$100USD goes to...

...the first person to prove that there is a massive conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth.

Please explain what you mean by 'prove'.

prove? ?
[proov]  Show IPA
verb, proved, proved or prov·en, prov·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim.
2.
Law . to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will); probate.
3.
to give demonstration of by action.
4.
to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.: to prove ore.
5.
to show (oneself) to have the character or ability expected of one, esp. through one's actions.
6.
Mathematics . to verify the correctness or validity of by mathematical demonstration or arithmetical proof.
7.
Also, proof. Printing . to take a trial impression of (type, a cut, etc.).
8.
to cause (dough) to rise to the necessary lightness.
9.
Archaic . to experience.
–verb (used without object)
10.
to turn out: The experiment proved to be successful.
11.
to be found by trial or experience to be: His story proved false.
12.
(of dough) to rise to a specified lightness: Leave covered until it has proved.

Pick one that makes sense to what I said and run with it.

Yes, but to whom does one have to prove it, and acccording to what standard? There are different kinds/standards of 'proof' you know.

...the first person to prove that there is a massive conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth.

There is a lack of true believers because the government exports them to Israel. Once there, they are forced to join the cover operation Hezbollah where people are strapped to rockets and are shot at Jews thus disposing of them.

Yes, but to whom does one have to prove it, and acccording to what standard? There are different kinds/standards of 'proof' you know.

Well, you have to prove it to me since I'm offering the $100USD. I figured that would have been obvious, but I guess I have to spell it out for the SPED kids that inhabit this website. And according to what standard? You have to prove to me using REAL evidence (James' thread about the aeronautical Satanic cult thing doesn't count) that there is a conspiracy. It's not hard to figure out. I mean, since you have no real proof of it, and without real proof you can't prove a flat Earth, and without a flat Earth this website is mook, then I'll spend on $100 on a hooker. It's not unreasonable that a space program would have a star in it's logo, and I know a star looks like the pentagram, but it's a bunch of hogwash. Prove it. Anything. Do it. Send me stuff. I want to see this conspiracy. Without it, your point is invalid.

Actually, it is hard to figure out, because you are not explaining the nature, amount, degree, or strength of evidence you would consider proof. I am not psychic, nor is anyone else on this site (to my knowledge), so you are going to have to explain what standard for 'proof' you are using. There are plenty of existing rubrics or standards, so if you actually know what you're talking about, you should be able explicitly identify one (or a modification thereof).

So what you're saying is that it's impossible to prove the exsistance of TFES because it's impossible to know what everyone in the world would accept as proof?

So what you're saying is that it's impossible to prove the exsistance of TFES because it's impossible to know what everyone in the world would accept as proof?

Did you mean FET?

Quote from: sillyrob on October 18, 2010, 05:54:48 AM

So what you're saying is that it's impossible to prove the exsistance of TFES because it's impossible to know what everyone in the world would accept as proof?

Did you mean FET?

Yes I did. I understand that my typo was wrong, and that the existance of TFES is obvious, but I want proof of the FET.

So what you're saying is that it's impossible to prove the exsistance of TFES because it's impossible to know what everyone in the world would accept as proof?

No? I'm saying that if you're issuing a challenge, you need to be clear about the terms of that challenge. If you want 'proof', then you need to state what would in your view constitute 'proof'.

Arguing with sillyrob isn't worth $100 of my time.

It would take several hours to convince anyone with his learning difficulties of anything. Divide the time by $100 and I suspect it would be less than minimum wage.

Pointless thread.

Yes, but to whom does one have to prove it, and acccording to what standard? There are different kinds/standards of 'proof' you know.

How about the same standard that you would need to accept the round earth theory?

Berny
Still doesn't understand Intelligent Pulling

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on October 18, 2010, 05:32:17 AM

Yes, but to whom does one have to prove it, and acccording to what standard? There are different kinds/standards of 'proof' you know.

How about the same standard that you would need to accept the round earth theory?

Berny
Still doesn't understand Intelligent Pulling

Wow, Intelligent pulling. Never heard of that. Probably one of the funniest theories I've ever heard described though.

A good conspiracy theory is an unprovable one.

How about the same standard that you would need to accept the round earth theory?

I would accept Round Earth Theory if I saw for myself that the earth was a globe.

Ergo, using the same standards of evidence, just look out your window and you can see for yourself that the earth is a plane.

Thus, as the earth is flat NASA must be lying when they say its not.

I expect the $100 to be sent via paypal to tom.bishop@gmail.com by the end of the day.

Tom, I'd change that e-mail address to a graphic if I was you, or the spam bots are gonna have you!

Quote

How about the same standard that you would need to accept the round earth theory?

I would accept Round Earth Theory if I saw for myself that the earth was a globe.

Ergo, using the same standards of evidence, just look out your window and you can see for yourself that the earth is a plane.

Thus, as the earth is flat NASA must be lying when they say its not.

I expect the $100 to be sent via paypal to tom.bishop@gmail.com by the end of the day.

I see it's not flat, otherwise I would be able to see europe from here(canada).
Also, if you say "bendy light" that means you cannot believe everything you see, so looking out a window does not constitute proof.

Quote

How about the same standard that you would need to accept the round earth theory?

I would accept Round Earth Theory if I saw for myself that the earth was a globe.

Ergo, using the same standards of evidence, just look out your window and you can see for yourself that the earth is a plane.

Thus, as the earth is flat NASA must be lying when they say its not.

I expect the $100 to be sent via paypal to tom.bishop@gmail.com by the end of the day.

Tom, you wouldn't believe the Earth to be round, even from space, as you have stated that you expect to see a 'circular illuminated area'.

I'd also mention atoms and other such things that don't exactly work with the 'I have to see it to believe it' paradigm. Does that mean all of the Scientists out there are lying?

Finally, it is simple to see the curvature of the Earth, there are small hints everywhere. Sinking ships, traveling many kilometers and not being able to see previously distinct objects anymore, even from a couple of meters of elevation.

I see it's not flat, otherwise I would be able to see europe from here(canada).

You must have some pretty good eyesight if you expect to see a thin landmass several thousand miles away.

Also, if you say "bendy light" that means you cannot believe everything you see, so looking out a window does not constitute proof.

I don't believe in bendy light.

I don't believe in bendy light.

Do you believe in spam bots?

Tom, you wouldn't believe the Earth to be round, even from space, as you have stated that you expect to see a 'circular illuminated area'.

From the edge of the atmosphere I would expect to see some slight curvature to the horizon on a Flat Earth, the observer looking down at a circular area of light. We would be looking at a slight curved horizon.

However, from a farther distance above the earth, many thousands of miles away and looking down at the earth, like in the Apollo shots, the scene should be much different than what NASA shows us. The earth should not appear as a shaded globe, and the sun should be centered over the illuminated area beneath the craft.

In order to believe in a Round Earth I would need to see a similar scene to what NASA shows us in Apollo: a full globe.

I'd also mention atoms and other such things that don't exactly work with the 'I have to see it to believe it' paradigm. Does that mean all of the Scientists out there are lying?

No one has seen atoms. It is not a given that atoms exist. There are alternatives to atomic theory, in which matter is made of waves.

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

Finally, it is simple to see the curvature of the Earth, there are small hints everywhere. Sinking ships, traveling many kilometers and not being able to see previously distinct objects anymore, even from a couple of meters of elevation.

Read the Wiki/Earth Not a Globe for the subject of sinking ships.

From the edge of the atmosphere I would expect to see some slight curvature to the horizon on a Flat Earth, the observer looking down at a circular area of light.

However, from a farther distance above the earth, many thousands of miles away and looking down at the earth, like in the Apollo shots, the scene should be much different than what NASA shows us. The earth should not appear as a shaded globe, and the sun should be centered over the illuminated area beneath the craft.

Fair enough.

No one has seen atoms. It is not a given that atoms exist. There are alternatives to atomic theory, in which matter is made of waves.

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

Atoms are the most plausible explanation due to the abundance of evidence in their favour, similar to a Round Earth.

Read the Wiki/Earth Not a Globe for answers.

That's more about fitting a detailed and unproven description to something that is simply explained by the Earth being spherical.

Ergo, using the same standards of evidence, just look out your window and you can see for yourself that the earth is a plane.

Please post a photo of the view out your window that shows that the earth is a plane.  Preferably with some evidence that it is indeed your window.

Quote

No one has seen atoms. It is not a given that atoms exist. There are alternatives to atomic theory, in which matter is made of waves.

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

Atoms are the most plausible explanation due to the abundance of evidence in their favour, similar to a Round Earth.

How are Atoms more plausible when they have never been seen?

That's more about fitting a detailed and unproven description to something that is simply explained by the Earth being spherical.

Read the Wiki article on the topic:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon

People have been able to restore half-sunken ships with a telescope, demonstrating that they were not hidden by "hills of water," but obscured by natural perspective.

The Sinking Ship Effect is a proof for a Flat Earth.

Quote

That's more about fitting a detailed and unproven description to something that is simply explained by the Earth being spherical.

Read the Wiki article on the topic:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon

People have been able to restore half-sunken ships with a telescope, demonstrating that they were not hidden by "hills of water," but obscured by natural perspective.

The Sinking Ship Effect is a proof for a Flat Earth.

Hold on let me check...


...
...


....


Nope, can't do it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 18, 2010, 12:35:09 PM

Ergo, using the same standards of evidence, just look out your window and you can see for yourself that the earth is a plane.

Please post a photo of the view out your window that shows that the earth is a plane.  Preferably with some evidence that it is indeed your window.

I wonder how high his window is that he sees the entire earth.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 18, 2010, 01:25:05 PM

People have been able to restore half-sunken ships with a telescope, demonstrating that they were not hidden by "hills of water," but obscured by natural perspective.

The Sinking Ship Effect is a proof for a Flat Earth.

Hold on let me check...


...
...


....


Nope, can't do it.

I guess that is why there is no photos or videos about it.

Globularists have admitted that Kansas has near "perfect flatness".

Why can we not see from one end of Kansas to the other?

The article doesn't convince anyone that Kansas is so flat as to allow one to see across it. Do try harder.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 18, 2010, 01:27:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 18, 2010, 01:25:05 PM

People have been able to restore half-sunken ships with a telescope, demonstrating that they were not hidden by "hills of water," but obscured by natural perspective.

The Sinking Ship Effect is a proof for a Flat Earth.

Hold on let me check...


...
...


....


Nope, can't do it.

I guess that is why there is no photos or videos about it.

Indeed.
Or using radar.
Or radio.