Katie: ignore any drivel you may hear from Lord Wilmore. He is of the opinion that "probable" means the same as "proven" and refuses to address the issue of how there can be two celestial poles moving in sync with each other, clear evidence for a non-flat earth. Plus his avatar is crosseyed.
I am alive. I can prove this.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.
Quote from: Its a Sphere on January 25, 2010, 08:48:18 AMSince I exist in the reality that I perceive, I am absolutely sure that I do. I am also sure that the world around me that I perceive exists as well as it tends to carry on without my presence.We're asking if the world as we perceive it exists, and hence whether whether our perception of ourselves is in accordance with reality. To say that 'I know my perception of myself is in accordance with reality, because I am in the reality I perceive', is begging the question.
Since I exist in the reality that I perceive, I am absolutely sure that I do. I am also sure that the world around me that I perceive exists as well as it tends to carry on without my presence.
Wilmore: Descartes would disagree.
Can you disprove me? Or do you have any possibly reason to doubt this fact?
No, you absolutely can't. What a stupid thing to say.And no, i'm not going to post in the other thread, there is no point in discussing it with you, you are clearly wrong, and you know it, you just can never admit it.
Quote from: d00gz on January 28, 2010, 08:18:52 AMNo, you absolutely can't. What a stupid thing to say.And no, i'm not going to post in the other thread, there is no point in discussing it with you, you are clearly wrong, and you know it, you just can never admit it.How can you prove you're alive, if you can't prove you exist? Honestly, if you're not willing to have a discussion about it, then stop sounding so sure of yourself.
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 27, 2010, 05:00:30 PMKatie: ignore any drivel you may hear from Lord Wilmore. He is of the opinion that "probable" means the same as "proven" and refuses to address the issue of how there can be two celestial poles moving in sync with each other, clear evidence for a non-flat earth. Plus his avatar is crosseyed.If 'proven' implies the removal of all doubt, then it becomes a meaningless word when applied to the 'real world', as nothing, repeat nothing can be said about it which is beyond all doubt. So either:a) Proven generally means that something has been shown to an extremely high degree of probabilityorb) Proven means demonstrated beyond all doubt, in which case you have used it incorrectly countless times on this very forumPick your poison.
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof. Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.
Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2010, 09:25:24 AMAs I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof. Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.
If 'proven' implies the removal of all doubt, then it becomes a meaningless word when applied to the 'real world', as nothing, repeat nothing can be said about it which is beyond all doubt.
Quote from: Canadark on January 28, 2010, 08:04:58 AMWilmore: Descartes would disagree.Descartes was wrong. He relied on the existence God to make the claims he did about the world existing, and his arguments still don't hold up to scrutiny. Even the Cogito has since been somewhat undermined (I recommend you visit the thread on solipsism too).
Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2010, 09:57:40 AMQuote from: markjo on January 28, 2010, 09:25:24 AMAs I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof. Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.Massive fail Tom. Massive fail.
Quote from: Canadark on January 28, 2010, 10:40:12 AMQuote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2010, 09:57:40 AMQuote from: markjo on January 28, 2010, 09:25:24 AMAs I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof. Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.Massive fail Tom. Massive fail.No. The fact that you RE'ers keep neglecting to provide us with your evidence that the earth is a globe is a "massive fail".
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.
Tom, if we provide you with evidence that you can't explain you say its fake. We are in a no-win situation. Theoretically any piece of evidence no matter how convincing, could be accused by you of being fake. If we supplied more evidence to show it wasn't fake, you would just call the backup evidence fake too. And so on ad infinitum. You have done this with lots of things already.
Quote from: SupahLovah on January 28, 2010, 12:43:31 PMThe fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.
Time of day ~10am Western Australia Time (GMT+8)?Temp ~ 19celciusGround height ~ 1.5 metres including the beach and scope.Elevation ~ I guess around 4m maybe 6edit: Target is Rottnest Island from Scarborough Beach. Closest point ~18000mShips are unknownEquipment setupShowing the elevated roadwayTanker at groundTanker at elevationLighthouse at groundLighthouse at elevationWind generator at groundWind generator at elevationYacht Comms tower at groundComms tower at elevationShip 2 at groundShip 2 at elevationPlease discuss. I'd be interested in people's opinions.Ski, I'd like to hear from you in particular.I have some more shots of the same things as well. I took enough images to make a stitched mosaic of the island as well i think.Oh and all the images are available in 3008x2000 pixel RAW format as well if you want them. I don't know where I can upload them though.EDIT:cropped image of ships taken with the D70s at 70mm. I didn't have my 300mm lens so it was this then up to the telescopecropped image of the island
Why would i need to discuss it? It's a fact.
Things are proven within a frame of set pre conditions or axioms."So long as this is true, this will also always be true."Epic fail Wilmore.
it becomes a meaningless word when applied to the 'real world'
I believe in God. Descartes ideas make perfect sense from my frame of reference.
Wow Tom, way to totally ignore dyno's serious attempt to fulfill your request:
QuoteWow Tom, way to totally ignore dyno's serious attempt to fulfill your request:The sinking ship effect isn't at odds with FET.Read Earth Not a Globe.
Poor grammar is the internet equivalent of body odor.
Go explain the magnetic field tom.How does the flat earth have two massive rotating spheres of magnetic metal but they aren't attracted. There are more problems but I will let you have this one first.How do you explain underwater cables. There is a 10,000km cable from CA to Tokyo. It works. However there should be no possible way that works on the current FE maps. You can't and have not made any maps that explain all flight times and undersea cable lengths.Have fun Tom.
Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2010, 03:31:26 PMQuoteWow Tom, way to totally ignore dyno's serious attempt to fulfill your request:The sinking ship effect isn't at odds with FET.Read Earth Not a Globe.That experiment's evidence doesn't agree with FET.
Quote from: LiceFarm on January 28, 2010, 11:24:07 AMThings are proven within a frame of set pre conditions or axioms."So long as this is true, this will also always be true."Epic fail Wilmore.Please read, it helps:
FET also says that the ship will sink slightly as it recedes.http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon