Evidence

Wilmore constantly blabbers on about how "you need evidence to back up your theory."

WHERE IS THE FLAT EARTH EVIDENCE???

Have your read Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham)?

Have your read Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham)?

I have.  Other people have also read it and discredited such rubbish ideas long ago.

Calling that an experiment sticks in my throat rather.

If you don't know what kind of topics should be posted where, then you clearly aren't reading even the most basic material posted on this site. I suggest you start your quest for knowledge by doing so.


Moved.

What is constantly making me wonder is why there indeed seems to be a lot of requests for evidence by several FE supporters who they at the same time already know that they do not accept any form of evidence, except for their own senses. I think that makes a huge amount of these requests pretty useless as the nature of these statements command that no such evidence can be given.
Of course this is not in all cases, but maybe it would make many threads a lot easier to follow if people (from either side) would simply stop asking for evidence in case they are already 100% sure they will never accept it.

In my experience, RE'ers tend to make unsupported statements, at which point FE'ers quite reasonably ask for evidence. I would argue that RE'ers should stop making such statements if they are unable to provide evidence to support them.

In my experience, RE'ers tend to make unsupported statements, at which point FE'ers quite reasonably ask for evidence. I would argue that RE'ers should stop making such statements if they are unable to provide evidence to support them.

It's hard to make a statement with evidence when FEers don't like any evidence we give them.  It seems anything that contradicts FE is part of the conspiracy or something else that causes the observed data. (ie. light bends upwards, hence why it looks like a horizon exists)

I ask you this:
Is there any evidence anyone can produce on this forum that will be irrefutable?  Or should we all pool our money and launch you in a rocket into the stratosphere so you can see the curvature of the Earth?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 18, 2010, 03:50:25 PM

In my experience, RE'ers tend to make unsupported statements, at which point FE'ers quite reasonably ask for evidence. I would argue that RE'ers should stop making such statements if they are unable to provide evidence to support them.

It's hard to make a statement with evidence when FEers don't like any evidence we give them.  It seems anything that contradicts FE is part of the conspiracy or something else that causes the observed data. (ie. light bends upwards, hence why it looks like a horizon exists)

I ask you this:
Is there any evidence anyone can produce on this forum that will be irrefutable?  Or should we all pool our money and launch you in a rocket into the stratosphere so you can see the curvature of the Earth?

No evidence is 100% irrefutable but since you chose to join this forum and you chose to debate the RE model the burden of proof or reasonable doubt lies with you.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 18, 2010, 03:50:25 PM

In my experience, RE'ers tend to make unsupported statements, at which point FE'ers quite reasonably ask for evidence. I would argue that RE'ers should stop making such statements if they are unable to provide evidence to support them.

It's hard to make a statement with evidence when FEers don't like any evidence we give them.

It's not a matter of us 'not liking your evidence', it's a matter of the evidence simply not being good enough. And of course, the reason the evidence for RET isn't good enough is because the Earth is flat.

Quote from: Lorddave on March 18, 2010, 04:40:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 18, 2010, 03:50:25 PM

In my experience, RE'ers tend to make unsupported statements, at which point FE'ers quite reasonably ask for evidence. I would argue that RE'ers should stop making such statements if they are unable to provide evidence to support them.

It's hard to make a statement with evidence when FEers don't like any evidence we give them.

It's not a matter of us 'not liking your evidence', it's a matter of the evidence simply not being good enough. And of course, the reason the evidence for RET isn't good enough is because the Earth is flat.

If the evidence disagrees with your conclusion, then perhaps it's your conclusion that's wrong and not the evidence.

The quality of the evidence is poor in and of itself. The fact that the Earth is Flat is the reason it's poor, not the standard by which I judge it to be poor.

The quality of the evidence is poor in and of itself. The fact that the Earth is Flat is the reason it's poor, not the standard by which I judge it to be poor.

But you're judging the evidence based on a preconceived conclusion.  You must remove your preconceptions and judge the evidence on its own merits.

But you're judging the evidence based on a preconceived conclusion.  You must remove your preconceptions and judge the evidence on its own merits.

We do judge evidence on its own merits. See the water convexity tests.

I think the problem is that people like Parsifal is believed to be speaking for the rest of the FE community. It'd be better if other FE believers didn't just conveniently pull back from an argument.

I think the problem is that people like Parsifal is believed to be speaking for the rest of the FE community.

I've been saying this for months.

Wilmore constantly blabbers on about how "you need evidence to back up your theory."

WHERE IS THE FLAT EARTH EVIDENCE???

They have a double standard for evidence here. Anything that backs up RET is negligible, but anything posted on the Flat Earth Wiki is irrefutable fact.

Quote from: markjo on March 19, 2010, 09:54:59 AM

But you're judging the evidence based on a preconceived conclusion.  You must remove your preconceptions and judge the evidence on its own merits.

We do judge evidence on its own merits. See the water convexity tests.

I have.  Every single test that you have referred to lacks sufficient documentation to rule out atmospheric refractive phenomena as an explanation.

I have.  Every single test that you have referred to lacks sufficient documentation to rule out atmospheric refractive phenomena as an explanation.

The tests have been repeated numerous times, ruling out any "chance" optical illusions an RE'er might pull out of his ass.

Quote from: markjo on March 19, 2010, 12:57:33 PM

I have.  Every single test that you have referred to lacks sufficient documentation to rule out atmospheric refractive phenomena as an explanation.

The tests have been repeated numerous times, ruling out any "chance" optical illusions an RE'er might pull out of his ass.

Do you have any documentation whatsoever to support your claim?  I'm referring to water temperature and air temperature readings directly above the water.

Quote from: Lorddave on March 18, 2010, 04:40:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 18, 2010, 03:50:25 PM

In my experience, RE'ers tend to make unsupported statements, at which point FE'ers quite reasonably ask for evidence. I would argue that RE'ers should stop making such statements if they are unable to provide evidence to support them.

It's hard to make a statement with evidence when FEers don't like any evidence we give them.  It seems anything that contradicts FE is part of the conspiracy or something else that causes the observed data. (ie. light bends upwards, hence why it looks like a horizon exists)

I ask you this:
Is there any evidence anyone can produce on this forum that will be irrefutable?  Or should we all pool our money and launch you in a rocket into the stratosphere so you can see the curvature of the Earth?

No evidence is 100% irrefutable but since you chose to join this forum and you chose to debate the RE model the burden of proof or reasonable doubt lies with you.

True.
Hence why I asked....
What would you guys accept as 99% certainty proof? 

As for the Water Convex test...
I'm not sure what it is and what it showed, but I'm getting the view that light "bent" over a standing body of water?  Still not sure exactly what it tested and how it's proof.
If the Earth is curved, any standing body of water occurring on the ground (not in a man made pool for example) then the light wouldn't bend, but instead it would appear higher because the ground is at a different angle.
If the "light bends" idea is correct, then it would bend the light in the same manner would it not?  Or did this experiment do something else?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 19, 2010, 09:05:16 AM

The quality of the evidence is poor in and of itself. The fact that the Earth is Flat is the reason it's poor, not the standard by which I judge it to be poor.

But you're judging the evidence based on a preconceived conclusion.  You must remove your preconceptions and judge the evidence on its own merits.

It sounds like you're the one with preconceptions - I do no such thing.

Quote from: markjo on March 19, 2010, 09:54:59 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 19, 2010, 09:05:16 AM

The quality of the evidence is poor in and of itself. The fact that the Earth is Flat is the reason it's poor, not the standard by which I judge it to be poor.

But you're judging the evidence based on a preconceived conclusion.  You must remove your preconceptions and judge the evidence on its own merits.

It sounds like you're the one with preconceptions - I do no such thing.

Oh no?

Alright then, let's start from the beginning.

For the sake of this post, let's assume that what you see is accurate in the sense of what light is hitting your eyes.  Not necessarily accurate in that optical illusions can't happen.

So...
When looking at the horizon of the ocean with a setting sun we see a bright, circular object being slowly hidden by a slightly curved horizon.

Are we in agreement so far?

Oh I saw this and thought that evidence was now acceptable around here. My bad.
Yes im off topic, but high content relatively speaking.

When looking at the horizon of the ocean with a setting sun we see a bright, circular object being slowly hidden by a slightly curved horizon.

Are we in agreement so far?

No. I have never observed a 'curved' horizon, and I seriously doubt that you have either.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 20, 2010, 04:08:28 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 19, 2010, 09:54:59 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 19, 2010, 09:05:16 AM

The quality of the evidence is poor in and of itself. The fact that the Earth is Flat is the reason it's poor, not the standard by which I judge it to be poor.

But you're judging the evidence based on a preconceived conclusion.  You must remove your preconceptions and judge the evidence on its own merits.

It sounds like you're the one with preconceptions - I do no such thing.

Oh no?

Alright then, let's start from the beginning.

For the sake of this post, let's assume that what you see is accurate in the sense of what light is hitting your eyes.  Not necessarily accurate in that optical illusions can't happen.

So...
When looking at the horizon of the ocean with a setting sun we see a bright, circular object being slowly hidden by a slightly curved horizon.

Are we in agreement so far?

The horizon is straight when you are standing on earth. RE or not. Learn physics and geometry, then harp on a bout curvature.

Fuck!
What the hell is wrong with me lately?

So if the horizon is straight when standing on the Earth, then the only thing RE has is the fact that things go below the horizon.

Fuck!
What the hell is wrong with me lately?

You came here trying to prove your falsehoods.

Quote from: Lorddave on March 20, 2010, 05:39:01 PM

Fuck!
What the hell is wrong with me lately?

You came here trying to prove your falsehoods.

Here's what I've found to be false....

1. The horizon doesn't curve.
2. Objects that should be below the horizon can be seen in certain conditions when they shouldn't be if the Earth was curved.

So far that's all I've found to be false.

There's still the matter of satellites and communications required by them, the apparent lowering of objects (like the sun) as they move farther out and go below the horizon, pictures of the Earth in orbit.  Pictures of the Earth from the moon.  Picture of the Earth from Mars.  Not to mention any and all research on Antarctica.

Quote from: markjo on March 19, 2010, 09:54:59 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 19, 2010, 09:05:16 AM

The quality of the evidence is poor in and of itself. The fact that the Earth is Flat is the reason it's poor, not the standard by which I judge it to be poor.

But you're judging the evidence based on a preconceived conclusion.  You must remove your preconceptions and judge the evidence on its own merits.

It sounds like you're the one with preconceptions - I do no such thing.

Wilmore, you're the one that rejects RE evidence because you already "know" that the earth is flat.  That's pretty much the definition of a preconception.