FET evidence?

The only way to get valid evidence is from a valid source, and I'm the only source I can guarantee is valid.

Are you sure about that?  How do you know that you are qualified to properly gather and interpret evidence?

Quote from: Catchpa on May 02, 2010, 12:37:01 PM

You went from "Do you have proof?" to "They need to not have a stake in the space program" to "I need to be there myself".

Classic case of moving the goalpost.

That's hardly "moving the goal post". The only way to get valid evidence is from a valid source, and I'm the only source I can guarantee is valid.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 12:35:50 PM

1. So only if YOU flew up would you believe it?  You must not believe in places you've never been.
I am one of the few I can guarantee is not biased in my findings.
2. So a shadow, to you, is an object that stops light from reaching it's destination but not due to obstruction?
That is not a complete definition.
3. I never said it's a lie.  I said it's not an accurate explanation.  What was said is true for the most part.  Light does diffuse though the atmosphere which can make a single point of light seem like it's bigger.  But this isn't magnification and the edges are always fuzzy.  Plus you can filter out the diffuse light to see the true shape.  And for the sun, a circular spotlight, to maintain a perfect circle it it can't be viewed at an ever increasing angle.
It's astounding how you can sound correct, but still fail to grasp the basic concept.

1. I highly doubt that.  I see your biased here.

2. And what is it missing?

3. Isn't it?  I know you can't comprehend this but, perhaps it's you who can't grasp the flaw in the explanation.  It must be at least as valid as me isn't it?  That IS what being unbiased is about right?

So, if thats the case. The only way I will ever believe the world is flat is if you sent me into space to see it. See how that works both ways? :|

Of course. You fail to understand that FET is the default, not RET.

1. I highly doubt that.  I see your biased here.
I can not prove to you I am unbiased, I can only prove it to myself. Hence, why I can only trust myself.
2. And what is it missing?
The rest of the definition.
3. Isn't it?  I know you can't comprehend this but, perhaps it's you who can't grasp the flaw in the explanation.  It must be at least as valid as me isn't it?  That IS what being unbiased is about right?
I know I understand it. However, I can not verify you do. I can only suggest you read it again.

Of course. You fail to understand that FET is the default, not RET.

Just because FET is the default, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 02, 2010, 06:00:37 PM

Of course. You fail to understand that FET is the default, not RET.

Just because FET is the default, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

It's assumed correct until valid evidence is shown otherwise.

It's assumed correct until valid evidence is shown otherwise.

Appeal to ignorance mcuh?

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 02, 2010, 06:36:16 PM

It's assumed correct until valid evidence is shown otherwise.

Appeal to ignorance mcuh?

Hardly. Read the thread.

Yeah cool. You do know that assuming something correct until valid evidence is shown otherwise is a definition of an appeal to ignorance?

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2010, 06:32:25 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 02, 2010, 06:00:37 PM

Of course. You fail to understand that FET is the default, not RET.

Just because FET is the default, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

It's assumed correct until valid evidence is shown otherwise.

Which leads us back to the question of what is considered "valid evidence".

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 02, 2010, 06:36:16 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2010, 06:32:25 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 02, 2010, 06:00:37 PM

Of course. You fail to understand that FET is the default, not RET.

Just because FET is the default, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

It's assumed correct until valid evidence is shown otherwise.

Which leads us back to the question of what is considered "valid evidence".

Personally repeatable and directly verifiable.

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2010, 07:02:40 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 02, 2010, 06:36:16 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2010, 06:32:25 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 02, 2010, 06:00:37 PM

Of course. You fail to understand that FET is the default, not RET.

Just because FET is the default, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

It's assumed correct until valid evidence is shown otherwise.

Which leads us back to the question of what is considered "valid evidence".

Personally repeatable and directly verifiable.

Such as documenting the rising and setting of the sun on the day of the equinox?

Such as documenting the rising and setting of the sun on the day of the equinox?

Yes, assuming it was done in a consistent and scientific manner.

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2010, 07:35:51 PM

Such as documenting the rising and setting of the sun on the day of the equinox?

Yes, assuming it was done in a consistent and scientific manner.

Good.  Your next opportunity is September 22.  I look forward to seeing your data.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 05:16:08 PM

1. I highly doubt that.  I see your biased here.
I can not prove to you I am unbiased, I can only prove it to myself. Hence, why I can only trust myself.
2. And what is it missing?
The rest of the definition.
3. Isn't it?  I know you can't comprehend this but, perhaps it's you who can't grasp the flaw in the explanation.  It must be at least as valid as me isn't it?  That IS what being unbiased is about right?
I know I understand it. However, I can not verify you do. I can only suggest you read it again.

1. You can't prove it to yourself.  Why?  Well for the same reason that people who are insane can't prove they're insane by themselves: They don't know it.  You don't realize if your biased or not.  Some people can but for the most part you'd never know.  And how could you?  How can you separate, mentally, a biased reaction from an unbiased one?  Hell, your support of FET over RET proves your biased to FET.

2. You don't know do you? 

3. Understanding it is easy.  Accepting it is not.  As I said, just because you understand it doesn't mean it's correct.

Your lack of specifics and vague answers tells me that you don't want to be backed into a verbal corner.  This tells me that you're not a true believer.   A true believer would have very specific definitions because that's why they believe.  You can call it a george scott fallacy all you want but the evidence is piling up.

1. One theory being superior is obviously a reason to prefer it, not a case of bias. (Assuming the common definition of the word "bias")

2. Are you calling me a liar?

3. Fortunately, the wiki page is both.

1. One theory being superior is obviously a reason to prefer it, not a case of bias. (Assuming the common definition of the word "bias")

2. Are you calling me a liar?

3. Fortunately, the wiki page is both.

1. Ahh, there's that biased again.  Calling it superior.  Self promotion is being biased.

2. Are you going to produce information or just tell me to read something until I understand it on your level?

3. And there's that biased yet again.  Man, this is easy.  And, pray tell, what makes you certain that everything in the Wiki is accurate?  Have you personally verified all of it?  (including the shape of the Earth by going into space)?

You're doing it again Ben.......

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 02, 2010, 12:24:34 PM

Personal inspection.

You went from "Do you have proof?" to "They need to not have a stake in the space program" to "I need to be there myself".

Classic case of moving the goalpost.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 01, 2010, 07:21:13 PM

Quote from: dude55 on May 01, 2010, 07:12:08 PM

Really Ben, we know FET is the default in this corner of the Web.  It would have to be, otherwise nothing makes sense.

Hell, I could easily say...

"The sun is actually a wormhole in space whose other end is open in front of a star on the underside of the Earth's infinite plane.  This allows heating from both sides (geothermal energy and solar energy).  The gravity lensing effect of the wormhole aperture causes the sun to have odd effects, which includes appearing to "set" when it's really just moving around in an orbit"

See, this is a valid FE idea.  It has no evidence, no physics to back it up, nothing....  And it's still Flat Earth valid.

False. If I really need to elaborate, then you are a lost cause.

You quoted using Dude55's name....

How do you actually quote things Ben because it doesn't look like it's working very well.

Anyway, allow me to elaborate:

Bendy light.
Organic Moon.
Celestial Gears.

Taking just those three.  None of them have any evidence to support them specifically.  None of them have any physics to back them up either.  Light only bends with gravity as far as physics is concerned.  It refracts in a medium but that's not bending as I understand it.
The moon's organic nature has no proof as it relies on you looking at it and saying "oh, that's not a shadow, it just looks like one.  It's really a giant migratory organism/weather pattern".
Celestial gears is even worse.  It puts the Earth inside a mechanical dome with rotating slots.  Again, no physics to back that up unless you want to claim that the Universe is an artificially created thing.

So, no evidence, no physics to back it up, nothing... And those three are acceptable as FE ideas.

I also find it laughable that you claim that my final sentence was at fault and not the "idea" even though I have no evidence, physics or really anything to back it up.  Are you saying that it's valid even though it has nothing?

I believe that you are right (concerning the three issues you raised here: bendy light/organic moon/celestial gears). I do not accept these notions (bending light is certainly possible, but it cannot be used as evidence where alternative explanations are available), and I have offerred other interpretations.

Flat earth theory cannot be presented without the aether or the heavenly dome concepts ; UA acceleration/infinite earth models have major flaws which are easy to take advantage of in a serious debate.

For those who still doubt that the surface of the earth is perfectly flat, here is the best video/photographic evidence ever put together:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183




For the sake of our discussion, we will ascend all the way to 240 meters, outside Grimsby (the highest altitude there is Vinemount Ridge, 213 meters altitude, but again, outside of Grimsby itself; the photo was taken, so says the author, in Grimsby http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/ ).

Given the 55 km distance between Toronto and the point of altitude of 240 meters in Grimsby (at least 2 km inland to be added to the 53 km known distance), we will would have to ascend to at least 237 meters to SEE THE FIRST SIGN OF LAND FROM THE TORONTO BEACH, the curvature would be 59 meters (height of a 20 story building). The photograph shows clearly that the surface of the lake is perfectly flat, with no 59 meter curvature, even the small islands in front of Toronto can be seen...

Quote from: Lorddave on May 01, 2010, 07:44:36 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 01, 2010, 07:21:13 PM

Quote from: dude55 on May 01, 2010, 07:12:08 PM

Really Ben, we know FET is the default in this corner of the Web.  It would have to be, otherwise nothing makes sense.

Hell, I could easily say...

"The sun is actually a wormhole in space whose other end is open in front of a star on the underside of the Earth's infinite plane.  This allows heating from both sides (geothermal energy and solar energy).  The gravity lensing effect of the wormhole aperture causes the sun to have odd effects, which includes appearing to "set" when it's really just moving around in an orbit"

See, this is a valid FE idea.  It has no evidence, no physics to back it up, nothing....  And it's still Flat Earth valid.

False. If I really need to elaborate, then you are a lost cause.

You quoted using Dude55's name....

How do you actually quote things Ben because it doesn't look like it's working very well.

Anyway, allow me to elaborate:

Bendy light.
Organic Moon.
Celestial Gears.

Taking just those three.  None of them have any evidence to support them specifically.  None of them have any physics to back them up either.  Light only bends with gravity as far as physics is concerned.  It refracts in a medium but that's not bending as I understand it.
The moon's organic nature has no proof as it relies on you looking at it and saying "oh, that's not a shadow, it just looks like one.  It's really a giant migratory organism/weather pattern".
Celestial gears is even worse.  It puts the Earth inside a mechanical dome with rotating slots.  Again, no physics to back that up unless you want to claim that the Universe is an artificially created thing.

So, no evidence, no physics to back it up, nothing... And those three are acceptable as FE ideas.

I also find it laughable that you claim that my final sentence was at fault and not the "idea" even though I have no evidence, physics or really anything to back it up.  Are you saying that it's valid even though it has nothing?

I believe that you are right (concerning the three issues you raised here: bendy light/organic moon/celestial gears). I do not accept these notions (bending light is certainly possible, but it cannot be used as evidence where alternative explanations are available), and I have offerred other interpretations.

Flat earth theory cannot be presented without the aether or the heavenly dome concepts ; UA acceleration/infinite earth models have major flaws which are easy to take advantage of in a serious debate.

For those who still doubt that the surface of the earth is perfectly flat, here is the best video/photographic evidence ever put together:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183




For the sake of our discussion, we will ascend all the way to 240 meters, outside Grimsby (the highest altitude there is Vinemount Ridge, 213 meters altitude, but again, outside of Grimsby itself; the photo was taken, so says the author, in Grimsby http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/ ).

Given the 55 km distance between Toronto and the point of altitude of 240 meters in Grimsby (at least 2 km inland to be added to the 53 km known distance), we will would have to ascend to at least 237 meters to SEE THE FIRST SIGN OF LAND FROM THE TORONTO BEACH, the curvature would be 59 meters (height of a 20 story building). The photograph shows clearly that the surface of the lake is perfectly flat, with no 59 meter curvature, even the small islands in front of Toronto can be seen...

Is this a FE'er using evil doctored photographs to prove his point?!?!?!  Say it ain't so!

Did you factor in local geography?

Ontario's waterfront is 76.5m above sea level.

If the land was 100% flat, yeah I'd agree with you.  But since it's raised above the water by 76.5m, you can see more.  It's like if you stood the whole city on a 30 story building.

Toronto, Lake Ontario and Grimsby (shoreline) are all at about 76 meters above sea level. The following photograph shows, quite clearly, this fact, for Toronto/Lake Ontario:

http://www.math.mun.ca/~dapike/pix/toronto1.jpg

On a round earth, the MUST BE a 59 meter midpoint curvature between Toronto and Grimsby (the 55 km distance).


sliver, that is why I have put at your disposal some 30 photographs with lake Ontario (Hamilton, Etobicoke, Port Credit, St. Catharines, Grimsby); all of them show there is no curvature over that lake, none whatsoever, that is the situation there.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183

Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn is no flat earth supporter; she is a highly respected professional photographer, here is her work:

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html

Again, let us ascend to 240 meters to make your day, still no curvature whatsoever:

Levee, try that with the English Channel, a body of water we know is at sea level.  Find pictures of France from England.

Photographs are not admissible as evidence on this forum.

Here is a picture of Naboo.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2007, 09:03:04 PM

Photographs are not admissible as evidence on this forum.

Here is a picture of Naboo.

Well, I guess that settles it.  Looks like Tom says your doctored photo of Toronto is inadmissible.  Sorry, levee.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 04, 2010, 08:03:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2007, 09:03:04 PM

Photographs are not admissible as evidence on this forum.

Here is a picture of Naboo.

Well, I guess that settles it.  Looks like Tom says your doctored photo of Toronto is inadmissible.  Sorry, levee.

Back in 2007, nobody actually did the research needed to come up with professional and amateur photographs which show, very clearly, that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth; certainly I will use videos and the art of photography to destroy the most ludicrous, preposterous, and most laughable of all possible hoaxes: the round earth theory.

Your wish is my command: here are the photographs over the English Channel, just for you...

And now, the photograph taken in England, Langdon cliffs (100 meters maximum height), absolutely no curvature all the way to France; remember that from a height of 90.6 meters you could barely see an object of no height (water near the shoreline):


Full view of the French coastline, top to bottom, no curvature.


Cap Gris Nez beach, no curvature at all all the way to England:



To satisfy your lust for the round earth theory, you have been given a more than generous choice of heights:

h = 3 m   BD = 60.6
h = 5 m   BD = 53
h = 10m  BD = 40.4
h = 20m  BD = 25.5

Even if we go to 20 meters, we still see the entirety of the cliffs, top to bottom, there is no 1/2 or 1/4 portion missing, here are those cliffs again:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/apeofjungle/2145058531/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/orodreth_au/1472106076/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-e-mr-g/129592362/


http://www.scribd.com/doc/9979943/Dove-Dover (download to watch at normal size)

I saved on scribd.com, the original photographs taken RIGHT ON THE CAP GRIS NEZ.

The photographers right there, preparing to take the second shot, called Shipspotting (we can see in the background Cap Blanc Nez):


And now the ship being spotted:



A completely flat surface of the water, with the White Dover Cliffs seen in their entirety; no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of 22.6 meters, no visual obstacle of 65 meters.


Top of Cap Gris Nez hills, 45 meters in altitude, no curvature at all over the English Channel:

levee, it looks like you picked the narrowest part.  Especially the Cliffs of Dover.

It's amazing what nice elevation does as well.

Back in 2007, nobody actually did the research needed to come up with professional and amateur photographs which show, very clearly, that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth; certainly I will use videos and the art of photography to destroy the most ludicrous, preposterous, and most laughable of all possible hoaxes: the round earth theory.

Your wish is my command: here are the photographs over the English Channel, just for you...

Levee, did you personally take any of the photographs that you are presenting as evidence?  Do you have any documentation as to exact location, elevation, weather conditions and camera settings used?  It's very easy to misrepresent (inadvertently or deliberately) a photograph if you don't know its full history.

We have already debated over such matters as atmospheric refraction/optical reflection; the altitudes at which the photographs were taken are always specified within my messages. You got it all wrong: there is no misrepresentation, just no curvature at all (just look at the photographs, perfectly flat surfaces of water all the way to the visual target).

Perhaps you prefer videos, I can bring those here immediately, or the fact that the Tunguska explosion was seen all the way from London.

I need to see time stamps for the photographs and all logs that were recorded.