'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator

The fact still remains that you have utterly failed to demonstrate that FET is more probable than or even as probable as RET, and you still rely heavily on the contention that the most compelling evidence is faked by some vast, unprovable and highly improbable conspiracy.  Some of you (I'm not sure about you, in particular) even go to to the ridiculous extreme of claiming that the lack of evidence of this conspiracy only proves the effectivness and, perhaps, the very existence of the conspiracy.  This is as ridiculous as the Medieval witch hunters' claims that an accused witch's denial that she was a witch was proof that she was indeed a witch.

Actually, I generally argue that if we had proof of The Conspiracy, it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy anymore. You can't really blame us for that, it being the very nature of a successful conspiracy that nobody can prove its existence.

That is still an extremely weak, if not utterly foolish, justification for believing in a conspiracy!  I still maintain that it is every bit as ridiculous and insubstantial as the Medieval witch hunters' rationalization.

My realisation that the earth is probably flat (it should be noted that as a matter of principle I never discount the possiblity of anything, even a generally spherical earth)

My realisation that the earth is probably flat (it should be noted that as a matter of principle I never discount the possiblity of anything, even a generally spherical earth)

I admit that it is somewhat reassuring to me that you don't entirely discount the possibility of a "generally spherical earth."  Perhaps you are not quite as irrational and arrogant as I have accused you of being.  There may be hope for you yet!  

That is still an extremely weak, if not utterly foolish, justification for believing in a conspiracy!  I still maintain that it is every bit as ridiculous and insubstantial as the Medieval witch hunters' rationalization.

The thing is, I don't believe in The Conspiracy because we can't prove it exists. It's just that if FET is correct (and however wrong you may think I am, I believe it is), there must be a conspiracy.

I admit that it is somewhat reassuring to me that you don't entirely discount the possibility of a "generally spherical earth."  Perhaps you are not quite as irrational and arrogant as I have accused you of being.  There may be hope for you yet! 

To believe absolutely in anything that can only be assessed in terms of probability is a totally dogmatic mindset, and I think we can all agree that dogmatic thinking has done more damage to mankind than anything else =)

The frustrating thing to me is that you can only maintain your conviction by rejecting the most compelling evidence for RET by dogmatic insistence that said evidence has necessarily been faked by the hypothetical conspiracy you insist on believing in, and then using the (apparently) compelling nature of said evidence (or inability to prove it was faked) as evidence of the effectiveness and existence of the conspiracy!

I think we can all agree that dogmatic thinking has done more damage to mankind than anything else =)

I couldn't agree with you more, on that point!  Especially religious dogma epoused by individuals who have managed to amass and ruthlessly use political and/or military power to intimidate others into accepting it.

Quote from: d00gz on January 29, 2010, 01:05:54 AM

The fact that i am alive, is a fact. And i can prove it, i never said i couldn't, i said i wasn't going to discuss it with you any more.

You really should pay more attention, you just keep making yourself look silly. Do you find reading difficult?

Maybe you should pay more attention:

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 28, 2010, 08:34:43 AM

Honestly, if you're not willing to have a discussion about it, then stop sounding so sure of yourself.

If you don't want to discuss it, then please stop responding. If you come in here making bald statements but refuse to discuss them, don't expect anyone to take your word for it. This "I CAN prove it but it's a secret" line you're trying to peddle is only making one person here look "silly".

No-one said it was a secret, there you go again, putting words in people's mouth, to try and support your argument. It's very simple to prove, i could if you liked. I said i wasn't going to discuss it, there is nothing to discuss. It is a fact, very simply, and requires no real discussion, unless of course you're going to argue the point that i'm not alive?

In which case, i suggest you create a new thread, as i can see that argument getting silly, quickly.

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on January 29, 2010, 04:13:01 AM

That is still an extremely weak, if not utterly foolish, justification for believing in a conspiracy!  I still maintain that it is every bit as ridiculous and insubstantial as the Medieval witch hunters' rationalization.

The thing is, I don't believe in The Conspiracy because we can't prove it exists. It's just that if FET is correct (and however wrong you may think I am, I believe it is), there must be a conspiracy.

So then it becomes a matter of whose science is more credible.

Actually, I generally argue that if we had proof of The Conspiracy, it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy anymore. You can't really blame us for that, it being the very nature of a successful conspiracy that nobody can prove its existence.

Actually it is the very nature of a lie that it is more likely to be revealed the more people it is told to.

Dogplatter has seen them, however, and tell us that they don't really sink all the way as most imagine, but sort of sink just a little and then fade out.

If there was anyone called Dogplatter on this forum, which there isn't, he would be wrong.

No-one said it was a secret, there you go again, putting words in people's mouth, to try and support your argument. It's very simple to prove, i could if you liked.

Of course I'd like you to do so. It's precisely what I've been inviting you to do for the last few pages.

I said i wasn't going to discuss it, there is nothing to discuss. It is a fact, very simply, and requires no real discussion, unless of course you're going to argue the point that i'm not alive?

Well, isn't your existence exactly what I'm asking you to prove?

In which case, i suggest you create a new thread, as i can see that argument getting silly, quickly.

I did create a new thread, and I invited you to post in it all the way back on the first page. I agree the discussion is not really suitable for this board, which is why I invited you to join the thread we already have going on the same subject.

Quote from: d00gz on January 29, 2010, 05:42:56 AM

I said i wasn't going to discuss it, there is nothing to discuss. It is a fact, very simply, and requires no real discussion, unless of course you're going to argue the point that i'm not alive?

Well, isn't your existence exactly what I'm asking you to prove?

I theorise that Wilmore is not alive. Probabilitise me wrong.

I'd rather have this discussion in the other thread, but I'm happy to have it here.


TD, there is zero wrong with your statement. Truthfully, I could not prove you wrong, and nor could anyone else.

I'd rather have this discussion in the other thread, but I'm happy to have it here.


TD, there is zero wrong with your statement. Truthfully, I could not prove you wrong, and nor could anyone else.

You could prove him wrong with a live webcam chat, or perhaps by meeting him in person. It is always possible to disprove a position, but impossible to conclusively prove it. One can try to disprove the negative of a position to try and prove it, but one can never prove that they have fully encapsulated the negative in their definition.

Of course, I can't prove that my idea about disprove is true...

There are more fundamental reasons why you still could not be certain. Ultimately a web chat would still be something I experience via the senses, and all you need is a little Cartesian doubt or a basic grasp of The Matrix to recognise how the existence of the world as we perceive it is by no means certain.

All perfectly valid points, but I still don't understand how this could lead one to believe that the Earth is Flat.

No, it isn't. Such proof would not remove all doubt, which is the issue at hand.

Oh FFS is there a God that can intervene here? Please anyone?!

Yes it would remove all doubt. You define your conditions until doubt is removed. This is a fundamental concept to the term proof.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 29, 2010, 03:23:53 AM

No, it isn't. Such proof would not remove all doubt, which is the issue at hand.

Oh FFS is there a God that can intervene here? Please anyone?!

Yes it would remove all doubt. You define your conditions until doubt is removed. This is a fundamental concept to the term proof.

I'm not God, but I will intervene here. I think Wilmore and Lice Farm are coming from two angles that cannot coincide. Wilmore is stating that regardless of what things you find, you can never be 100% certain that you are perceiving reality, and therefore any "proof" is subject to conditions. Therefore there can never be any absolute rock solid proof, from a philosophical point of view, and from that he is quite correct.
Meanwhile, Lice Farm is using the scientific approach to proof, which is to take certain base concepts which have already been shown to be as true as possible as absolutes, and build on those. In other words, if something has been shown always to be true, and something else has been shown always to be true, then a concept that rests on those two truths might also be taken as true. This can also be a correct definition of proof in science, and works perfectly in known real world experience, yet it is incompatible with the philosophical viewpoint.
So I think we all need to agree to differ here, as these two meanings of proof cannot be reconciled. Now Wilmore has explained his understanding of what proof means to him, even though I'd tend to go along with LF's definition myself, I better understand why he and I disagreed in the other thread and I think our row was more of a misunderstanding than anything else. If I had understood Wilmore's views better, I would not have been so nit picky with him. I am grateful that he has cleared things up a bit.

I genuinely appreciate your respectful tone TD, so don't take this the wrong way, but I actually don't think LF is even correct in that respect. As long as scientific 'proof' is based on observable evidence and repeatable experiments, then ultimately it remains a question of probability.


In science, you perform an experiment numerous times, and every time get the same result. Therefore we conclude that in all probability, given the same conditions we will always get the same result, and we draw conclusions based on that. However, there is always a possibility, however remote, that were we to perform the experiment again under the same circumstances, we would not get the same result, and this would undermine our original conclusion.


For that reason, I do not believe you can prove anything about the 'real world' beyond all doubt, even if you avoid more philosophical questions.

For that reason, I do not believe you can prove anything about the 'real world' beyond all doubt, even if you avoid more philosophical questions.

Maybe not beyond all doubt, but there is such a thing as unreasonable doubt.  The more often and reliably a theory is successfully confirmed with the same, predictable results, the more differant ways to test the theory are found that yield results consistant with it, and the greater the number of highly qualified and respected people who honestly confirm those results, the less reasonable it becomes to continue to doubt it.

Quote from: SupahLovah on January 28, 2010, 12:43:31 PM

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.

NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

WE AREN'T ASKING FOR ROWBOTHAM'S EVIDENCE (Which is crap, anyway). WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.

You literally can never say "read Earth Not a Globe" ever again if first hand evidence is the only evidence that counts. I love how FE'ers don't have to follow a single rule they put in place.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2010, 01:00:10 PM

Quote from: SupahLovah on January 28, 2010, 12:43:31 PM

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.

NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2010, 03:31:26 PM

Read Earth Not a Globe.

WE AREN'T ASKING FOR ROWBOTHAM'S EVIDENCE (Which is crap, anyway). WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.

You literally can never say "read Earth Not a Globe" ever again if first hand evidence is the only evidence that counts. I love how FE'ers don't have to follow a single rule they put in place.

RE is the new theory therefore it needs to prove itself. dont play word tricks with us. u gotta give us the evidence bcause u r the one giving us a new theory (relatively new).  rowbothmans book was just there to help solidify the old theory.

Quote from: onetwothreefour on January 30, 2010, 12:03:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2010, 01:00:10 PM

Quote from: SupahLovah on January 28, 2010, 12:43:31 PM

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.

NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2010, 03:31:26 PM

Read Earth Not a Globe.

WE AREN'T ASKING FOR ROWBOTHAM'S EVIDENCE (Which is crap, anyway). WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.

You literally can never say "read Earth Not a Globe" ever again if first hand evidence is the only evidence that counts. I love how FE'ers don't have to follow a single rule they put in place.

RE is the new theory therefore it needs to prove itself. dont play word tricks with us. u gotta give us the evidence bcause u r the one giving us a new theory (relatively new).  rowbothmans book was just there to help solidify the old theory.

So the older theory doesn't need proof?

Quote from: onetwothreefour on January 30, 2010, 12:03:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2010, 01:00:10 PM

Quote from: SupahLovah on January 28, 2010, 12:43:31 PM

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.

NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2010, 03:31:26 PM

Read Earth Not a Globe.

WE AREN'T ASKING FOR ROWBOTHAM'S EVIDENCE (Which is crap, anyway). WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.

You literally can never say "read Earth Not a Globe" ever again if first hand evidence is the only evidence that counts. I love how FE'ers don't have to follow a single rule they put in place.

RE is the new theory therefore it needs to prove itself. dont play word tricks with us. u gotta give us the evidence bcause u r the one giving us a new theory (relatively new).  rowbothmans book was just there to help solidify the old theory.

It's not "word tricks." It's extremely simple logic. Something that is rarely grasped by some on these forums.

Quote from: Gigamonsta on January 30, 2010, 07:56:22 PM

Quote from: onetwothreefour on January 30, 2010, 12:03:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2010, 01:00:10 PM

Quote from: SupahLovah on January 28, 2010, 12:43:31 PM

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.

NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2010, 03:31:26 PM

Read Earth Not a Globe.

WE AREN'T ASKING FOR ROWBOTHAM'S EVIDENCE (Which is crap, anyway). WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.

You literally can never say "read Earth Not a Globe" ever again if first hand evidence is the only evidence that counts. I love how FE'ers don't have to follow a single rule they put in place.

RE is the new theory therefore it needs to prove itself. dont play word tricks with us. u gotta give us the evidence bcause u r the one giving us a new theory (relatively new).  rowbothmans book was just there to help solidify the old theory.

It's not "word tricks." It's extremely simple logic. Something that is rarely grasped by some on these forums.

have u ever read earth not a globe?

Quote from: onetwothreefour on January 30, 2010, 09:15:17 PM

Quote from: Gigamonsta on January 30, 2010, 07:56:22 PM

Quote from: onetwothreefour on January 30, 2010, 12:03:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2010, 01:00:10 PM

Quote from: SupahLovah on January 28, 2010, 12:43:31 PM

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.

NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2010, 03:31:26 PM

Read Earth Not a Globe.

WE AREN'T ASKING FOR ROWBOTHAM'S EVIDENCE (Which is crap, anyway). WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.

You literally can never say "read Earth Not a Globe" ever again if first hand evidence is the only evidence that counts. I love how FE'ers don't have to follow a single rule they put in place.

RE is the new theory therefore it needs to prove itself. dont play word tricks with us. u gotta give us the evidence bcause u r the one giving us a new theory (relatively new).  rowbothmans book was just there to help solidify the old theory.

It's not "word tricks." It's extremely simple logic. Something that is rarely grasped by some on these forums.

have u ever read earth not a globe?

Strawman. I will not go off-topic. You can't have it both ways Tom. Either we accept second-hand evidence, or you completely throw out everything in ENAG and never spout off your tired response again.

have u ever read earth not a globe?

I have.  It's wrong in oh so many ways.

Merely taking ENaG seriously is extremely compelling evidence that one either hasn't really read it or is very seriously scientifically and mathematically illiterate.  I seriously doubt that even Rowbotham himself really took it seriously.  

FE'ers often claim that RET is somehow a lucrative scam for RET conspirators.  There is little doubt, however, that Rowbotham made a lot of money off of his lectures and writings.  He charged admission to them, and many people flocked to them, often to ridicule him and attempt to refute him.  When he died, he left quite an impressive estate to his heirs, according to what I have read about him.  

I have also read that when confronted with contrary evidence to which he had no good answer, he simply ended the lecture and left the stage.  I am convinced that he was far more a showman and scam artist than he was a scientist.  As I have tried to point out in another thread, he could not possibly have actually performed some of the experiments he claimed he did.  If he had, he could not possibly have honestly come to some of the conclusions he stated.

I wouldn't be too surprised if one of Rowbotham's pseudonyms (aliases) was Barnum.