Why are the countries on the FET map so distorted?

Then lets see your data.

You clearly haven't Wilmore. You are just being arguementative and ignorant. THOUSANDS of mariners makes those journeys every day. They all agree what the real distances are...ALL OF THEM. Explain that.

Thus, that must be a factual distance.  Do you agree with this or should we both get into a plane and fly the distance ourselves to verify it?

When/where/what type of inaccuracy? It's highly possible that you were doing it wrong.

Hmm so Wilmore thinks he might have sailed in a boat to test a nautical map....Yeah I can play that game easily, when I ask him the distance, the knots, and the time it took to make the journey. On the other hand, I wreckon I've sailed to or from around two thids of the worlds major ports and to numerous minor ones too. So name any two ports Wilmore. Then you can go and check my data with thousands of records of vessels that made the same trip at your very own maritime records office and see that they too give the same data for the same journey.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 01:29:31 PM

When/where/what type of inaccuracy? It's highly possible that you were doing it wrong.

I didn't get where I should have, and it took inordinately long to get where I did.

Or, the Earth is flat.

Certifiably insane if you think thousands of mariners would risk their lives every day using maps that don't match the distances they find themselves sailing. You have absolutley no idea what you are talking about. Completely cuckoo.

Ok, let's make sure I understand the issue here...

Wilmore is saying that he's sailed the various distances and that using the maps all mariners use, they are accurate.
Earth is saying that any large scale, flat map is distorted and will give inaccurate distances thus, geometric projection maps are used by all mariners which, presumably, is what wilmore used.

Am I right?

Quote from: 004forever on April 09, 2010, 08:49:32 AM

Then lets see your data.

"I'VE FUCKING BEEN THERE!  I've sailed those differences and can verify firsthand the accuracy of the maps.  What more do you want?  Do I need to send you on that voyage?  Am I going to need to drug test you afterwards so you know you weren't hallucinating?  Do I need to drug test you now?"

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on April 09, 2010, 08:59:37 PM

Because you need to go to a maritime office and look through their records.

So in other words, you don't have this data, and simply assume that it supports RET. I see.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 08:28:16 PM

Quote from: 004forever on April 09, 2010, 08:49:32 AM

Then lets see your data.

"I'VE FUCKING BEEN THERE!  I've sailed those differences and can verify firsthand the accuracy of the maps.  What more do you want?  Do I need to send you on that voyage?  Am I going to need to drug test you afterwards so you know you weren't hallucinating?  Do I need to drug test you now?"

If FE'ers can demand documentation of such voyages, then why can't RE'ers?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 08:28:16 PM

Quote from: 004forever on April 09, 2010, 08:49:32 AM

Then lets see your data.

"I'VE FUCKING BEEN THERE!  I've sailed those differences and can verify firsthand the accuracy of the maps.  What more do you want?  Do I need to send you on that voyage?  Am I going to need to drug test you afterwards so you know you weren't hallucinating?  Do I need to drug test you now?"

If FE'ers can demand documentation of such voyages, then why can't RE'ers?

Quote from: 004forever on April 09, 2010, 08:49:32 AM

Then lets see your data.

"I'VE FUCKING BEEN THERE!  I've sailed those differences and can verify firsthand the accuracy of the maps.  What more do you want?  Do I need to send you on that voyage?  Am I going to need to drug test you afterwards so you know you weren't hallucinating?  Do I need to drug test you now?"

Exactly. There's Wilmore beliveing a theory based on absolutely no mathematical data or proof. They don't have any measurements for lunar/ solar cycles/ equinoxes/ no mapping of any kind, not nautical, not meteorological, geological...nothing NADA.

And yet, RET has all this and Wilmore has the cheek to say there is no data or proof to back up the principles I am presenting.

You can't just quote me in a completely different context.  When I typed that, you asked what evidence there was.  When you responded, I had asked for you data.  There is a difference.  Data is quantitative while evidence can be all sorts of things.

If RET has so much proof, why am I still waiting to see it?

If RET has so much proof, why am I still waiting to see it?

If RET has so much proof, why am I still waiting to see it?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 10, 2010, 08:19:00 AM

If RET has so much proof, why am I still waiting to see it?

Because we're waiting for you to take your blinders off.  There isn't much we can do if you choose not to see what is presented to you.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 10, 2010, 08:19:00 AM

If RET has so much proof, why am I still waiting to see it?

Because you won't travel south of the equator and observe the south celestial pole moving in sync with the northern one. Because you won't get yourself a telescope with setting circles on it and see that they work, disproving beeny light AND celestial gears at a stroke and leaving only curvature as a viable explanation for the horizon. Because you won't book yourself on a plane flight between two places in the southern hemisphere and take a stopwatch with you.
Because you won't travel a hundred miles east or west from where you live and see the angles of satellite TV dishes are pretty much the same as where you are. Because you can't be bothered to get up at dawn on an equinox and see exactly where the sun rises.

THAT is why you are still waiting. You won't take the word of anyone else who's done these things so that leaves you one option. Get off your fat lazy arse, extinguish your joint and measure reality yourself.

Quote from: markjo on April 11, 2010, 09:16:24 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 10, 2010, 08:19:00 AM

If RET has so much proof, why am I still waiting to see it?

Because we're waiting for you to take your blinders off.  There isn't much we can do if you choose not to see what is presented to you.

Well, EarthISroundISproven has yet to present anything to me. I can't see what isn't there.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 11, 2010, 11:26:53 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 10, 2010, 08:19:00 AM

If RET has so much proof, why am I still waiting to see it?

Because you won't travel south of the equator and observe the south celestial pole moving in sync with the northern one. Because you won't get yourself a telescope with setting circles on it and see that they work, disproving beeny light AND celestial gears at a stroke and leaving only curvature as a viable explanation for the horizon. Because you won't book yourself on a plane flight between two places in the southern hemisphere and take a stopwatch with you.
Because you won't travel a hundred miles east or west from where you live and see the angles of satellite TV dishes are pretty much the same as where you are. Because you can't be bothered to get up at dawn on an equinox and see exactly where the sun rises.

THAT is why you are still waiting. You won't take the word of anyone else who's done these things so that leaves you one option. Get off your fat lazy arse, extinguish your joint and measure reality yourself.

So in other words, I need to get this proof myself, because you don't have it. I see.

Their maps are supposedly 'distorted' and don't match a globe. You're the one claiming they use maps that don't match 'reality' to get where they do.

Again: How do you know?

prove it

Your attitude is beneath contempt.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 12, 2010, 01:22:30 PM

Your attitude is beneath contempt.

Actually, your attitude is beneath contempt, because as you well know all of the points you raised have been answered. For example, as soon as you posted the thread about trig's experiment, I answered with criticisms which you were unable to answer. Don't come back here and pretend that it was the other way around.


You have consistently failed to answer any of my questions in this thread. So until you get down off your perch and answer them, we have nothing more to talk about. Good day.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 12, 2010, 01:22:30 PM

Your attitude is beneath contempt.

Actually, your attitude is beneath contempt, because as you well know all of the points you raised have been answered. For example, as soon as you posted the thread about trig's experiment, I answered with criticisms which you were unable to answer. Don't come back here and pretend that it was the other way around.


You have consistently failed to answer any of my questions in this thread. So until you get down off your perch and answer them, we have nothing more to talk about. Good day.

So in other words, I need to get this proof myself, because you don't have it.

as you well know all of the points you raised have been answered.

If RET has so much proof, why am I still waiting to see it?

You asked questions about FET. These questions were dealt with.


You said there was proof of RET. You have yet to answer my questions about these supposed 'proofs' in a satisfactory manner.


There is no paradox or contradiction.


I'm not obsessed' with the idea that you haven't answered my questions. You simply haven't. It becomes a point of contention when you claim that I am ignoring your statements, when in fact I have asked you questions about these statements, and never received a meaningful answer.

You have consistently failed to answer any of my questions in this thread. So until you get down off your perch and answer them, we have nothing more to talk about. Good day.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 14, 2010, 03:02:49 PM

You have consistently failed to answer any of my questions in this thread. So until you get down off your perch and answer them, we have nothing more to talk about. Good day.

All your questions were answered. Stop posting.