Finally you all can see with your own eyes the Earth is...

btw FE'ers, you can only get a good view of the curve when you're HIGH OFF THE GROUND!

Posting pictures of flat expanses from ground level and saying "seems pretty flat" and then taking that somehow as an argument that the whole Earth is flat is JUST ridiculous...that is all...  :roll:

So FE'ers believe that no one has ever flown South for long enough to disprove their theories,

Have you?

Not me personally.  But are you telling me that for a population of well over six billion people, no one has?

Not me personally.  But are you telling me that for a population of well over six billion people, no one has?

Isn't that fairly irrelevant? Out of these six billion people, there are many who claim to have seen Bigfoot, the Yeti, angels, UFOs, the Virgin Mary, etc., etc. Does it really make you more or less likely to believe in a round Earth if there are many people who claim that they have seen that there is or isn't an ice wall at the edge of the world? If I tell you that I have travelled to the edge of the world and that I have seen the ice wall myself, would you believe me?

f I tell you that I have travelled to the edge of the world and that I have seen the ice wall myself, would you believe me?

Yes, if you brought back evidence, like .... photo's.  Especially if those photo's were taken from an aircraft (I'm yet to see any such evidence).  Call me a trusting individual.  :wink:

Isn't that fairly irrelevant? Out of these six billion people, there are many who claim to have seen Bigfoot, the Yeti, angels, UFOs, the Virgin Mary, etc., etc. ?

Of course it's relevant.  The only photo's I've seen of any of the things you mention are blurry, hazy, or just plain blob-like.

Yes, if you brought back evidence, like .... photo's.  Especially if those photo's were taken from an aircraft (I'm yet to see any such evidence).  Call me a trusting individual.  :wink:

So if after not posting here for two weeks, I post a picture of the ice wall here, you will believe that the Earth is flat?  

You seem like a trustworthy individual.  I want documented proof of you in the frame of the shot holding up an edition of a current newspaper.  Actually, perhaps video evidence would be better.  If you fly over the ice wall in a light aircraft (like a Cessna) while taking photo's and video clips, I'll believe you and will convert to being a FE'er.  How does that sound?

Of course it's relevant.  The only photo's I've seen of any of the things you mention are blurry, hazy, or just plain blob-like.

Actually, to me, a photo of the Yeti doesn't hold any more value than a person telling me "I have seen the Yeti". The person could be lying and the picture could be faked.

Have a look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retouching
Faked pictures were already used even for political purposes long before Photoshop.

Quote from: "Mr Hanky"

Of course it's relevant.  The only photo's I've seen of any of the things you mention are blurry, hazy, or just plain blob-like.

Actually, to me, a photo of the Yeti doesn't hold any more value than a person telling me "I have seen the Yeti". The person could be lying and the picture could be faked.

Have a look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retouching
Faked pictures were already used even for political purposes long before Photoshop.

Yes, I'm well aware a picture can be faked, but, in the example of the yeti, why not doctor a more realistic photo?  The difference between someone telling you they saw a yeti and actually seeing video evidence - to me - would seem to hold more clout.

You seem like a trustworthy individual.  I want documented proof of you in the frame of the shot holding up an edition of a current newspaper.  Actually, perhaps video evidence would be better.  If you fly over the ice wall in a light aircraft (like a Cessna) while taking photo's and video clips, I'll believe you and will convert to being a FE'er.  How does that sound?

You are extremely trusting, you know that? I could never be that trusting. I saw a documentary called "The Lord of the Rings" on TV recently, and there was crystal-clear footage of the most amazing people and creatures (Hobbits, Balrogs, Wizards, etc.) in that documentary, yet I still fail to believe that these creatures really exist or existed.

I'm sure any movie studio could easily provide the footage you require.

Quote from: "Mr Hanky"

You seem like a trustworthy individual.  I want documented proof of you in the frame of the shot holding up an edition of a current newspaper.  Actually, perhaps video evidence would be better.  If you fly over the ice wall in a light aircraft (like a Cessna) while taking photo's and video clips, I'll believe you and will convert to being a FE'er.  How does that sound?

You are extremely trusting, you know that? I could never be that trusting. I saw a documentary called "The Lord of the Rings" on TV recently, and there was crystal-clear footage of the most amazing people and creatures (Hobbits, Balrogs, Wizards, etc.) in that documentary, yet I still fail to believe that these creatures really exist or existed.

I'm sure any movie studio could easily provide the footage you require.

The difference is, I'm asking you to do it!  

Lenses are widely available which blur, distort and curve the edges of photographs. What's more, the picture is of very low quality, and even if it accurately depicts a scene, the dip shown could be a localised geological variation.

youre stupid.

Quote from: "Mr Hanky"

Not me personally.  But are you telling me that for a population of well over six billion people, no one has?

Isn't that fairly irrelevant? Out of these six billion people, there are many who claim to have seen Bigfoot, the Yeti, angels, UFOs, the Virgin Mary, etc., etc. Does it really make you more or less likely to believe in a round Earth if there are many people who claim that they have seen that there is or isn't an ice wall at the edge of the world? If I tell you that I have travelled to the edge of the world and that I have seen the ice wall myself, would you believe me?

Bringing up (assumed) fictional beings is hardly relevant to a discussion about the existence of the earth (Flat or not) that we live in.  Physics does not prove that a yeti exists, or the santa clause has a reindeer named Rudolph.

Just like this ice wall, to REALLY prove if a yeti exists... you have to get off your butt and go look for it.

Now, a yeti roaming the woods (who, if he existed, would obviously be very adept at NOT being found) but an icewall surrounding the entire earth, on the other hand... would be rather difficult to hide from mankind.  Or as many inquiring minds as this website has created.

Also.. if, by chance, this was a massive international-government conspiracy.  How do you explain this website lasting for so long?

blasphemer, that photo has been made with the devils trickery, you cant fool me you heathen. burn in hell faggot!!!

My post has gone to hell! And has not been refuted!

Don't play the intellectual self-righteous card if you don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah, that's your job.

The topics have been unlocked.

Lenses are widely available which blur, distort and curve the edges of photographs. What's more, the picture is of very low quality, and even if it accurately depicts a scene, the dip shown could be a localised geological variation.

Do you really believe that?  Mt. Everest climbers wouldn't be associated with whatever secret government organizations are responsible for this "conspiracy."  Thus, there is no conspiracy.  And as for the "geological variation" excuse...um...convenient how the land makes a perfect arc huh, almost like its part of a ... sphere.

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

Lenses are widely available which blur, distort and curve the edges of photographs. What's more, the picture is of very low quality, and even if it accurately depicts a scene, the dip shown could be a localised geological variation.

Do you really believe that?  Mt. Everest climbers wouldn't be associated with whatever secret government organizations are responsible for this "conspiracy."  Thus, there is no conspiracy.  And as for the "geological variation" excuse...um...convenient how the land makes a perfect arc huh, almost like its part of a ... sphere.

Good point.  :idea:

*Ubuntu politely requests a reply.*

To include all the people who would have to be in on it, my guess is the conspiracy would have to total tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. How it managed never to leak...

Because the conspiracy is big enough that most of the time when someone slips up and says 'oh yeah the earth isn't round hahahaha' they are only in the company of co-conspirators.

Sure.

In all frankness, this is just a *BUMP*.

I'm not sure why you bothered.  dysfunction claimed that at 45,000 ft. I could not have seen the curve of the earth.  Your original post contains a picture from only 29,000 ft.  Therefore, the picture must be faked.

I'm not sure why you bothered.  dysfunction claimed that at 45,000 ft. I could not have seen the curve of the earth.  Your original post contains a picture from only 29,000 ft.  Therefore, the picture must be faked.

Dysfunction claimed and so did NASA. If we are going to believe claims now, the Earth is flat.

So I'm waiting for another FE response.

I'm not sure why you bothered.  dysfunction claimed that at 45,000 ft. I could not have seen the curve of the earth.  Your original post contains a picture from only 29,000 ft.  Therefore, the picture must be faked.

No, I claimed that at 45,000 feet the curvature would not be unambigous.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

I'm not sure why you bothered.  dysfunction claimed that at 45,000 ft. I could not have seen the curve of the earth.  Your original post contains a picture from only 29,000 ft.  Therefore, the picture must be faked.

No, I claimed that at 45,000 feet the curvature would not be unambigous.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Based on my own experience. I was trying to understand how TheEngineer could fail to see the curvature on his own flights, then I remembered back to my last flight (about six years ago), and realized that, while the curvature was fairly distinguished, it was slight enough that to a biased observer it could easily seem straight. The human eye/brain combination is not very good at measuring angles. It's one thing to see it in a photograph, where the pixels don't move and you can study it from a single viewpoint, but seeing it in real life, where the eye can more easily play tricks on you and there is movement involved, you could easily believe it was flat, at that height. A chartered fighter is another story; there'd be no backing out of it at that height.