Flat earth??

Quote from: Horatio on January 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2011, 11:36:47 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2011, 11:27:47 AM

That's funny.  Manned and unmanned space flight has been repeated and verified, yet does not constitute valid evidence as far as FE'ers are concerned.  I wonder why that is.

That would be because they are being falsified.

How do you know that the book is not falsified?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2011, 10:56:13 AM

the trials in Earth Not a Globe have been repeated and verified

There is a lot of money to be made by having unique knowledge about earth. Knowledge is power and power is money.

Quote from: Horatio on January 13, 2011, 09:42:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2011, 08:50:28 AM

Quote from: kev on January 12, 2011, 02:31:13 PM

ok, so round earth is a myth, but how do we know the earth is flat

We read the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

That does not constitute valid evidence.

As the trials in Earth Not a Globe have been repeated and verified, it does.

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2011, 12:04:54 PM

Tom, which is easier to falsify, a few experiments in one book (which predates space flight by almost 100 years) or all of data, technology, photographs and science from all of the world's various space programs?

It's easier to fake a space mission than to conduct one.

Flat Earthers also have a very hard time distinguishing between real images and photoshopped images.

Markjo and Romer ---- two irritating trolls from the RE side of the track that probably should be banned.

But they probably won't ban you, I GUESS it's not your fault, you've just swallowed the fecal matter that NASA and the science community have spewed.

But remember this, they laughed at old Al at first.  He was laughed at for over 30 years when he first said that the continents were drifting.   

Read it and weep, round-headed round earthers:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2011, 01:07:00 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2011, 12:04:54 PM

Tom, which is easier to falsify, a few experiments in one book (which predates space flight by almost 100 years) or all of data, technology, photographs and science from all of the world's various space programs?

It's easier to fake a space mission than to conduct one.

That isn't what I asked you.  Do I need to invoke the rif.org link?

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2011, 07:01:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2011, 01:07:00 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2011, 12:04:54 PM

Tom, which is easier to falsify, a few experiments in one book (which predates space flight by almost 100 years) or all of data, technology, photographs and science from all of the world's various space programs?

It's easier to fake a space mission than to conduct one.

That isn't what I asked you.  Do I need to invoke the rif.org link?

You asked me if it was easier to fake a space program or whether it was easier to run a space program.

The answer is that it's easier to fake one.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2011, 09:07:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2011, 07:01:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2011, 01:07:00 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2011, 12:04:54 PM

Tom, which is easier to falsify, a few experiments in one book (which predates space flight by almost 100 years) or all of data, technology, photographs and science from all of the world's various space programs?

It's easier to fake a space mission than to conduct one.

That isn't what I asked you.  Do I need to invoke the rif.org link?

You asked me if it was easier to fake a space program or whether it was easier to run a space program.

The answer is that it's easier to fake one.

No Tom, I asked you if it's easier to fake a book or to fake a space program.

Quote from: markjo on January 15, 2011, 09:10:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2011, 09:07:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2011, 07:01:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2011, 01:07:00 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2011, 12:04:54 PM

Tom, which is easier to falsify, a few experiments in one book (which predates space flight by almost 100 years) or all of data, technology, photographs and science from all of the world's various space programs?

It's easier to fake a space mission than to conduct one.

That isn't what I asked you.  Do I need to invoke the rif.org link?

You asked me if it was easier to fake a space program or whether it was easier to run a space program.

The answer is that it's easier to fake one.

No Tom, I asked you if it's easier to fake a book or to fake a space program.

I can fact-check and verify the claims of ENAG, which I and others have done. I can verify the claims of a space program for between a million and 150 dollars, depending on my method.

So the answer is that it's much easier to fake reality than it is to fake a book.

So the answer is that it's much easier to fake a space program than it is to fake reality.

And Tom, as I've told you several times without response, refraction caused those results.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2011, 09:12:44 PM

So the answer is that it's much easier to fake a space program than it is to fake reality.

Since when is a book reality?

Quote from: doyh on January 15, 2011, 09:20:14 PM

And Tom, as I've told you several times without response, refraction caused those results.

It's absurd to say that a chance mirage pops up in front of the observer every time the experiment is performed, projecting an image of the observed body at the exact height it needs to be in the air if the earth were a globe.

Quote from: markjo on January 15, 2011, 09:24:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2011, 09:12:44 PM

So the answer is that it's much easier to fake a space program than it is to fake reality.

Since when is a book reality?

When it was repeated and verified.

As I recall, the exact same results were not achieved every single time that the Bedford Levels experiment (or variations thereof) was performed.

Have you been to England to personally repeat and verify the Bedford Levels experiment?

Quote from: doyh on January 15, 2011, 09:20:14 PM

And Tom, as I've told you several times without response, refraction caused those results.

It's absurd to say that a chance mirage pops up in front of the observer every time the experiment is performed, projecting an image of the observed body at the exact height it needs to be in the air to simulate a flat earth.

Quote

As I recall, the exact same results were not achieved every single time that the Bedford Levels experiment (or variations thereof) was performed.

As I recall, they were.

Quote

Have you been to England to personally repeat and verify the Bedford Levels experiment?

I've repeated and verified the water-convexity experiment. The experiment is not location-specific.

Who mentioned mirages?

Because you were so close to the water, refraction caused the light from your camera to "bend", causing you to take the pictures you got. Try repeating the experiment higher up.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2011, 10:25:38 PM

Quote

As I recall, the exact same results were not achieved every single time that the Bedford Levels experiment (or variations thereof) was performed.

As I recall, they were.

Then why was there such a controversy when Wallace and Hampden repeated the experiment?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2011, 10:25:38 PM

Quote

Have you been to England to personally repeat and verify the Bedford Levels experiment?

I've repeated and verified the water-convexity experiment. The experiment is not location-specific.

In other words, no.  Thank you.

Quote from: doyh

Because you were so close to the water, refraction caused the light from your camera to "bend", causing you to take the pictures you got. Try repeating the experiment higher up.

So a mirage appears every time the experiment is performed, and projects bodies from beneath the horizon into the air, to the exact altitude they would need to be - no lower and no higher - to simulate how things should be on a flat earth?

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2011, 08:46:51 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2011, 10:25:38 PM

Quote

As I recall, the exact same results were not achieved every single time that the Bedford Levels experiment (or variations thereof) was performed.

As I recall, they were.

Then why was there such a controversy when Wallace and Hampden repeated the experiment?

Because they bet each other a year's worth of pay over the correct result.

Quote from: markjo

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2011, 10:25:38 PM

Quote

Have you been to England to personally repeat and verify the Bedford Levels experiment?

I've repeated and verified the water-convexity experiment. The experiment is not location-specific.

In other words, no.  Thank you.

The water-convexity tests are not location specific. It is not necessary to travel to England to perform the experiment when there is plenty of water in the US.

Quote from: Horatio on January 13, 2011, 12:01:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2011, 11:57:53 AM

Quote from: Horatio on January 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2011, 11:36:47 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2011, 11:27:47 AM

That's funny.  Manned and unmanned space flight has been repeated and verified, yet does not constitute valid evidence as far as FE'ers are concerned.  I wonder why that is.

That would be because they are being falsified.

How do you know that the book is not falsified?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2011, 10:56:13 AM

the trials in Earth Not a Globe have been repeated and verified

Kind of like spaceflight. Numerous amateurs have tracked, and even communicated with, such missions.

Who did?

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2011, 12:04:54 PM

Tom, which is easier to falsify, a few experiments in one book (which predates space flight by almost 100 years) or all of data, technology, photographs and science from all of the world's various space programs?

It's easier to fake a space mission than to conduct one.

Mirages are common when the air is calm and a significant temperature gradient near the water surface occurs.  Precisely the conditions that Rowbotham described for the BLE.

Then would you please provide detailed documentation of your water convexity experiments?  I have personally tried a water convexity experiment across Lake Ontario where several of the tallest buildings in Toronto are know to be visible.  I was unable to see them.

Then would you please provide detailed documentation of your water convexity experiments? 

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2011, 12:13:59 PM

Then would you please provide detailed documentation of your water convexity experiments?

Quote

Mirages are common when the air is calm and a significant temperature gradient near the water surface occurs.  Precisely the conditions that Rowbotham described for the BLE.

So in Lady Blount's Trials a mirage appeared in front of the observer and projected an image of the body exactly 20 feet into the air, no higher and no lower, as to simulate a flat earth?

Quite the coincidence that these seamless mirages are appearing exactly when observers are conducting the experiment, and projecting bodies to the perfect height they need to be, even accounting for the observer's position in relation to the body, as the dip of the RE's curvature increases with distance, all to trick people into thinking that the earth was flat.

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2011, 12:13:59 PM

Then would you please provide detailed documentation of your water convexity experiments?  I have personally tried a water convexity experiment across Lake Ontario where several of the tallest buildings in Toronto are know to be visible.  I was unable to see them.

Why weren't you able to see them if they were known to be visible?

A foggy day isn't evidence of a Round Earth.

Quote from: General Disarray on January 17, 2011, 12:20:55 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2011, 12:13:59 PM

Then would you please provide detailed documentation of your water convexity experiments?

I've provided detailed descriptions of the experiment many times already on these forums. Markjo has seen them.

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse.