Apparently your lives are boring so you came up with this crackpot theory.

 

This primitive belief still lingers on, when the evidence for a spherical earth is overwhelming:

(a) photographs of the earth from space (I use photoshop professionally and there is no way any of those pictures can be photoshoped.)

(b) astronauts from Gagarin onwards who have completed one or more orbits of the earth and seen it with their own eyes

(c) mariners who circumnavigated the globe, from Ferdinand Magellan onwards who did not fall of the edge of the world when they did this

(d) the shape of the earth's shadow as it crosses the face of the moon during a lunar eclipse

(e) the curvature of the horizon evident when you are at sea and see another ship approaching or disappearing from view

(f) the daily practice of international air travel and Steve Fossett's 2002 circumnavigation by balloon and 2005 circumnavigation by plane without stopping for refuelling.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA OF A SPHERICAL EARTH

Eratosthenes determined that the earth was a sphere and calculated its rough circumference by the third century B.C.

Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus the Earth's surface cannot be flat.

By the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st century, the Earth's spherical shape was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world.

The evidence is, as I say, overwhelming.

Most of it was gathered centuries before our current government.

THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY

So give me a REAL argument not a half-baked one and without any true facts.

P.S A lot of the images are broken on the website, can seem to find a good coder ether?

Lurk moar.  All these arguments have already been rebuffed.

I'm debating, so I can't create a new thread showing my arguments? Right...

This primitive belief still lingers on, when the evidence for a spherical earth is overwhelming:

In fact, the contemporary Flat Earth movement has developed within the last 200 years, Round Earth is a primitive belief (not that the age of a theory makes it right or wrong anyway, but at least get your facts straight).

(a) photographs of the earth from space (I use photoshop professionally and there is no way any of those pictures can be photoshoped.)

I don't mean to be impolite, but aren't you basically citing your own ineptitude as evidence that some task can't be performed?

(b) astronauts from Gagarin onwards who have completed one or more orbits of the earth and seen it with their own eyes

In fact it is very easy to trick people into believing that they are in space. This programme - http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/S/spacecadets/ - did so on a shoestring budget. NASA has far better resources at their disposal than Channel 4.

(c) mariners who circumnavigated the globe, from Ferdinand Magellan onwards who did not fall of the edge of the world when they did this

It seem you haven't read up on our geography very much. You see the North pole is the centre of the Earth and the South Pole is the circumference. Circumnavigation doesn't prove anything about the shape of the Earth either way!

(d) the shape of the earth's shadow as it crosses the face of the moon during a lunar eclipse

This phenomenon is caused by a body called the Antimoon. It is a dark Moon which cycles above the Earth at a lower altitude than the Moon.

(e) the curvature of the horizon evident when you are at sea and see another ship approaching or disappearing from view

Ships sometimes appear to sink as they get further away for several reasons. One such reason is that perspective makes objects appear to get smaller as they disappear. Another reason is that the atmolayer is more opaque close to the surface of the ocean than higher up. Sometimes the hull of a ship will be obscured by haze from the surface, and sometimes choppy waves get in the way! On a clear day, we can see much further.

(f) the daily practice of international air travel and Steve Fossett's 2002 circumnavigation by balloon and 2005 circumnavigation by plane without stopping for refuelling.

Again, I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to prove about the Earth?

Eratosthenes determined that the earth was a sphere and calculated its rough circumference by the third century B.C.

Current historical research indicates that Eratosthenes may have hired a drunk man to take measurements for him. We are currently still trying to establish the legitimacy of Eratosthenes' experiments, but it's very difficult!

Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus the Earth's surface cannot be flat.

Aristotle believed that men have more teeth than women. Do you think that is true as well? He also claimed that hedgehogs face eachother when they have sex.

The evidence is, as I say, overwhelming.

Most of it was gathered centuries before our current government.

Most of the evidence involved in witchography was gathered centuries before the Salem witch trials. Do you believe in the efficacy of witchography?

This primitive belief still lingers on, when the evidence for a spherical earth is overwhelming:

(a) photographs of the earth from space (I use photoshop professionally and there is no way any of those pictures can be photoshoped.)

(b) astronauts from Gagarin onwards who have completed one or more orbits of the earth and seen it with their own eyes

(c) mariners who circumnavigated the globe, from Ferdinand Magellan onwards who did not fall of the edge of the world when they did this

(d) the shape of the earth's shadow as it crosses the face of the moon during a lunar eclipse

(e) the curvature of the horizon evident when you are at sea and see another ship approaching or disappearing from view

(f) the daily practice of international air travel and Steve Fossett's 2002 circumnavigation by balloon and 2005 circumnavigation by plane without stopping for refuelling.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA OF A SPHERICAL EARTH

Eratosthenes determined that the earth was a sphere and calculated its rough circumference by the third century B.C.

Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus the Earth's surface cannot be flat.

By the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st century, the Earth's spherical shape was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world.

The evidence is, as I say, overwhelming.

Most of it was gathered centuries before our current government.

THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY

So give me a REAL argument not a half-baked one and without any true facts.

P.S A lot of the images are broken on the website, can seem to find a good coder ether?

Lurk moar. Everything you've said has been addressed time and time again.

Current historical research indicates that Eratosthenes may have hired a drunk man to take measurements for him. We are currently still trying to establish the legitimacy of Eratosthenes' experiments, but it's very difficult!

I distinctly recall reading from this forum that the reason FET claims that the Sun and moon have an altitude of 3000miles (or km) is precisely because of Eratosthenes calculations...

So... did FET just drive a nail into it's own coffin, or is there some other method that you folks use to calculate the radius and distance of those two objects? And how did you correct for Bendy light?

Quote from: James on May 13, 2010, 05:53:18 PM

Current historical research indicates that Eratosthenes may have hired a drunk man to take measurements for him. We are currently still trying to establish the legitimacy of Eratosthenes' experiments, but it's very difficult!

I distinctly recall reading from this forum that the reason FET claims that the Sun and moon have an altitude of 3000miles (or km) is precisely because of Eratosthenes calculations...

So... did FET just drive a nail into it's own coffin, or is there some other method that you folks use to calculate the radius and distance of those two objects? And how did you correct for Bendy light?

I do not believe in Bendy Light, nor do I rely on the readings of a drunk man to calculate the distance of the celestial bodies - I am a man of science. Now, given these two facts, why would the fact that Eratosthenes was wrong be good evidence that the Earth was round?

In fact it is very easy to trick people into believing that they are in space. This programme - http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/S/spacecadets/ - did so on a shoestring budget. NASA has far better resources at their disposal than Channel 4.

Reality TV doesn't cut it there is the possibility that they are actors.

I don't mean to be impolite, but aren't you basically citing your own ineptitude as evidence that some task can't be performed?

More of that I have developed an eye for that kind of stuff, and with older pictures, technology like that didn't exist when those pictures were taken.

This phenomenon is caused by a body called the Antimoon. It is a dark Moon which cycles above the Earth at a lower altitude than the Moon.

How is it then, after several millennia no one saw the dark moon like object in the sky?

Also I would just like to know is why would someone want to hide that shape of a planet?

Quote

In fact it is very easy to trick people into believing that they are in space. This programme - http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/S/spacecadets/ - did so on a shoestring budget. NASA has far better resources at their disposal than Channel 4.

Reality TV doesn't cut it there is the possibility that they are actors.

I'm sorry, but as a scientist I do not truck in possibilities.

More of that I have developed an eye for that kind of stuff, and with older pictures, technology like that didn't exist when those pictures were taken.

Why should I trust you about this photoshopping business when you can't spell "photoshopped"?

How is it then, after several millennia no one saw the dark moon like object in the sky?

Many people have, globularists and zeteticists alike. The fact that you have not seen it is perhaps testament that you have not been looking at the sky very carefully!

Quote from: Deceiver on May 13, 2010, 06:47:00 PM

Quote from: James on May 13, 2010, 05:53:18 PM

Current historical research indicates that Eratosthenes may have hired a drunk man to take measurements for him. We are currently still trying to establish the legitimacy of Eratosthenes' experiments, but it's very difficult!

I distinctly recall reading from this forum that the reason FET claims that the Sun and moon have an altitude of 3000miles (or km) is precisely because of Eratosthenes calculations...

So... did FET just drive a nail into it's own coffin, or is there some other method that you folks use to calculate the radius and distance of those two objects? And how did you correct for Bendy light?

I do not believe in Bendy Light, nor do I rely on the readings of a drunk man to calculate the distance of the celestial bodies - I am a man of science. Now, given these two facts, why would the fact that Eratosthenes was wrong be good evidence that the Earth was round?

Ack! You completely dodged my question! How does anyone have the slightest clue that the moon/sun are x miles above the earth, let alone the size of their respective disks? As a man of science, what maths did you or anyone use to claim that you know these either of these parameters?

Without something as basic as that proven, there is definitely no absence of possibilities being trucked in!

This primitive belief still lingers on, when the evidence for a spherical earth is overwhelming:

(a) photographs of the earth from space (I use photoshop professionally and there is no way any of those pictures can be photoshoped.)

(b) astronauts from Gagarin onwards who have completed one or more orbits of the earth and seen it with their own eyes

(c) mariners who circumnavigated the globe, from Ferdinand Magellan onwards who did not fall of the edge of the world when they did this

(d) the shape of the earth's shadow as it crosses the face of the moon during a lunar eclipse

(e) the curvature of the horizon evident when you are at sea and see another ship approaching or disappearing from view

(f) the daily practice of international air travel and Steve Fossett's 2002 circumnavigation by balloon and 2005 circumnavigation by plane without stopping for refuelling.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA OF A SPHERICAL EARTH

Eratosthenes determined that the earth was a sphere and calculated its rough circumference by the third century B.C.

Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus the Earth's surface cannot be flat.

By the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st century, the Earth's spherical shape was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world.

The evidence is, as I say, overwhelming.

Most of it was gathered centuries before our current government.

THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY

So give me a REAL argument not a half-baked one and without any true facts.

P.S A lot of the images are broken on the website, can seem to find a good coder ether?

they have none, this is actually a 90% troll site, but many of the FES mods are true believers.
and you should no from the start, any argument you use will be invalidated by any means.

Lurk moar.  All these arguments have already been rebuffed.

nice try but no.
they have either been given the conspiracy, imaginary force, or logical fallacy response

Quote from: Tystar on May 13, 2010, 05:23:59 PM

This primitive belief still lingers on, when the evidence for a spherical earth is overwhelming:

In fact, the contemporary Flat Earth movement has developed within the last 200 years, Round Earth is a primitive belief (not that the age of a theory makes it right or wrong anyway, but at least get your facts straight).

Quote from: Tystar on May 13, 2010, 05:23:59 PM

(a) photographs of the earth from space (I use photoshop professionally and there is no way any of those pictures can be photoshoped.)

I don't mean to be impolite, but aren't you basically citing your own ineptitude as evidence that some task can't be performed?

Quote from: Tystar on May 13, 2010, 05:23:59 PM

(b) astronauts from Gagarin onwards who have completed one or more orbits of the earth and seen it with their own eyes

In fact it is very easy to trick people into believing that they are in space. This programme - http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/S/spacecadets/ - did so on a shoestring budget. NASA has far better resources at their disposal than Channel 4.

Quote from: Tystar on May 13, 2010, 05:23:59 PM

(c) mariners who circumnavigated the globe, from Ferdinand Magellan onwards who did not fall of the edge of the world when they did this

It seem you haven't read up on our geography very much. You see the North pole is the centre of the Earth and the South Pole is the circumference. Circumnavigation doesn't prove anything about the shape of the Earth either way!

Quote from: Tystar on May 13, 2010, 05:23:59 PM

(d) the shape of the earth's shadow as it crosses the face of the moon during a lunar eclipse

This phenomenon is caused by a body called the Antimoon. It is a dark Moon which cycles above the Earth at a lower altitude than the Moon.

Quote from: Tystar on May 13, 2010, 05:23:59 PM

(e) the curvature of the horizon evident when you are at sea and see another ship approaching or disappearing from view

Ships sometimes appear to sink as they get further away for several reasons. One such reason is that perspective makes objects appear to get smaller as they disappear. Another reason is that the atmolayer is more opaque close to the surface of the ocean than higher up. Sometimes the hull of a ship will be obscured by haze from the surface, and sometimes choppy waves get in the way! On a clear day, we can see much further.

Quote from: Tystar on May 13, 2010, 05:23:59 PM

(f) the daily practice of international air travel and Steve Fossett's 2002 circumnavigation by balloon and 2005 circumnavigation by plane without stopping for refuelling.

Again, I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to prove about the Earth?

Quote from: Tystar on May 13, 2010, 05:23:59 PM

Eratosthenes determined that the earth was a sphere and calculated its rough circumference by the third century B.C.

Current historical research indicates that Eratosthenes may have hired a drunk man to take measurements for him. We are currently still trying to establish the legitimacy of Eratosthenes' experiments, but it's very difficult!

Quote from: Tystar on May 13, 2010, 05:23:59 PM

Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus the Earth's surface cannot be flat.

Aristotle believed that men have more teeth than women. Do you think that is true as well? He also claimed that hedgehogs face eachother when they have sex.

Quote from: Tystar on May 13, 2010, 05:23:59 PM

The evidence is, as I say, overwhelming.

Most of it was gathered centuries before our current government.

Most of the evidence involved in witchography was gathered centuries before the Salem witch trials. Do you believe in the efficacy of witchography?

Actually everything we think can be considered a belief. And it is primitive, if we go by the definition axiomatic. but the connotation of crude that you are giving it on the other hand doesn't apply. OP doesn't hasn't been exposed to modern FES so of course he is confused, what NORP wouldn't be? In conclusion the round earth is not a theory or even a law, it would be considered a scientific, academic, and secular fact.

And the circum navigation does, considering we been to Antarctica. you'd think we'd have found the edge by now. you treat the world as is its the island from LOST. you can try and go to the edge, but you'll just circumnavigate it, and don't you dare trust teh compasses.

20 miles kids with a He Balloon and a cell phone
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/03/kids-send-a-cam/

check mate

20 miles kids with a He Balloon and a cell phone
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/03/kids-send-a-cam/

check mate

That's exactly what I'd expect to see when looking down at the circular spotlight of the sun.

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 13, 2010, 10:30:34 PM

20 miles kids with a He Balloon and a cell phone
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/03/kids-send-a-cam/

check mate

That's exactly what I'd expect to see when looking down at the circular spotlight of the sun.

orly

At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at the circular spotlight of the sun's light.

At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at the circular spotlight of the sun's light.

then the sun should be an ellipsis in that first photo not a sphere if it were true but its a perfectly round sphere with light in all directions
again check mate and good day sir

and just to rub it in note the shadow here on SS1 are parallel to the earth
also the fact is you know a sphere

Actually Scaled Composites used a Fish Eye lens for their trip to the edge of the atmosphere.

Actually Scaled Composites used a Fish Eye lens for their trip to the edge of the atmosphere.

umm no... to many vertical and  horizontal planes for that the ship it self would be distorted too
live video also shows the ship spinning and the curve at different angles in the frame
unless they were swapping lens on the fly based on the direction the camera was facing.....
tons of stuff would be distorted as well

I'm sorry, but as a scientist I do not truck in possibilities.

As a scientist, you should be well aware of the term "scientific method". Therefore please detail your proof of the claim of something called an antimoon.

It is used as a critical element in a theory that is used to prove the FE model. You claim to be a scientist who believes in the FE model. Therefore as a scientist detail in a scientific manner all proof and evidence you have for this claim.

If no evidence is provided this claim will be removed and ignored. You will then have to come up with an alternate explanation of this effect, using once again the scientific method.

Just a refresher in case it has been a while since you studied what ever you studied, here is a definition of the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

P.S. What did you study at university? What type of scientist are you? Where did you study?

Quote from: James on May 13, 2010, 07:20:51 PM

I'm sorry, but as a scientist I do not truck in possibilities.

As a scientist, you should be well aware of the term "scientific method". Therefore please detail your proof of the claim of something called an antimoon.

It is used as a critical element in a theory that is used to prove the FE model. You claim to be a scientist who believes in the FE model. Therefore as a scientist detail in a scientific manner all proof and evidence you have for this claim.

If no evidence is provided this claim will be removed and ignored. You will then have to come up with an alternate explanation of this effect, using once again the scientific method.

Just a refresher in case it has been a while since you studied what ever you studied, here is a definition of the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

P.S. What did you study at university? What type of scientist are you? Where did you study?

You should read the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe, entitled "Zetetic and Theoretic Compared and Defined" which outlines the time-honoured methodological tradition in which I work as a zetetic scientist. The so-called scientific method is a conceit of globularism, they have obviously been successful in brainwashing you into thinking that it is the only way to do science. In fact, within Philosophy of Science, there is widespread disagreement on method (consider the theses of Popper, Kuhn and Quine as examples of incommensurable philosophies of science - have you read any of those)?

Flat Earth scientists generally use what is known as the Zetetic Method, a system specifically designed to eliminate the tendency towards wild speculation which most globular theorists succumb to.

I am afraid I must also reject your demand for my personal details. Since I have been harrassed by the globularist Conspiracy in the past, I do not wish to divulge information which might lead to my capture by the agents of globularism.

Quote from: buka001 on May 14, 2010, 03:00:47 AM

Quote from: James on May 13, 2010, 07:20:51 PM

I'm sorry, but as a scientist I do not truck in possibilities.

As a scientist, you should be well aware of the term "scientific method". Therefore please detail your proof of the claim of something called an antimoon.

It is used as a critical element in a theory that is used to prove the FE model. You claim to be a scientist who believes in the FE model. Therefore as a scientist detail in a scientific manner all proof and evidence you have for this claim.

If no evidence is provided this claim will be removed and ignored. You will then have to come up with an alternate explanation of this effect, using once again the scientific method.

Just a refresher in case it has been a while since you studied what ever you studied, here is a definition of the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

P.S. What did you study at university? What type of scientist are you? Where did you study?

You should read the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe, entitled "Zetetic and Theoretic Compared and Defined" which outlines the time-honoured methodological tradition in which I work as a zetetic scientist. The so-called scientific method is a conceit of globularism, they have obviously been successful in brainwashing you into thinking that it is the only way to do science. In fact, within Philosophy of Science, there is widespread disagreement on method (consider the theses of Popper, Kuhn and Quine as examples of incommensurable philosophies of science - have you read any of those)?

Flat Earth scientists generally use what is known as the Zetetic Method, a system specifically designed to eliminate the tendency towards wild speculation which most globular theorists succumb to.

I am afraid I must also reject your demand for my personal details. Since I have been harrassed by the globularist Conspiracy in the past, I do not wish to divulge information which might lead to my capture by the agents of globularism.

So you are pulling a fermat, and saying take my word for it, because I don't want to prove it

If science proves you wrong, redefine science.

Quote from: James on May 14, 2010, 04:35:16 AM

Quote from: buka001 on May 14, 2010, 03:00:47 AM

Quote from: James on May 13, 2010, 07:20:51 PM

I'm sorry, but as a scientist I do not truck in possibilities.

As a scientist, you should be well aware of the term "scientific method". Therefore please detail your proof of the claim of something called an antimoon.

It is used as a critical element in a theory that is used to prove the FE model. You claim to be a scientist who believes in the FE model. Therefore as a scientist detail in a scientific manner all proof and evidence you have for this claim.

If no evidence is provided this claim will be removed and ignored. You will then have to come up with an alternate explanation of this effect, using once again the scientific method.

Just a refresher in case it has been a while since you studied what ever you studied, here is a definition of the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

P.S. What did you study at university? What type of scientist are you? Where did you study?

You should read the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe, entitled "Zetetic and Theoretic Compared and Defined" which outlines the time-honoured methodological tradition in which I work as a zetetic scientist. The so-called scientific method is a conceit of globularism, they have obviously been successful in brainwashing you into thinking that it is the only way to do science. In fact, within Philosophy of Science, there is widespread disagreement on method (consider the theses of Popper, Kuhn and Quine as examples of incommensurable philosophies of science - have you read any of those)?

Flat Earth scientists generally use what is known as the Zetetic Method, a system specifically designed to eliminate the tendency towards wild speculation which most globular theorists succumb to.

I am afraid I must also reject your demand for my personal details. Since I have been harrassed by the globularist Conspiracy in the past, I do not wish to divulge information which might lead to my capture by the agents of globularism.

So you are pulling a fermat, and saying take my word for it, because I don't want to prove it

Prove what? We are debating methods of proof here. My colleagues and I prove our cases by the superior method.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 14, 2010, 06:31:41 AM

Quote from: James on May 14, 2010, 04:35:16 AM

Quote from: buka001 on May 14, 2010, 03:00:47 AM

Quote from: James on May 13, 2010, 07:20:51 PM

I'm sorry, but as a scientist I do not truck in possibilities.

As a scientist, you should be well aware of the term "scientific method". Therefore please detail your proof of the claim of something called an antimoon.

It is used as a critical element in a theory that is used to prove the FE model. You claim to be a scientist who believes in the FE model. Therefore as a scientist detail in a scientific manner all proof and evidence you have for this claim.

If no evidence is provided this claim will be removed and ignored. You will then have to come up with an alternate explanation of this effect, using once again the scientific method.

Just a refresher in case it has been a while since you studied what ever you studied, here is a definition of the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

P.S. What did you study at university? What type of scientist are you? Where did you study?

You should read the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe, entitled "Zetetic and Theoretic Compared and Defined" which outlines the time-honoured methodological tradition in which I work as a zetetic scientist. The so-called scientific method is a conceit of globularism, they have obviously been successful in brainwashing you into thinking that it is the only way to do science. In fact, within Philosophy of Science, there is widespread disagreement on method (consider the theses of Popper, Kuhn and Quine as examples of incommensurable philosophies of science - have you read any of those)?

Flat Earth scientists generally use what is known as the Zetetic Method, a system specifically designed to eliminate the tendency towards wild speculation which most globular theorists succumb to.

I am afraid I must also reject your demand for my personal details. Since I have been harrassed by the globularist Conspiracy in the past, I do not wish to divulge information which might lead to my capture by the agents of globularism.

So you are pulling a fermat, and saying take my word for it, because I don't want to prove it

Prove what? We are debating methods of proof here. My colleagues and I prove our cases by the superior method.

Which for some odd reason never yielded one complete theory of anything or working map, and hasn't been published anywhere. I'm saying that I don't believe that you've been harassed by any conspiracy, without pix. How do I not know that you aren't lying, mistaken, and or deranged?

Hold on a sec....

Isn't FET FILLED with wild speculation?
I am pretty sure it is.

Hold on a sec....

Isn't FET FILLED with wild speculation?
I am pretty sure it is.

Noooo! There is plenty of evidence for the anti-moon, dangerous moon rays, lunar animals, attack birds, the conspiracy, the ice wall, (bendy light), dinosaurs 5.000 years old, a flat moon, space flight etc.

Quote from: The Question1 on May 14, 2010, 02:03:51 PM

Hold on a sec....

Isn't FET FILLED with wild speculation?
I am pretty sure it is.

Noooo! There is plenty of evidence for the anti-moon, dangerous moon rays, lunar animals, attack birds, the conspiracy, the ice wall, (bendy light), dinosaurs 5.000 years old, a flat moon, space flight etc.

There is evidence for all of these things.  You just have to view the problem zetetically to see that, something you refuse to do.

Quote from: Catchpa on May 14, 2010, 05:15:02 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on May 14, 2010, 02:03:51 PM

Hold on a sec....

Isn't FET FILLED with wild speculation?
I am pretty sure it is.

Noooo! There is plenty of evidence for the anti-moon, dangerous moon rays, lunar animals, attack birds, the conspiracy, the ice wall, (bendy light), dinosaurs 5.000 years old, a flat moon, space flight etc.

There is evidence for all of these things.  You just have to view the problem zetetically to see that, something you refuse to do.

So you admit that FET is not science then.