When, why, and how long have you been a FE'er

I also asked this question under the topic "so what's the CON?" but i feel this is really important and deserves it's own topic

How old were you when you changed your mind about a round earth if you were taught that as a child?

What made you change your mind?

How long have you held on to this theory?

Reading this site, and the content related to, with an open mind would convince anyone. So, shortly after I found this site.

How old were you and what was the "straw the broke the camel's" back or did all the facts slowly sink in

How old were you and what was the "straw the broke the camel's" back or did all the facts slowly sink in

Slowly sank in. I was always taught to question everything. Then when I came to this sight I realized I had always blindly believed the earth was round. In all honesty, I began to see the plot wholes, if you will, in this and realized that the earth is probably flat. It took a while to sink in but here I am today.

Since I can remember, and because the Earth is Flat.

I always thought the earth was flat when I was a young kid. I remember worrying about falling off the edge of it. I wonder if this the normal psychology of a human who hasn't learned otherwise.

Dino, you're right I think.

As about me, I've read a book in the very childhood, and it was about space. So i was true fan of space, spaceships, stars and galaxies and so on.
But after I found this web-site, i totally changed my opinion. I am 25.

I believe that the earth is flat because it is.

I believe that the earth is flat because it is.

So you have no real reason for your belief, then. Thanks for contributing.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2009, 02:49:53 AM

I believe that the earth is flat because it is.

So you have no real reason for your belief, then. Thanks for contributing.

Actually, I do.

because it is.

So you basically just said "I believe the earth is flat because that is my belief."

I'm not seeing anything else there.

So you basically just said "I believe the earth is flat because that is my belief."

No. I said that I believe that the earth is flat because it is flat. My belief reflects reality.

Quote from: SupahLovah on December 23, 2009, 06:41:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2009, 02:49:53 AM

I believe that the earth is flat because it is.

So you have no real reason for your belief, then. Thanks for contributing.

Actually, I do.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2009, 02:49:53 AM

because it looks that way.

Fixed.

You believe the earth is flat because you believe the earth is flat.

I got it 100% Tom.

I believe that the earth is flat because it is.

I believe in goblins, because goblins exist.
I believe that chimpanzees can fly, because they can.
I believe that Jack The Ripper is still alive and working as an Elvis impersonator in Japan, because he is.

I'm using exact parallel logic there, Bishop. Can you understand now why nobody takes you seriously?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2009, 02:49:53 AM

I believe that the earth is flat because it is.

I believe in goblins, because goblins exist.
I believe that chimpanzees can fly, because they can.
I believe that Jack The Ripper is still alive and working as an Elvis impersonator in Japan, because he is.

I'm using exact parallel logic there, Bishop. Can you understand now why nobody takes you seriously?

Maybe if you had some experimental evidence for your claims, as we do for ours, your claims would be tenable.

Reading this site, and the content related to, with an open mind would convince anyone.

Unless they happened on any of the threads that brought up the sticky problems of why are there two celestial poles. Or why someone watching the moon rise sees the same side of it as someone watching it set. Or how come if the round earth map is wrong it can be used to predict the viewing location of a solar eclipse. Or how there is no detectable evidence for bendy light without using the earth's surface as a reference. Or the puzzle of how nobody has ever seen the edge of the earth, or even seen the magic ice wall. Or why the magic antimoon is undetectable. And so on.
Sure, if they read this site without coming across any of those topics, they might be convinced.But since I know quite well that you have come across these topics, Winston, we can conclude that you don't read the site with an open mind.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 23, 2009, 09:51:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2009, 02:49:53 AM

I believe that the earth is flat because it is.

I believe in goblins, because goblins exist.
I believe that chimpanzees can fly, because they can.
I believe that Jack The Ripper is still alive and working as an Elvis impersonator in Japan, because he is.

I'm using exact parallel logic there, Bishop. Can you understand now why nobody takes you seriously?

Maybe if you had some experimental evidence your claims, as we do for ours, your claims would be tenable.

You have no experimental evidence for your claim, at least none which is in contradiction to a round earth. We established that in the thread where I asked for an example of something explained by FET and not by RET. No such examples were forthcoming.

Maybe if you had some experimental evidence your claims, as we do for ours, your claims would be tenable.

Tom, I didn't realize that you had some experimental evidence to prove that sunsets are perspective effects.  Could you please point it out to me?

Guys, 99% of the people claiming to believe the Earth is flat on this site are pulling your leg.

You have no experimental evidence for your claim

Actually, I've already presented it. Do a forum search for "Monterey Bay"

I asked for an example of something explained by FET and not by RET. No such examples were forthcoming.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

That post is almost a concise summary of Why People Hate Tom Bishop.

That post is almost a concise summary of Why People Hate Tom Bishop.

and yoiur post is a concise summary of why people don't like round earth! this arrogant attitude is wrong! i feel that tom is right in that he is voicing that most RE'ers have not read Earth Not a Globe. I mean, how does that work? how do u not read Earth not a globe and attack us? read earth not a globe and levees faq to grow wise in matters of the shape of the earth

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 23, 2009, 11:11:12 AM

That post is almost a concise summary of Why People Hate Tom Bishop.

and yoiur post is a concise summary of why people don't like round earth! this arrogant attitude is wrong! i feel that tom is right in that he is voicing that most RE'ers have not read Earth Not a Globe. I mean, how does that work? how do u not read Earth not a globe and attack us? read earth not a globe and levees faq to grow wise in matters of the shape of the earth

I (and others) have shown Bishop again and again, and again, and again, why the "evidence" presented in Earth Not A Frigging Globe is NOT evidence for anything at all. Yet he continues to pretend that it is some sort of catch-all bible with no flaws that provides perfect solutions to all the many things that don't make sense about a flat earth. Seriously, every time he smugly says "Read Earth Not A Globe" I want to scream. It is a phrase that sums up everything that is wrong with Bishop's attitude - his hypocrisy in blindly accepting the word of Rowbottom while touting that nobody should believe anything they haven't tested themselves, and his refusal to open his mind to evidence that contradicts Rowbottom even when it is absolutely overwhelming. His constant pretence, when his argument has been ground to powder and scattered to the wind, that it never happened, and he then resurrects the argument anew in another thread. None of this is ad hominem. It is all absolute truth.

Quote from: Gigamonsta on December 23, 2009, 04:08:21 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 23, 2009, 11:11:12 AM

That post is almost a concise summary of Why People Hate Tom Bishop.

and yoiur post is a concise summary of why people don't like round earth! this arrogant attitude is wrong! i feel that tom is right in that he is voicing that most RE'ers have not read Earth Not a Globe. I mean, how does that work? how do u not read Earth not a globe and attack us? read earth not a globe and levees faq to grow wise in matters of the shape of the earth

I (and others) have shown Bishop again and again, and again, and again, why the "evidence" presented in Earth Not A Frigging Globe is NOT evidence for anything at all. Yet he continues to pretend that it is some sort of catch-all bible with no flaws that provides perfect solutions to all the many things that don't make sense about a flat earth. Seriously, every time he smugly says "Read Earth Not A Globe" I want to scream. It is a phrase that sums up everything that is wrong with Bishop's attitude - his hypocrisy in blindly accepting the word of Rowbottom while touting that nobody should believe anything they haven't tested themselves, and his refusal to open his mind to evidence that contradicts Rowbottom even when it is absolutely overwhelming. His constant pretence, when his argument has been ground to powder and scattered to the wind, that it never happened, and he then resurrects the argument anew in another thread. None of this is ad hominem. It is all absolute truth.

But have you ever read Earth Not a Globe?

I have read several parts of it, but not the whole thing. I have read the parts about the experiments carried out by Rowbottom and also several pages of the theoretical text. The experimental results were not reproducible, rendering them useless (see Alfred Wallace) and much of the theoretical ideas have no basis in fact or experiment whatsoever.

But have you ever read Earth Not a Globe?

Have you?

CHAPTER III.
THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION.

IF a ball is allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship at rest, it will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment is tried with a ship in motion, the same result will follow; because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion; and the other, the force of gravity, the direction of which is at right angles to that of the momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together, will not go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 46.

Seriously, is there any reason to continue reading when Rowbotham doesn't even know how parabolic motion works?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 23, 2009, 04:29:59 PM

But have you ever read Earth Not a Globe?

Have you?

Quote from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm#page_62

CHAPTER III.
THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION.

IF a ball is allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship at rest, it will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment is tried with a ship in motion, the same result will follow; because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion; and the other, the force of gravity, the direction of which is at right angles to that of the momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together, will not go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 46.

Seriously, is there any reason to continue reading when Rowbotham doesn't even know how parabolic motion works?

Yes I have read it and all the 100 times you've posted that same exact picture

Yes I have read it and all the 100 times you've posted that same exact picture

First of all, I posted a different passage and picture several times.  This is the first time that I posted this particular passage and picture.

Second of all, pointing out the same mistake over and over again doesn't make Rowbotham any less wrong.  If he's wrong about such basic principles of motion, why should I believe him about anything else? 

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 23, 2009, 04:29:59 PM

But have you ever read Earth Not a Globe?

Have you?

Quote from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm#page_62

CHAPTER III.
THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION.

IF a ball is allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship at rest, it will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment is tried with a ship in motion, the same result will follow; because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion; and the other, the force of gravity, the direction of which is at right angles to that of the momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together, will not go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 46.

Seriously, is there any reason to continue reading when Rowbotham doesn't even know how parabolic motion works?

I don't see anything wrong with that image.

If you're riding on a train moving at a steady 60 miles an hour and you underhandedly toss a ball straight up into the air it will fall right back into your hand, appearing to move straight up and down. To an outside observer the ball would appear to be moving diagonally as the ball falls to meet your hand.

Ergo, Rowbotham is correct when he says that the ball falls diagonally.