the rest. I think Tom is a "grownup" but I'm just not sure what his intent is. Just make sure you're taking this into account in ALL of your responses.

BTW kids, I have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO LIE ABOUT ANYTHING to you, so if you've got a question (ie you don't believe anything I've said) let me have it.

Keep the thread going Skeptek it's a good one.
Cheers from the USA

Hey, Tesla and Skptek:

Did you notice none of the children responded? And Tom is only talking to you guys  

this post (and it's companion) are brief guides for the forum newcomer.

this is a demonstration that tom bishop is a troll - nothing more, nothing less.  the premise is such: no rational person could believe that bishop could be repeatedly proven wrong on, and run away from, so many topics...and also be legitimately sincere in his beliefs.  (beliefs which are, by apparent unanimous consensus even among fe'ers, the most staunchly absurd among them.)

these points were collected from a narrow viewpoint.  (most are a sampling from my experience with him, and one or two from others).  it covers a very limited time frame.  i may or may not (probably not) update this post as time goes on to include future (or past) examples.

regular and especially senior members know all of this about bishop already, and won't find much value in reading on.  but for the noob, it is essential reading.

• failed to defend rowbotham's magical laws of perspective (also here.)
  
  
• failed to defend claim that 700x magnification of cargo ship behind and below horizon was due to insufficient magnification (such as rowbotham's hand-held spotting scope) (also here.)
  
  
• failed to defend his debunked assertion that compass spins wildly in the arctic circle
  
  
• failed to defend assertion that the 'Bedford Level Experiment' Wikipedia page is flawed (bishop claimed wallace was a fe'er)
  
  
• refused to post pictures corroborating his story of children splashing
  
  
• failed to provide examples backing up his specific claims of fraud on certain nasa photos (lost on two counts, forfeited on one)
  
  
• failed to explain why do planets line up on the ecliptic in his model of planetary orbit
  
  
• failed to defend his assertions that photos of ordinary ice shelves were the "ice wall" (this was more of a punt - he said the 'real' ice wall might actually be further in past his finally conceded pseudo-ice wall)
  
  
• confronting bishop with his toronto pic lie went mysteriously undefended
  
  
• failed to defend himself when presented with a list of his blatant contradictions over statements of "photographs are not admissable as evidence"
  
  
• directly contradicted self over what the "real stars" are with ms-paint blobs in one nasa photo version, and dust on the original scan in another; failed to defend self when this fact was pointed out
  
  
• failed to defend or counterattack when his assertion that 'compasses spin wildly in seattle wa', was shredded by fe'ers
  
  
• failed to answer what evidence he would find acceptable to back up re claims
  
  
• a recent status of multiple undefended bishop claims in summary form - some already noted above
  

update 200080102: added to subject title, and added introductory text; both to pre-empt the "controversy" this post has for some reason created.

"I'm too busy to watch an hour long video contradicting my beliefs, but I'm not so busy as not to post on these forums all day" is the lamest excuse I've ever heard. Watch the video and then present your contradicting evidence. If you have no contradicting evidence and just opinion, that means you lose.

In the " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">China video for example the author is using the Scientific Method to demonstrate inadequacies and tell-tale signs of fakery. Video is slowed and areas of contention are displayed for all to see. That constitutes an experiment. The author is manipulating China's own videos to demonstrate that the space walk was faked. The author presents a sufficient conclusion with adequate evidence and background information. There is also an article on the subject matter which provides additional discrepancies.

In the moon video the author is very thorough, invoking the interviews of government contractors, analysis of NASA data (such as Apollo 13 astronauts saying that they could see a beautiful lunar landscape when NASA said that they were on the dark side of the moon), and many other topics of discussion. The soviet space agency is also analyzed. There are many pieces of supporting evidence - scientific, catalogical, temporal - to support the initial hypothesis.

Now the burden is on you to defend your beliefs.

I know that Tom and other FE'ers are going to continue trashing this thread (I'm very surprised it hasn't already been shunned to the lesser categories like other serious topics)

Quote from: Skeptek on June 29, 2009, 01:27:49 PM

I know that Tom and other FE'ers are going to continue trashing this thread (I'm very surprised it hasn't already been shunned to the lesser categories like other serious topics)

I'm not going to comment on your post per se as I feel it's really not worthy of comment, but I am curious about what "serious topics" you are referring to that have been "shunned to the lesser categories".

Observations are not experiments. Scientific experiments involve a control and an influence of variables.

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 04:05:31 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 03:48:11 PM

It's the only conclusion I can logically draw from what I've directly observed.

You can't logically draw any conclusions about the shape of the earth from what you've directly observed.

So now we're supposed to not trust anything we directly observe?  Wow, and I thought I was a skeptic.

Quote

From here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30074.60

I have just read all of this thread and found it rather interesting. If you get the chance, compare this thread to the FE version by Robosteve titled "Fucking Re'ers" Re read the first post here again and then see what you conclusion is. This will support Skeptics main point.

I see that Tom Bishop has yet another unwitting victim.  Attempting to debate Tom Bishop is the very definition of futility.  He only wants an opportunity to repeat his sermon to a new congregation.  It's all been said and blown to pieces countless times, but then that's not the point.  The point is that if you repeat anything enough times, somebody will believe it.

Quote from: Skeptek on June 30, 2009, 10:54:19 AM

I see that Tom Bishop has yet another unwitting victim.  Attempting to debate Tom Bishop is the very definition of futility.  He only wants an opportunity to repeat his sermon to a new congregation.  It's all been said and blown to pieces countless times, but then that's not the point.  The point is that if you repeat anything enough times, somebody will believe it.

Time will tell if I become a victim, but you are wrong if you think I am unwitting. I know why I posted what I did.  This is an interesting thread you started, btw.

Mr Bishop may want to have a word with the author of the FAQs which he is so fond of telling people; my favourite:

Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"

A:  Well, it looks that way up close.

I apologize for being disrespectful.