I'm impressed.

  • 52 Replies
  • 6190 Views
?

Gerald123

I'm impressed.
« on: February 02, 2011, 08:38:47 PM »
I must say these are some of the most airtight arguments I have ever seen. These quotes are from the FAQ section that I found especially interesting.

"Q: 'NASA and other world space agencies have pictures of the Earth from space, and in those pictures the Earth is clearly a globe; in this day and age, hasn't it been proven beyond any doubt that the Earth is round?'
A: NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.  The pictures are faked using simple imaging software."

"Q: 'Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?'
A: Only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.  Also, nobody has been to the edge of the Earth and lived; conditions on the Ice Wall get increasingly treacherous the further you get out, and navigation methods become unreliable that far south.  It is also possible that the Conspiracy is guarding the edge to prevent people from getting too close to the truth."

"Q: 'If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?'
A: Well it's quite simple really; if the Earth is in fact flat, then the space agencies must be lying when they say it isn't."


Ahah! Millions of people are involved in this conspiracy and somehow not one of them has defected or put forth any information regarding the existence.


"Q: 'No one could possibly pull off such a conspiracy successfully.'
A: Actually, they could."

Well there ya go! Irrefutable evidence that such a large scale conspiracy can and is being pulled off.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2011, 09:05:22 PM »
Incredible! With just this one post I am now ready to cast off the oppressive globularist conspiracy and open my eyes to the truth!
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2011, 09:12:16 PM »
The FAQ provides answers to commonly asked questions. It doesn't claim to provide "irrefutable evidence".
« Last Edit: February 02, 2011, 09:21:27 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2011, 09:29:30 AM »
The FAQ provides answers to commonly asked questions. It doesn't claim to provide "irrefutable evidence".

Tom. Who prepared the answers to the FAQs? The answers may not be irrefutable but they surely claim to provide facts? Or is it simple conjecture?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2011, 10:07:10 AM »
The FAQ provides answers to commonly asked questions. It doesn't claim to provide "irrefutable evidence".

Tom. Who prepared the answers to the FAQs? The answers may not be irrefutable but they surely claim to provide facts? Or is it simple conjecture?

The FAQ presents our views on what we believe is true.

Our beliefs don't necessarily have to be testable. For example; If we wrote that we believe that the FE universe is infinite in dimension we shouldn't be expected to demonstrate that it is infinite. Testing the infinite extent of the universe is untestable. We don't own a craft that can travel an infinite distance, nor do we have the lifespans or resources to test such a thing.The FAQ is a representation of our beliefs; not a collection of "irrefutable evidence".
« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 10:09:39 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2011, 10:40:37 AM »
If your goal were to convince a skeptic, then yes you would need to demonstrate the things you believe to be true.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2011, 02:03:46 PM »
The FAQ provides answers to commonly asked questions. It doesn't claim to provide "irrefutable evidence".

Tom. Who prepared the answers to the FAQs? The answers may not be irrefutable but they surely claim to provide facts? Or is it simple conjecture?

The FAQ presents our views on what we believe is true.

Sounds a bit like religion. Ho hum.

Our beliefs don't necessarily have to be testable. For example; If we wrote that we believe that the FE universe is infinite in dimension we shouldn't be expected to demonstrate that it is infinite. Testing the infinite extent of the universe is untestable. We don't own a craft that can travel an infinite distance, nor do we have the lifespans or resources to test such a thing.The FAQ is a representation of our beliefs; not a collection of "irrefutable evidence".

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2011, 02:33:46 PM »
Quote
If your goal were to convince a skeptic, then yes you would need to demonstrate the things you believe to be true.

The purpose of the FAQ isn't to convince a skeptic; it's to answer Frequently Asked Questions.

Sounds a bit like religion. Ho hum.

Holding beliefs about something isn't unique to religion.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 03:20:50 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2011, 02:43:29 PM »
Agreed but... a belief in something untestable, for instance the existence of a god, is a common theme in religions. Or so I understand matters. So I stand by what I said, ie that it sounds a bit like religion.

Anyone for Scrabble?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2011, 03:22:29 PM »
Agreed but... a belief in something untestable, for instance the existence of a god, is a common theme in religions. Or so I understand matters. So I stand by what I said, ie that it sounds a bit like religion.

What about Gravitons? No one has seen a Graviton. Their existence hasn't been tested or confirmed. Yet quantum physcists believe that they exist and that these "puller particles" are responsible for gravity.

Lots of undiscovered phantom stuff like that is believed to exist.

Modern Science must be a religion as well, right?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 03:26:28 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2011, 03:38:49 PM »
Agreed but... a belief in something untestable, for instance the existence of a god, is a common theme in religions. Or so I understand matters. So I stand by what I said, ie that it sounds a bit like religion.

What about Gravitons? No one has seen a Graviton. Their existence hasn't been tested or confirmed. Yet quantum physcists believe that they exist and that these "puller particles" are responsible for gravity.

Lots of undiscovered phantom stuff like that is believed to exist.

Modern Science must be a religion as well, right?

I did not say FET *is* a religion, only that it sounds a bit like one. Jeez, Tom. Modern science does have that element as well, in the sense that the folk at CERN et al are searching for particles they *believe* to exist.

Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2011, 03:42:58 PM »
Agreed but... a belief in something untestable, for instance the existence of a god, is a common theme in religions. Or so I understand matters. So I stand by what I said, ie that it sounds a bit like religion.

What about Gravitons? No one has seen a Graviton. Their existence hasn't been tested or confirmed. Yet quantum physcists believe that they exist and that these "puller particles" are responsible for gravity.

Lots of undiscovered phantom stuff like that is believed to exist.

Modern Science must be a religion as well, right?

Not really the Higgs Boson (which is an exchange particle) is the last particle to be measured that would fit into the theory.

The theory also predicts other particles, all of which have been observed after prediction.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41860
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2011, 03:43:23 PM »
What about Gravitons? No one has seen a Graviton. Their existence hasn't been tested or confirmed. Yet quantum physcists believe that they exist and that these "puller particles" are responsible for gravity.  

Actually, quantum physicists have developed a model that suggests the existence of gravitons.  Whether they believe in gravitons or not is irrelevant.  Just like Albert Einstein developed a model that suggested an expanding universe which he did not believe in.
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.

Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2011, 03:45:20 PM »
I can't get the hang of responding with quotes.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2011, 05:20:27 PM »
Incredible! With just this one post I am now ready to cast off the oppressive globularist conspiracy and open my eyes to the truth!

I am so glad to hear you say this! I suggest that you celebration of this event, you read the fantastic scientific journal, "Earth Not a Globe".

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2011, 05:45:08 PM »
What about Gravitons? No one has seen a Graviton. Their existence hasn't been tested or confirmed. Yet quantum physcists believe that they exist and that these "puller particles" are responsible for gravity.  

Actually, quantum physicists have developed a model that suggests the existence of gravitons.  Whether they believe in gravitons or not is irrelevant.  Just like Albert Einstein developed a model that suggested an expanding universe which he did not believe in.

Albert Einstein didn't believe in the visual observations that the stars were expanding away from each other?  ???
« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 06:00:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2011, 06:33:51 PM »
I must say these are some of the most airtight arguments I have ever seen. These quotes are from the FAQ section that I found especially interesting.

"Q: 'NASA and other world space agencies have pictures of the Earth from space, and in those pictures the Earth is clearly a globe; in this day and age, hasn't it been proven beyond any doubt that the Earth is round?'
A: NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.  The pictures are faked using simple imaging software."

"Q: 'Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?'
A: Only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.  Also, nobody has been to the edge of the Earth and lived; conditions on the Ice Wall get increasingly treacherous the further you get out, and navigation methods become unreliable that far south.  It is also possible that the Conspiracy is guarding the edge to prevent people from getting too close to the truth."

"Q: 'If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?'
A: Well it's quite simple really; if the Earth is in fact flat, then the space agencies must be lying when they say it isn't."


Ahah! Millions of people are involved in this conspiracy and somehow not one of them has defected or put forth any information regarding the existence.


"Q: 'No one could possibly pull off such a conspiracy successfully.'
A: Actually, they could."

Well there ya go! Irrefutable evidence that such a large scale conspiracy can and is being pulled off.
I see what you did there.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41860
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2011, 07:47:40 PM »
What about Gravitons? No one has seen a Graviton. Their existence hasn't been tested or confirmed. Yet quantum physcists believe that they exist and that these "puller particles" are responsible for gravity.  

Actually, quantum physicists have developed a model that suggests the existence of gravitons.  Whether they believe in gravitons or not is irrelevant.  Just like Albert Einstein developed a model that suggested an expanding universe which he did not believe in.

Albert Einstein didn't believe in the visual observations that the stars were expanding away from each other?  ???

Edwin Hubble's observations were made after Einstein predicted an expanding universe. 
Quote from: http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ExpandUni.html
Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which established the relationship between matter, space, time and gravity, governs modern cosmology's view of the universe. But when Einstein began to apply his theory to the structure of the universe, he was dismayed to find that it predicted either an expanding or contracting universe--something entirely incompatible with the prevailing notion of a static universe. In what he would later call "the greatest blunder of my life," Einstein added a term called the cosmological constant to his equations that would make his calculations consistent with a static universe.

Einstein admitted his mistake in 1929 when Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were, indeed, receding from the earth, and the further away they were,the faster they were moving. That discovery changed cosmology.
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2011, 11:44:04 AM »
What about Gravitons? No one has seen a Graviton. Their existence hasn't been tested or confirmed. Yet quantum physcists believe that they exist and that these "puller particles" are responsible for gravity.

Lots of undiscovered phantom stuff like that is believed to exist.

Modern Science must be a religion as well, right?

I did not say FET *is* a religion, only that it sounds a bit like one. Jeez, Tom. Modern science does have that element as well, in the sense that the folk at CERN et al are searching for particles they *believe* to exist.

If Modern Science also has that element of a belief of the unobserved, then logically, Modern Science sounds like a religion as well, right?

So what's the point of bringing religion into this topic except to troll this thread?

Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2011, 01:13:30 PM »
Mentioning religion was an aside. I realise now that equating FET to religion in any way is liable to cause offence but it is not trolling.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2011, 01:35:22 PM »
Lots of undiscovered phantom stuff like that is believed to exist.

Nope. Lots of undiscovered phantom stuff is suggested to exist but may not, and is not necessary to exist for existing theories to be true.

And you were doing so well.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41860
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2011, 04:08:58 PM »
If Modern Science also has that element of a belief of the unobserved, then logically, Modern Science sounds like a religion as well, right?

Nope.  Modern science is willing to admit when it's proven wrong.  Religion isn't.  And neither is FET, apparently.
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2011, 05:48:41 PM »
If Modern Science also has that element of a belief of the unobserved, then logically, Modern Science sounds like a religion as well, right?

Nope.  Modern science is willing to admit when it's proven wrong.  Religion isn't.  And neither is FET, apparently.

Who proved FET wrong?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41860
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2011, 06:10:41 PM »
If Modern Science also has that element of a belief of the unobserved, then logically, Modern Science sounds like a religion as well, right?

Nope.  Modern science is willing to admit when it's proven wrong.  Religion isn't.  And neither is FET, apparently.

Who proved FET wrong?

I rest my case.
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.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #24 on: February 05, 2011, 06:34:28 AM »
Who proved FET wrong?

I think if you want modern science to be proven wrong, then you have to prove RET wrong. Protip for ya there kidda.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2011, 09:12:22 AM »
Who proved FET wrong?

I think if you want modern science to be proven wrong, then you have to prove RET wrong. Protip for ya there kidda.

We already have. Read Earth Not a Globe.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2011, 09:16:31 AM »
Who proved FET wrong?

I think if you want modern science to be proven wrong, then you have to prove RET wrong. Protip for ya there kidda.

We already have. Read Earth Not a Globe.

I have. It mostly involves looking at oranges and girls in short skirts.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41860
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2011, 10:34:40 AM »
Who proved FET wrong?

I think if you want modern science to be proven wrong, then you have to prove RET wrong. Protip for ya there kidda.

We already have. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Just like Chariots of the Gods proved that the earth has been visited by ancient aliens, right Tom?
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.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2011, 11:38:06 AM »
Who proved FET wrong?

I think if you want modern science to be proven wrong, then you have to prove RET wrong. Protip for ya there kidda.

We already have. Read Earth Not a Globe.

That's right. It complete clears the whole thing up, hangs it out to dry and then folds it neatly in a pile reading for pressing.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2011, 11:40:45 AM »
Who proved FET wrong?

I think if you want modern science to be proven wrong, then you have to prove RET wrong. Protip for ya there kidda.

We already have. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Just like Chariots of the Gods proved that the earth has been visited by ancient aliens, right Tom?

Did the author conduct any experiments to demonstrate his premise for ancient alien visits like Samuel Birley Rowbotham did to demonstrate his premise of a flat earth? If so, then yes.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2011, 11:50:36 AM by Tom Bishop »