Fatally flawed FETs

Row Row your Botham.

Quote from: preco on September 09, 2009, 07:45:10 AM

Row Row your Botham.

Heh. Clever.

of course it will look flat up close, go get a normall size football "soccer ball for yanks" put it close to ur head, ohhh what,,,, it looks flat

Quote from: leedave87 on September 09, 2009, 08:58:42 AM

of course it will look flat up close, go get a normall size football "soccer ball for yanks" put it close to ur head, ohhh what,,,, it looks flat

Hehehe. Normall.

But no, it doesn't, not to me anyway. Besides, it's beyond the point as there have been experiments that prove conclusively that the earth is flat.

Quote from: W on September 09, 2009, 09:05:31 AM

Quote from: leedave87 on September 09, 2009, 08:58:42 AM

of course it will look flat up close, go get a normall size football "soccer ball for yanks" put it close to ur head, ohhh what,,,, it looks flat

Hehehe. Normall.

But no, it doesn't, not to me anyway. Besides, it's beyond the point as there have been experiments that prove conclusively that the earth is flat.

This troll bait stinks. Get me some fresh stuff.

I know the FES would like to bury this thread, so.....Bump.

I know the FES would like to bury this thread, so.....Bump.

Let's see if I can help you FEers realise the truth, that you so desperately seek.

Firstly, let's totally disregard all of the RE science & proof & look at this from an FE perspective.

From the countless posts & FAQ* it is painfully clear that most FE belief is based upon 1. Observation of the surrounding world (which appears flat) & the experiments performed by Row Row your Botham.

Now, the funny thing is that there are just as many posts by most FEers claiming that the curvature of the Earth in a RE world is not visible from anyhwhere on Earth, be it at 30,000ft or ground level.

Thus by their own admission, their assumption that the world is flat due to it's appearance is null & void because of their admissions that it would not look any different if it was a sphere.

Next, the majority of experiments performed by Rowbotham were to try & detect curvature over a distance of approx 6 - 10 miles which is obviously well within the visual limits of any horizon.

Thus, these experiments are null & void as once again, according to the majority of FEers curvature would not detectable over these distances, even if the Earth was a sphere.

Therefore with the main reasons for believing in FE being fully contradicted by those very people believing in it, there can be no valid reason for continuing the belief.


MYTH BUSTED!!!

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

A:  Well, it looks that way up close. In our local frame of reference, it appears to take a flat shape, ignoring obvious hills and valleys. Also, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat.  They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.

The main difference is based in how we conduct our experiments.  We gather data indiscriminately, hopefully , and then come to a conclusion.  Since the data appears to show a flat earth, we come to that conclusion until we see otherwise. 

We gather data indiscriminately, hopefully , and then come to a conclusion. 

Since the data appears to show a flat earth, we come to that conclusion until we see otherwise.

Quote from: preco on September 09, 2009, 07:45:10 AM

Let's see if I can help you FEers realise the truth, that you so desperately seek.

Firstly, let's totally disregard all of the RE science & proof & look at this from an FE perspective.

From the countless posts & FAQ* it is painfully clear that most FE belief is based upon 1. Observation of the surrounding world (which appears flat) & the experiments performed by Row Row your Botham.

Now, the funny thing is that there are just as many posts by most FEers claiming that the curvature of the Earth in a RE world is not visible from anyhwhere on Earth, be it at 30,000ft or ground level.

Thus by their own admission, their assumption that the world is flat due to it's appearance is null & void because of their admissions that it would not look any different if it was a sphere.

The main difference is based in how we conduct our experiments.  We gather data indiscriminately, hopefully , and then come to a conclusion.  Since the data appears to show a flat earth, we come to that conclusion until we see otherwise. 

The main difference in what?

Sorry, it's a nice little babble, that FEers are very good at, but it doesn't answer why you all contradict yourselves

Quote

Next, the majority of experiments performed by Rowbotham were to try & detect curvature over a distance of approx 6 - 10 miles which is obviously well within the visual limits of any horizon.

The math for a round earth seems to say there would be a visual drop over that space.

The majority of your brethren disagree, including your guru Tom Bishop.

Quote

Thus, these experiments are null & void as once again, according to the majority of FEers curvature would not detectable over these distances, even if the Earth was a sphere.

Therefore with the main reasons for believing in FE being fully contradicted by those very people believing in it, there can be no valid reason for continuing the belief.


MYTH BUSTED!!!

One could just as easily say the same for the Round earth, assuming you were correct in your statements.

Quote

Except that with the arguments for a RE, there are not the basic contradictions that occur with the arguments for a FE.

SIMPLE SOLUTION!
1, Buy a Compass. 2, buy aeroplane tickets that would hypethetically take you round the earth if it is round. 3 Keep an eye on your compass to ensure you are travelling in roughly the same direction consistantly. 4 See what Happens. if you find the edge then the earth is flat.
If you end up where you started its round.

Circumnavigation is quite possible in FET. Posts like this are the reasons people get fed up and finally just tell you to read the damn FAQ.

MYTH BUSTED!!!

Quote from: preco on September 09, 2009, 07:45:10 AM

Let's see if I can help you FEers realise the truth, that you so desperately seek.

Firstly, let's totally disregard all of the RE science & proof & look at this from an FE perspective.

From the countless posts & FAQ* it is painfully clear that most FE belief is based upon 1. Observation of the surrounding world (which appears flat) & the experiments performed by Row Row your Botham.

Now, the funny thing is that there are just as many posts by most FEers claiming that the curvature of the Earth in a RE world is not visible from anyhwhere on Earth, be it at 30,000ft or ground level.

Thus by their own admission, their assumption that the world is flat due to it's appearance is null & void because of their admissions that it would not look any different if it was a sphere.

The main difference is based in how we conduct our experiments.  We gather data indiscriminately, hopefully , and then come to a conclusion.  Since the data appears to show a flat earth, we come to that conclusion until we see otherwise. 

Quote

Next, the majority of experiments performed by Rowbotham were to try & detect curvature over a distance of approx 6 - 10 miles which is obviously well within the visual limits of any horizon.

The math for a round earth seems to say there would be a visual drop over that space.

Quote

Thus, these experiments are null & void as once again, according to the majority of FEers curvature would not detectable over these distances, even if the Earth was a sphere.

Therefore with the main reasons for believing in FE being fully contradicted by those very people believing in it, there can be no valid reason for continuing the belief.


MYTH BUSTED!!!

One could just as easily say the same for the Round earth, assuming you were correct in your statements.

Quote

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

A:  Well, it looks that way up close. In our local frame of reference, it appears to take a flat shape, ignoring obvious hills and valleys. Also, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat.  They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.

So you're using the opposite of the scientific method. Come up with the conclusion first, then see what facts and evidence you can use to support it.

preco, here are the facts of life for you:

From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.

preco, here are the facts of life for you:

From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.


http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=122D5519C959F390&p_docnum=1&p_theme=gatehouse&s_site=HSHH&p_product=HSHH ((you can also find it on their site, on the archive webpage, May 28, 2003, Oh Say Can You See article)

preco, here are the facts of life for you:

From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.


http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=122D5519C959F390&p_docnum=1&p_theme=gatehouse&s_site=HSHH&p_product=HSHH ((you can also find it on their site, on the archive webpage, May 28, 2003, Oh Say Can You See article)

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

NO curvature across lake Ontario:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg722674#msg722674

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg719893#msg719893

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg718436#msg718436


NO curvature from Port Credit to Toronto:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg722741#msg722741


NO curvature from Etobicoke to Toronto:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1090


And the very best proof, no curvature over distances of 600-1000 km (Lake Baikal/Irkutsk) and over a distance of 7000 km (London - Tunguska; curvature of 936 km, with a visual obstacle of 7436 km):

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142


And you know already what is going over the Strait of Gibraltar, over the English Channel...

Quote from: levee on September 27, 2009, 07:58:46 AM

preco, here are the facts of life for you:

From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.

Levee, what makes you believe that any of a number of atmospheric refractive phenomena could not reasonably explain those observations.  Temperature gradients and inversions are common over large bodies of water and could easily account for many such sightings.

Quote from: markjo on September 27, 2009, 08:42:59 AM

Levee, what makes you believe that any of a number of atmospheric refractive phenomena could not reasonably explain those observations.  Temperature gradients and inversions are common over large bodies of water and could easily account for many such sightings.

markjo, is this supposed to be a joke? Have we not gone through this already? I explained that atmospheric reffraction can only account for some meters over a 50 km distance, or for some tens of meters given a few hundred km distance. Did you read my message?