Poll

Which map do you agree with the most?

Flat Earth Map #1
5 (38.5%)
Flat Earth Map #2
2 (15.4%)
levee's new map
6 (46.2%)

Total Members Voted: 13

Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With

  • 191 Replies
  • 48547 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #120 on: May 09, 2010, 10:48:14 AM »
BACK ON TOPIC!  Who agrees with which map?  That was the whole purpose of this thread, and so far the only thing that's happened is a derailment.

You are back in business.

Two other links on the subjects discussed before:
www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QUANTAVOL/cc_docs/cc_2.pdf (pages 52-93), if it cannot be accessed directly, then on google search: chaos and creation collapsing tests of time quantavolution, CHAPTER THREE COLLAPSING TESTS OF TIME pdf
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/catastrophic-granite-formation
« Last Edit: May 09, 2010, 10:50:22 AM by levee »

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #121 on: May 09, 2010, 12:30:47 PM »
BACK ON TOPIC!  Who agrees with which map?  That was the whole purpose of this thread, and so far the only thing that's happened is a derailment.

You are back in business.

Two other links on the subjects discussed before:
www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QUANTAVOL/cc_docs/cc_2.pdf (pages 52-93), if it cannot be accessed directly, then on google search: chaos and creation collapsing tests of time quantavolution, CHAPTER THREE COLLAPSING TESTS OF TIME pdf
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/catastrophic-granite-formation


Levee, you're showing improvement. However, the correct way to format this post would be to start with a specific question or statement (which means that you have to know the material well enough to frame a half-decent question, versus... just asking 'why' a dozen times). Then, possibly link me something to read. Not just send me an article that spans 70 some-odd pages when I pull it up on adobe. You think I'm going to actually read and try to address some portion of that content when all you did was baldly send me a link?! Not going to happen. But I can say that I did at least read the first few pages. However, I when I tried to look up their references to see what the exact context was of their statements or how they arrived at certain calculations, I ran across this at the end of the chapter...

1. “Dating” (1974), V Encyclopedia Britannica, 490 ff. <---- Why use ff? Pages belong at the end of a reference anyway. It's not just redundant it's obsolete. Periods should separate the title from the date. comma should not be used.
2. (had to remove a figure to post this list without taking a tons of space (wtf is a figure doing in the reference section anyway?!)... which didn't even have a source listed as to how it was compiled or where the data came from in the first place....)
3. Shelton (1966) 304. <---- there's no 'ff'; does that mean page 304? Where's the title? What journal and/or issue or book was used? Hell, what's the guys first name or initial?!!
4. Heezing, Thorp, and Ewing, 1959. <---- why no parenthesis on this one?
5. Jordan, quoting (chap. III) Defaut. <--- No idea what this entry even means.
6. Juergens (Fall 1977), fn. 29, p. 17. <---- written by a someone in the fall semester? They are referencing a footnote?! <facepalm>
7. Cook (1963); (1966). <---- Article republished? Proved the same thing?
8. Heezing and Hallister, 633. <---- Paper never published?
9. Sullivan, 118-9. <---- again, no year.
10. Cook (1957). <--- no page
11. This is Donnelly’s “Age of fire and gravel” in Ragnarok (1883) cf. Beaumont (1925) 162, 176. <---- More information... but does it make sense? nope!

This is rather revealing. They weren't simply ignorant about how to correctly cite a source, because there was no consistency. They deliberately tried to hide their sloppiness, because they used numbers in brackets as a link to these phony, incomplete references -- probably with the assumption that people who read this sort of crap wouldn't catch it (the writing style appears technical to a layman, and the in-text citations look official in the body text) and that they certainly wouldn't bother to look at the references because their audience aren't scientists, they are people who probably don't care about the truth anyway and just want to hear their own belief system confirmed in some way or another.

So yeah, they can't even properly cite me a reference to look up. Did they somehow lose the documents they were citing?! The (LAST NAME, YEAR) format is pretty much the standard with scientific writing in the body text, NOT at the end of a chapter. And why are the references so old? I realize that the document was written in 1981 (and nearly obsolete by that fact alone, as considerable research has been done in the fields he discusses)... but still, did geology all of a sudden quit progressing in 1975? Whatever the reason/s, there needs to be a complete reference. I would personally prefer APA, since that's more or less the standard when it comes to scientific papers, but hell, expecting anything of even high school caliber would be asking too much.

So, how can I possibly fact check when they don't give even give me a title, journal, textbook, etc?! I can't. So this link is utter garbage. Worthless undergrads do it all the time when they don't bother doing any actual research, except generally they are least clever enough to make it consistent or make up the other information so that I overlook it or get sent on a wild goose chase. Sometimes they even use references that have nothing to do with what they are citing. In either case it's academic dishonesty and therefore grounds for expulsion from any University -- undergrad, graduate student, researcher, tenured professor it doesn't matter, not acceptable under any circumstance. AnswersInGenesis doesn't fare much better in regards to thoroughness. In the future, please don't reference articles that pull facts out of thin air.

Trying to pass off these articles as legitimate criticism is unacceptable. Until you can step it up Levee, I think it's safe to say that these 'discussions' are over.

EDIT: At the [indirect] suggestion of Levee, I pulled up the complete bibliography located at the end of the book to see if in fact these incomplete references are just another reference to a 'master list' of references. Though a "Works Cited' is significantly different than a 'Bibliography'. Using the 'chapters 10 to end' followed by the 'BIBLIOGRAPHY' link located in the outline on the left side of the Adobe document I pulled up the first author that was on the list I quoted (3. Shelton (1966) 304.). Under the S's there is no Shelton. Using the search function yields similar results. There should be no confusion at this point: at best this document is pure speculative fiction, at worst, an affront to human decency and a remarkable work of plagiarism.

More about the auther, Alfred de Grazia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_de_Grazia
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 01:26:12 PM by Deceiver »

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #122 on: May 09, 2010, 09:09:05 PM »
BACK ON TOPIC!  Who agrees with which map?  That was the whole purpose of this thread, and so far the only thing that's happened is a derailment.

You are back in business.

Two other links on the subjects discussed before:
www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QUANTAVOL/cc_docs/cc_2.pdf (pages 52-93), if it cannot be accessed directly, then on google search: chaos and creation collapsing tests of time quantavolution, CHAPTER THREE COLLAPSING TESTS OF TIME pdf
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/catastrophic-granite-formation
Not sure what these articles have to do with your FE map.  Could you perhaps just post the arts that support your map?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #123 on: May 10, 2010, 05:20:54 AM »
deceiver, the discussions are over because I am the only who participated in them...

Read carefully the pdf I posted for you (and others) to read: it destroys immediately your very cherished beliefs (given your level of understanding of science, where you simply choose TO RUN AWAY from studying atmospheric physics). You want me to quote each and every sentence which shows that you know, as I have said before, JUST 5% of what a true scientist should know, to start a meaningful discussion? The article is splendidly argued and presents proofs which cannot be improved upon, that is why you resort to this kind of tactics...

Collapsing the Tests of Time is carefully argued and presents on every page specific arguments which can be used immediately to show the discrepancies and fallacies of mineral physics and paleogeology.

http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QUANTAVOL/cc_docs/cc_2.pdf

It also shows the unbelievable errors of modern day geology when it comes to dating specific sample rocks. If needed, as I said, I will post here each and every sentence from this article to completely destroy your scientific beliefs, and there are other works as well...

My previous two messages show that you cannot understand even the most basic of all scientific principles; it doesn't take a "geologist" to apprehend the fact that the clouds' trajectories are possible ONLY on a stationary earth.

You have been avoiding any discussion or debate on matters which show that your scientific premises are completely and utterly wrong, but I will bring them here again, if needed.

You have no higher understanding of mechanics, astrophysics, to mention just a few; each and every time I have walked all over you, with the best proofs/arguments, for which you have no response, but silence...

Radiodating cannot be used to date any kinds of rocks or archaeological material/artifacts because of the errors involved, that is why you have been caught with your pants down; other than an amateurish approach to a scientific discussion, you have not been able to debate on this subject (origin of granite).

My advice to you: please study carefully and diligently my messages, the faint young sun paradox, the inexistence of attractive gravity, and much more...you really need it...

FOR THE THIRD TIME:
YOU HAVE CHOSEN SO FAR TO IGNORE THE COMPLETE DEMONSTRATION THAT THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542

YOU ARE SHOWING EVERYBODY THAT YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENTS WHATSOEVER FOR THIS ISSUE, SHOWING YOU HAVE IGNORED, SO FAR, IN YOUR CAREER, THESE MATTERS...
 
You see deceiver, you are out of your league here; please improve your bibliography and study some more...

PS You think I will let go so easily on the strait of Gibraltar videos?

THERE SHOULD BE A 3.31 METER CURVATURE OVER THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR, IN THE ROUND EARTH THEORY; even if we change the radius of the earth from 6300 to 6400 km, the curvature will vary from 3.30 to 3.35 meters. We should see an ascending slope starting from the shores of Spain, a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters, and NOTHING BELOW 5 METERS FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STRAIT.

Here are the videos which prove, once and for all, now and forever, that there is no curvature, not one centimeter over the strait of Gibraltar:

Islamic History of Europe

#

Between 2:56 si 3:00 the author shows us the spanish beach and points towards the african coastline

Between 3:02 si 3:07 we can see clearly that there is no curvature all the way to Morocco; moreover, if we use the full screen option, we will see the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore...this is actually a closeup taken, again, from that beach...

Between 3:19 - 3:22, WE CAN SEE THE WAVES SPLASHING ONTO THE OPPOSING BEACH, EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR STANDING ON THE SPANISH SHORELINE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; on a round earth, we would see an ascending slope, with a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters.

Between 3:43 si 3:45, the same thing, zero curvature...full screen option, the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore, WITH THE AUTHOR STADING RIGHT THERE ON THE SPANISH BEACH.

The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature:

The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


So, deceiver, there is no curvature whatsoever over the strait of Gibraltar, no matter the fairy tale you stubbornly want to believe in...

Here is a photograph taken right on the spanish beach, from the same place as that in the second video above:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289/

IS THIS THE KIND OF SCIENCE YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT TO TEACH AND STUDY? Here we have the MOST PRECISE PROOFS, which even you can understand deceiver, there is no curvature whatsoever over this distance of 13 km, the strait of Gibraltar.

Next time, in case you are still in town, I will come here, to sliver's delight, with the full proofs for the inexistence of attractive gravity...
« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 03:35:31 AM by levee »

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #124 on: May 10, 2010, 05:44:00 AM »
You look at pictures showing no curvature. What about those that does?





Also you have yet to respond to this: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38622.msg961258#msg961258 (Cliffs of Dover)

« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 06:04:14 AM by Catchpa »
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #125 on: May 10, 2010, 05:57:13 AM »
Next time, in case you are still in town, I will come here, to sliver's delight, with the full proofs for the inexistence of attractive gravity...to embarrass you further...
Troll!  If you want to discuss gravity, take it to the gravity thread, otherwise discuss the maps.  Stop derailing threads.

And while your at it, try documenting "no visible curvature" at greater distances.  Like across the Mediterranean Sea.  Like from Monaco to Algiers, a distance of over 530 miles or 852 km.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #126 on: May 10, 2010, 07:28:57 AM »
levee's process:

Post a bunch of nonsense 'evidence' not related to the topic of discussion along with links to several invalid sources.
After sources are shown to be invalid, post them again, but this time insult someone's intelligence instead of refuting the claims.
Whoever is most persistent wins the argument, regardless of weather or not the facts are on their side.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #127 on: May 10, 2010, 10:08:58 AM »
sliver, take ANY distance, larger than say 10 km, and if there is no curvature, then the round earth theory falls like a house of cards.

Certainly those videos prove that there is no curvature whatsoever, not a centimeter over a distance of 13 km.

You want very large distances? Ok. I have put at your disposal the facts re: Lake Michigan (128 km distance) here:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=684&start=195#p31544

Let us increase the distance to 600 km, and then to 6000 km, is that ok with you?

The most precise and best proof for the existence of the flat earth: the fact that the Tunguska explosion was seen from London/Antwerp/Stockholm:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142

catchpa, but I have answered: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38622.msg961839#msg961839

My friends, you are ever ready to attack others, but did you bother to check the facts? I treated deceiver respectfully, here is the proof:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.msg961869#msg961869

No insults, no personal attacks at all. This is how I always treat my audience, with the utmost courtesy and respect.

But, here is deceiver's response:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.msg961900#msg961900

He started the name calling game, NOT ME. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen...


gdisarray, I understand your anger; so far, you have been unable to present a single fact which would prove that the earth is round. Nothing of what you wrote applies to me, perhaps to your own messages...

Now, let us get back to the facts, just the facts.

I have presented the best evidence/proofs/arguments re: the fact that the pattern of the clouds' trajectories show that we are on a stationary earth, you (all of you) have no point to make, no arguments to debate, because you do not have anything going for you, I can checkmate you on this issue within 2 messages.

deceiver has refused to address multiple issues presented here: from the inexistence of attractive gravity, to the faint young sun paradox, and much more.


THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF GEOLOGY IS, without a doubt, the geologic time scale which encompasses the history of the Earth. You all agree with that.

But isotopic dating, carbon14, uranium-lead (and uranium-thorium), potassium-argon (and argon-argon) methods have been shown to be utterly and completely wrong, that is why I pointed out to deceiver this facts, using his own words:

The problem with granite is that it takes an extremely long time to get crystals of that size ...
we're forming very complex mineral structures that take (emphasis: mineral physics predicts this, geochemistry experiments confirm the rates) tens of thousands of years to form...

Here are the problems with radiodating, isotopic dating:


http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v8i9f.htm
http://www.worldbydesign.org/research/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html

Here is the dean of the faculty of mathematics/mechanics at the Moscow University, A. Fomenko, explaining to you how the radiodating CANNOT be used at all:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
CHAPTER I, SECTIONS 14, 15, 16, 17, THEY STARY ON PAGE 71


I urge all of you to carefully study these links, to see how disastrous isotopic dating can be, and that it cannot be trusted at all.

Without the mirage of radiodating, geology (academic geology) does not have a leg to stand on...

Here are some more facts you should take into account:

http://nitishpriyadarshi.blogspot.com/2008/01/did-god-created-rocks-of-our-earth-in.html
http://unmaskingevolution.com/12-radiohalos.htm

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/04earth4.htm
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/04earth3.htm
http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-3a.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/catastrophic-granite-formation

Here are deceiver's own words:

...We use isotope dating to figure out when the rock formed

Again, use the following superbly written facts, to see how unbelievably wrong isotopic dating can be:

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v8i9f.htm
http://www.worldbydesign.org/research/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html

Here is the dean of the faculty of mathematics/mechanics at the Moscow University, A. Fomenko, explaining to you how the radiodating CANNOT be used at all:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
CHAPTER I, SECTIONS 14, 15, 16, 17, THEY STARY ON PAGE 71


deceiver, let us know take for granted a conventional time scale, that is, world chronology.

Here are the most extraordinary proofs, for you, WHICH PROVE that what you have taken for granted, in your undergraduate studies, amounts TO NOTHING: DINOSAURS LIVED ONLY 4500-5000 YEARS AGO, COMPLETE PROOFS:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.msg710424#msg710424

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=716&p=31837&hilit=dinosaurs#p31276

Are we to ignore these things, deceiver? For whose sake?


Again, I urge all of you to read this extraordinary articles:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/catastrophic-granite-formation

www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QUANTAVOL/cc_docs/cc_2.pdf


EDIT: the simple reason the bibliographical references in the last pdf are not complete, is that that work is just a chapter in a much larger work called Chaos and Creation, the full bibliographical references are included at the end of that book. I only quoted here chapter 3, Collapsing Tests of Time, that is all...here is the full work (5000 pages): http://www.grazian-archive.net/quantavolution/QuantaSeries.htm
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 10:30:08 AM by levee »

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #128 on: May 10, 2010, 10:40:12 AM »
sliver, take ANY distance, larger than say 10 km, and if there is no curvature, then the round earth theory falls like a house of cards.

Certainly those videos prove that there is no curvature whatsoever, not a centimeter over a distance of 13 km.

You want very large distances? Ok. I have put at your disposal the facts re: Lake Michigan (128 km distance) here:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=684&start=195#p31544

Let us increase the distance to 600 km, and then to 6000 km, is that ok with you?

The most precise and best proof for the existence of the flat earth: the fact that the Tunguska explosion was seen from London/Antwerp/Stockholm:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142

catchpa, but I have answered: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38622.msg961839#msg961839


Here are the most extraordinary proofs, for you, WHICH PROVE that what you have taken for granted, in your undergraduate studies, amounts TO NOTHING: DINOSAURS LIVED ONLY 4500-5000 YEARS AGO, COMPLETE PROOFS:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.msg710424#msg710424

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=716&p=31837&hilit=dinosaurs#p31276

Are we to ignore these things, deceiver? For whose sake?

Levee, care to adress my pictures? You used flickr yourself, so apparently it's a valid source. These two pictures clearly show a curvature.

You didn't answer Lorddaves post in that thread, which pretty conclusively showd that the below part of the cliffs were missing, but seen at a shorter distance. Just because you posted something after his post, doesn't mean you answered it or even adressed his points.

.. and what's with this dinosaur stuff? That has absolutely no fucking relevance to the thread. The fact that you think these paintings are proof of anything, is laughable. Though I'm willing to forget that, just because of James post following post:

The conspiracy do train attack-birds

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #129 on: May 10, 2010, 10:45:57 AM »
At the level you find yourself, catchup, you should be more considerate when using your tone of voice...

I offered the precise figures to show how even from the 45 meter Cap Gris Nez cliff, we cannot see any 22.4 meter curvature...I posted the pictures taken RIGHT ON THE CAP GRIS BEACH, WITH MULTIPLE FIGURES, there is no curvature whatsoever, lorddave ignored these facts...

For your pictures I want this: the altitude of the plane, the actual name of the territories in question, the name of the beach, the distance to the boats...thank you...

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #130 on: May 10, 2010, 10:50:21 AM »
At the level you find yourself, catchup, you should be more considerate when using your tone of voice...

I offered the precise figures to show how even from the 45 meter Cap Gris Nez cliff, we cannot see any 22.4 meter curvature...I posted the pictures taken RIGHT ON THE CAP GRIS BEACH, WITH MULTIPLE FIGURES, there is no curvature whatsoever, lorddave ignored these facts...

For your pictures I want this: the altitude of the plane, the actual name of the territories in question, the name of the beach, the distance to the boats...thank you...

What's your explanation that the below part still didn't show?

And why does it matter what the distance is? It's clearly showing a curvature. Are you suggesting those pictures were taking from somewhere not on our earth?
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #131 on: May 10, 2010, 10:56:58 AM »
If there ever was a fight for those 5 meters, then it took place here:


http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=684&start=210



Any photograph used for curvature/noncurvature appraisal must be accompanied by the following information: altitude of photographer (at least a range), distance to optical target, height of target. You offer no such data here.

Here is one of the most extraordinary photographs ever taken, it explains at the same time the sinking ship effect, and proves that there is no curvature over lake Ontario:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716466#msg716466

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #132 on: May 10, 2010, 11:03:08 AM »
What difference does the altitude, distance and height of target mean?

Regardless of that information, it still shows curvature.
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #133 on: May 10, 2010, 11:11:53 AM »
What difference does the altitude, distance and height of target mean?

Regardless of that information, it still shows curvature.

Sorry to be a pain in the butt here but a lot of curvature appearing on photos is due to barrel distortion from a slight wideangle lens.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #134 on: May 10, 2010, 11:18:37 AM »
What difference does the altitude, distance and height of target mean?

Regardless of that information, it still shows curvature.

Sorry to be a pain in the butt here but a lot of curvature appearing on photos is due to barrel distortion from a slight wideangle lens.

Not talking about that kind of curvature. Catchpa's pic shows that you can't see the bottom few meters of the cliffs across a body of water.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #135 on: May 10, 2010, 12:24:28 PM »
Somebody wrote: Catchpa's pic shows that you can't see the bottom few meters of the cliffs across a body of water.

That is why we need precise figures re: the distance to the boats, and the altitude of the photographer. Without this data, the photograph is unusable (from our point of view).


I edited (by removing) some of the objectionable language from the message written at 5:20.


Thermochronology/geochemical analysis errors:

http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/dating2.html (exceptionally documented)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/false-isochrons


?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #136 on: May 10, 2010, 12:34:43 PM »
Somebody wrote: Catchpa's pic shows that you can't see the bottom few meters of the cliffs across a body of water.

That is why we need precise figures re: the distance to the boats, and the altitude of the photographer. Without this data, the photograph is unusable (from our point of view).


I edited (by removing) some of the objectionable language from the message written at 5:20.


Thermochronology/geochemical analysis errors:

http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/dating2.html (exceptionally documented)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/false-isochrons



The altitude of the photographer really doesn't change a thing, because unless the photograph was taken underwater, it proves that the surface of the water has some curvature.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #137 on: May 10, 2010, 12:44:24 PM »
Somebody wrote: Catchpa's pic shows that you can't see the bottom few meters of the cliffs across a body of water.

That is why we need precise figures re: the distance to the boats, and the altitude of the photographer. Without this data, the photograph is unusable (from our point of view).


I edited (by removing) some of the objectionable language from the message written at 5:20.


Thermochronology/geochemical analysis errors:

http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/dating2.html (exceptionally documented)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/false-isochrons



I've already commented that I will not be discussing geology with you in the future. Additionally, the questions you continue to raise still have no relevance to the topic of this thread.

the simple reason the bibliographical references in the last pdf are not complete, is that that work is just a chapter in a much larger work called Chaos and Creation, the full bibliographical references are included at the end of that book. I only quoted here chapter 3, Collapsing Tests of Time, that is all...here is the full work (5000 pages): http://www.grazian-archive.net/quantavolution/QuantaSeries.htm

I have since amended my post regarding your sources to say the following:

EDIT: At the [indirect] suggestion of Levee, I pulled up the complete bibliography located at the end of the book to see if in fact these incomplete references are just another reference to a 'master list' of references. Using the 'chapters 10 to end' followed by the 'BIBLIOGRAPHY' link located in the outline on the left side of the Adobe document I pulled up the first author that was on the list I quoted (3. Shelton (1966) 304.). Under the S's there is no Shelton. Using the search function yields similar results. There should be no confusion at this point: at best this document is pure speculative fiction, at worst, an affront to human decency and a remarkable work of plagiarism.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 01:12:54 PM by Deceiver »

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #138 on: May 10, 2010, 05:12:43 PM »
What is particularly fascinating about the argument of this thread (which over the last four years I have engaged in more times than I care to remember) - and I think it is something which even fairly non-mental globularists will enjoy or at least find interesting - is that even if the Earth were round, the size of the Earth would be such that no geological curvature whatsover would be visible, even from several thousand feet in the air (let alone from sea level).

Now, whether you think the Earth is flat or you think it is round, dear reader, perhaps you will find this an interesting point to reflect upon. There are people attempting in earnest to defend the Round Earth theory in this thread by posting pictures which could not possibly show what they claim to show regardless of what shape the Earth was.

Casting aside the topological arguments for a second, I think this is an incredibly sad reflection on propensity of the human psyche to blind faith. (or a hilarious one, depending on your outlook)
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #139 on: May 10, 2010, 07:14:19 PM »
sliver, take ANY distance, larger than say 10 km, and if there is no curvature, then the round earth theory falls like a house of cards.

Certainly those videos prove that there is no curvature whatsoever, not a centimeter over a distance of 13 km.

You want very large distances? Ok. I have put at your disposal the facts re: Lake Michigan (128 km distance) here:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=684&start=195#p31544
Perhaps if the pics weren't so hazy, we could see the shoreline more clearly to better determine just how much in not seen by the curve between the two shores.  Also, why are you still trying to derail the thread?  This is a thread about a map, not curvature of the Earth, and CERTAINLY NOT dinosaurs!  Where the hell did the shit about dinosaurs come from?

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #140 on: May 10, 2010, 09:22:08 PM »
What is particularly fascinating about the argument of this thread (which over the last four years I have engaged in more times than I care to remember) - and I think it is something which even fairly non-mental globularists will enjoy or at least find interesting - is that even if the Earth were round, the size of the Earth would be such that no geological curvature whatsover would be visible, even from several thousand feet in the air (let alone from sea level).

Now, whether you think the Earth is flat or you think it is round, dear reader, perhaps you will find this an interesting point to reflect upon. There are people attempting in earnest to defend the Round Earth theory in this thread by posting pictures which could not possibly show what they claim to show regardless of what shape the Earth was.

Casting aside the topological arguments for a second, I think this is an incredibly sad reflection on propensity of the human psyche to blind faith. (or a hilarious one, depending on your outlook)

Blind faith? Nope. You don't even need a camera. Park yourself on a beach but not so close to sea level that the water vapor messes with the light too much, pull out a pair of binoculars and whalaa, you can look at fishing boats in the distance and see that they clearly have the appearance of sinking... except that you can't see where the waves touch the sides of the boat despite the rest being perfectly visible, if not somewhat hazy.

The fact that we have half decent pictures that either show that much clarity or zoom capability are the only proof you really need. With the cameras everyone even has on their cell phone nowadays they can test this easily enough for themselves.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 09:25:55 PM by Deceiver »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #141 on: May 11, 2010, 04:08:58 AM »
Somebody wrote: Catchpa's pic shows that you can't see the bottom few meters of the cliffs across a body of water.

That is why we need precise figures re: the distance to the boats, and the altitude of the photographer. Without this data, the photograph is unusable (from our point of view).


I edited (by removing) some of the objectionable language from the message written at 5:20.


Thermochronology/geochemical analysis errors:

http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/dating2.html (exceptionally documented)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/false-isochrons



I've already commented that I will not be discussing geology with you in the future. Additionally, the questions you continue to raise still have no relevance to the topic of this thread.

the simple reason the bibliographical references in the last pdf are not complete, is that that work is just a chapter in a much larger work called Chaos and Creation, the full bibliographical references are included at the end of that book. I only quoted here chapter 3, Collapsing Tests of Time, that is all...here is the full work (5000 pages): http://www.grazian-archive.net/quantavolution/QuantaSeries.htm

I have since amended my post regarding your sources to say the following:

EDIT: At the [indirect] suggestion of Levee, I pulled up the complete bibliography located at the end of the book to see if in fact these incomplete references are just another reference to a 'master list' of references. Using the 'chapters 10 to end' followed by the 'BIBLIOGRAPHY' link located in the outline on the left side of the Adobe document I pulled up the first author that was on the list I quoted (3. Shelton (1966) 304.). Under the S's there is no Shelton. Using the search function yields similar results. There should be no confusion at this point: at best this document is pure speculative fiction, at worst, an affront to human decency and a remarkable work of plagiarism.

You did not look where I told you to, try here:

http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/_start_here.htm

There is a bibliographical list, with complete references (from your list, Heezen, Jordan, Juergens, and much more, COMPLETE DETAILS), under the table of contents, click on bibliography. The full bibliographical list can be obtained here: professor Earl Milton, Lethbridge University, Alberta, Canada.

When it comes to research, you must do a better job...as usual...

You also wrote this: Blind faith? Nope. You don't even need a camera. Park yourself on a beach but not so close to sea level that the water vapor messes with the light too much, pull out a pair of binoculars and whalaa, you can look at fishing boats in the distance and see that they clearly have the appearance of sinking... except that you can't see where the waves touch the sides of the boat despite the rest being perfectly visible, if not somewhat hazy.

There is no need to resort to bending light; which is not an argument to be used in our discussions, with bending light you could accomplish lots of things, which might have alternative explanations.

Let me prove to you the Earth is flat, without bending light.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/



The roof top of the Sky Dome visible (well intended round earth supporters brought to our attention that the height of the Sky Dome is actually 90 meters, and not 86; at least 5 meters of the roof is visible, that would bring it back right to about 86, but we will use here a value of 90 meters).

Even with atmospheric reffraction (which is absent in this photograph) we might substract a few meters, there would still be about 50-55 meters remaining which cannot be explained on a round earth.

The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.

Here is the beach in St. Catharines:

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg
(already we can see the top of the CN Tower, due to the fact we are using a poor quality camera)

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg
(with a better camera, more details become available, confirming the theory described in Earth is not a Globe, WITHOUT resorting to bending light)

There is a difference of 60 meters between the accepted round earth measure of 150.5 meters (under which you could see nothing), and the visible portion of the top of the Sky Dome...



Note that I have used a 50 km distance (actually 52-53 km) and a 3 meter height for the photographer (actually 2).

Here is a panorama of the Toronto skyline:

http://www.vignetted.com/images/200705/20070510_sm.jpg
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg

Now another three photograph section, in which we see the theory written by Rowbotham, once again, confirmed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/ (visible roof top of the Sky Dome, 60 meters difference between the accepted value of 150.5 meters, and the height of 90 meters)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (better camera, better picture, with more details)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/

If we imagine Toronto as a gigantic ship, with the CN Tower as its masthead, we get a complete confirmation of the theory in:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm




*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42687
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #142 on: May 11, 2010, 05:01:29 AM »


The roof top of the Sky Dome visible (well intended round earth supporters brought to our attention that the height of the Sky Dome is actually 90 meters, and not 86; at least 5 meters of the roof is visible, that would bring it back right to about 86, but we will use here a value of 90 meters).

Levee, why can we not see the airport on Toronto Island?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #143 on: May 11, 2010, 07:32:55 AM »
Somebody wrote: Catchpa's pic shows that you can't see the bottom few meters of the cliffs across a body of water.

That is why we need precise figures re: the distance to the boats, and the altitude of the photographer. Without this data, the photograph is unusable (from our point of view).


I edited (by removing) some of the objectionable language from the message written at 5:20.


Thermochronology/geochemical analysis errors:

http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/dating2.html (exceptionally documented)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/false-isochrons



I've already commented that I will not be discussing geology with you in the future. Additionally, the questions you continue to raise still have no relevance to the topic of this thread.

the simple reason the bibliographical references in the last pdf are not complete, is that that work is just a chapter in a much larger work called Chaos and Creation, the full bibliographical references are included at the end of that book. I only quoted here chapter 3, Collapsing Tests of Time, that is all...here is the full work (5000 pages): http://www.grazian-archive.net/quantavolution/QuantaSeries.htm

I have since amended my post regarding your sources to say the following:

EDIT: At the [indirect] suggestion of Levee, I pulled up the complete bibliography located at the end of the book to see if in fact these incomplete references are just another reference to a 'master list' of references. Using the 'chapters 10 to end' followed by the 'BIBLIOGRAPHY' link located in the outline on the left side of the Adobe document I pulled up the first author that was on the list I quoted (3. Shelton (1966) 304.). Under the S's there is no Shelton. Using the search function yields similar results. There should be no confusion at this point: at best this document is pure speculative fiction, at worst, an affront to human decency and a remarkable work of plagiarism.

You did not look where I told you to, try here:

http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/_start_here.htm

There is a bibliographical list, with complete references (from your list, Heezen, Jordan, Juergens, and much more, COMPLETE DETAILS), under the table of contents, click on bibliography. The full bibliographical list can be obtained here: professor Earl Milton, Lethbridge University, Alberta, Canada.

When it comes to research, you must do a better job...as usual...

I ran across this when was hunting for Shelton, but thought posting it would be unnecessary because all it did was discredit a document that was already undeniably discredited. Seems that I was a bit too generous... because I guess when the author puts this at the beginning of the bibliography, it means nothing. There is apparently even a 3rd list of references to go to... even though I'm still not being referred to it's location or that such a 3rd list even exists... and despite this little paragraph here saying that it's a complete list of in text citations. <facepalm>.

"The Bibliography contains all works cited in the text or notes
and a number of additional works deemed relevant. All journal
citations may be clear except perhaps S.I.S.R. which refers to the
Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review (11 Adcott Road,
Acklam, Middlesbrough, Cleveland TS5 7ER, England). A full
general annotated bibliography of quantavolution is in process

under the direction of Professor Earl S. Milton, Lethbridge
University, Alberta, Canada, and the present author."

So now I have to apply research level scrutiny to figure out where the reference I'm trying to find is located at? I'm looking for a reference for God's sake. They should have been at the end of the chapter in the first place, and they should have been complete. If he wanted to compile a master list, then he should have done that at the end of the chapter as well as at the end of the book. But he still has us searching for more than 10 seconds, jumping through all sorts of hoops just to find a single reference. And it looks like he is still working on citing all the texts he used. Brilliant! Walk into any University and try writing a research paper, and, as you turn it into the TA or professor say that you are still compiling your list of references. If they even give you a passing grade you will have managed to luck out. Everyone else, they'll do you and the world a favor by just flat out failing you, and put a note on your official transcripts citing the violation. As far as getting this kind of garbage published by a university or respected journal -- not even remotely possible. Additionally, towards the end of the list is a lengthy section in which the references don't even have authors... what?!!! ::)
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 08:53:43 PM by Deceiver »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #144 on: May 12, 2010, 03:31:57 AM »
markjo, you know very well where the airport is located...much to the left of this photograph...and nothing under 86 meters was captured by the camera...your posts used to be more consistent...http://www.internationaldeliveranceministries.org/images/TorontoSkyline.jpg
http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/qcyc_aerial_view.jpg

Photographs taken in Etobicoke/Port Credit/Oakville, NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER ALL THE WAY TO TORONTO, NOT A SINGLE CENTIMETER:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1090
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33777#p33777

deceiver, the only garbage you have read so far are the official lies which pertain to the age of the earth, and thus, to your object of study, geology. I have demonstrated quite clearly to you that the things you have taken for granted in your studies so far, amount to nothing, nothing at all. You asked for a bibliography of a work which includes some 5000 pages; I posted the correct link, and the bibliography is indeed very ample and well organized, not to mention the article itself which destroys immediately the premises on which modern geology is based (this being the real reason of your vendetta). The bibliography of a 5000 page work, which as we have seen is very well written indeed, takes a lot of time to put together, as you should know by now...

As for the subject discussed here, those who have voted for the first two maps, must realize that they depict the northern circumpolar distribution of continents; the other map centered in Antarctica (debated on another thread) includes only the southern circumpolar distribution of continents, that is why all these maps can be attacked very easily (distances between various geographical points covered by airplane flights). My map is the only one which takes into account all three possible stellar orbits: northern/southern circumpolar, and regular...


« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 03:34:02 AM by levee »

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #145 on: May 12, 2010, 04:50:00 AM »
nothing under 86 meters was captured by the camera

What does this mean, exactly?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #146 on: May 12, 2010, 07:10:55 AM »
I really don't get it either. The island that should be in front is clearly missing.

The conspiracy do train attack-birds

?

-Anonymous

Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #147 on: May 13, 2010, 07:27:57 AM »
Such anger, Levee. The atmosphere is pulled by gravity, which in turn rotates with the earth, notice how we rotate with the earth too. Radiocarbon dating is not wrong, you must kidding, its a rather simple yet elegant method.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #148 on: May 13, 2010, 06:24:48 PM »
The atmosphere is pulled by gravity, which in turn rotates with the earth

I'm sorry, but what?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #149 on: May 14, 2010, 08:53:36 AM »
What happend to levee? Still waiting for a response.
The conspiracy do train attack-birds