Give me real proof.

Lurk moar, noob.

By lurking I would have to be not posting and just looking around.

Yes, and that is exactly what you should continue doing. Random appeals to authority or antiquity (or absurdity) won't get you far.

I'm simply stating what I've seen and read. The proof is that Earth is round.

Then maybe you should read over the evidence* in the forum; there's plenty of it**.

* not actually evidence

** by plenty, I mean none

But you get the point.  You won't get far without reading what's on the site, at least what's in the FAQ.  You look like an idiot when you demand proof that the Earth is flat when you don't bother to take 5 minutes to read through the FAQ (which happens to contain a lot of what FE'ers claim as 'evidence').

100% Round Earth.  I'm just trying to get some noobs to add some quasi-intelligent ideas/arguments to the site; to do so, the first step is generally to learn the general arguments of the side you oppose.

If you're going to be a douche bag, can you do it in an entertaining or interesting way? Coloured text doesn't cut it. I haven't been here for very long, but I've already seen dozens of noobs, thinking they're the only sane person on the forum, posting exactly like you do.

My dear sir, I never said I was sane. I simply put out there that these theorys you have of the "flat earth" or whoever belives them are astronomically incorrect and easily disproven. And space shrimp!? I mean come on, that has insane written all over it. And lunar radiation, which is aswell false. If you wish to debate this in a more complex manner instead of babbling on, I would like to speek to any one in private. Particulary a very old member.

Please make your posts readable, douche.

Noob be mad. Noob needs some soothing moondust to chillax, methinks.

Noob be mad. Noob needs some soothing moondust to chillax, methinks.

Moondust is only safe in a darkroom. If you allow light to fall upon it, the reflections can cause moonburn after 30 minutes' exposure, or worse after longer.

Also space shrimp.

By lurking I would have to be not posting and just looking around. That won't happen, you see it's come to my attention that a bunch of people -such as yourself- are here trying to make valid arguments about the Earth being flat. You guys -from what I've read- seem to have no basis on the "flat" Earth. You continuosly try to disprove the hard work of people much smarter than you guys. Hubble, ptolemy, and copernicus. How many of you people here actually have Ph/Ds in this feild or the study of goeology and astro physics?

Jumping to conclusions?  Making many assumptions?  How about you post a few 'facts' if you really believe the earth is round instead of trying resorting to belittlement?

Quote from: Tofu on May 06, 2011, 10:17:33 PM

Noob be mad. Noob needs some soothing moondust to chillax, methinks.

Moondust is only safe in a darkroom. If you allow light to fall upon it, the reflections can cause moonburn after 30 minutes' exposure, or worse after longer.

can you provide any evidence for moon burn please? I have searched the site, but there is nothing outside of your posts to be found, and I need some othe back up evidence, otherwise it is jus tone persone word for it!!

Quote from: Parsifal on May 06, 2011, 10:28:38 PM

Quote from: Tofu on May 06, 2011, 10:17:33 PM

Noob be mad. Noob needs some soothing moondust to chillax, methinks.

Moondust is only safe in a darkroom. If you allow light to fall upon it, the reflections can cause moonburn after 30 minutes' exposure, or worse after longer.

can you provide any evidence for moon burn please? I have searched the site, but there is nothing outside of your posts to be found, and I need some othe back up evidence, otherwise it is jus tone persone word for it!!

Where has this moon burn been discussed or mentioned?  I myself have never heard of it.  Moonshrimp on the other hand...

can you provide any evidence for moon burn please? I have searched the site, but there is nothing outside of your posts to be found, and I need some othe back up evidence, otherwise it is jus tone persone word for it!!

Please refer to Brother Ichimaru's research on the harmful effects of moonlight:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36906.0

Please refer to Brother Ichimaru's research on the harmful questionable effects of moonlight:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36906.0

Fixed

Sorry, douche, but you aren't any more important than any of the new members, and we can't waste our time explaining our theories to everyone who comes in asking.

Quote from: john_hand on May 07, 2011, 01:58:55 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 06, 2011, 10:28:38 PM

Quote from: Tofu on May 06, 2011, 10:17:33 PM

Noob be mad. Noob needs some soothing moondust to chillax, methinks.

Moondust is only safe in a darkroom. If you allow light to fall upon it, the reflections can cause moonburn after 30 minutes' exposure, or worse after longer.

can you provide any evidence for moon burn please? I have searched the site, but there is nothing outside of your posts to be found, and I need some othe back up evidence, otherwise it is jus tone persone word for it!!

Where has this moon burn been discussed or mentioned?  I myself have never heard of it.  Moonshrimp on the other hand...

Good example of being blind to facts. I bolded it in my post so you can ignore it again.

Quote from: john_hand on May 07, 2011, 01:58:55 AM

can you provide any evidence for moon burn please? I have searched the site, but there is nothing outside of your posts to be found, and I need some othe back up evidence, otherwise it is jus tone persone word for it!!

Please refer to Brother Ichimaru's research on the harmful effects of moonlight:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36906.0

These are threads on this forum with no external reference or verification, they have never been substantiated

These are threads on this forum with no external reference or verification, they have never been substantiated

Brother Ichimaru has described the experiments he carried out in detail. If you are concerned that they have never been validated by a third party, please feel free to perform them yourself.

Ichimaru is not a scientist, and the methodologies described do not conform to what is accepted as viable scientific research that stands up to external scrutiny

you are failing, again, to provide any evidence from outside of this forum, which, as you would admit, from a scientific perspective, is slightly biased, and by no means verified, or accepted

Ichimaru is not a scientist, and the methodologies described do not conform to what is accepted as viable scientific research that stands up to external scrutiny

you are failing, again, to provide any evidence from outside of this forum, which, as you would admit, from a scientific perspective, is slightly biased, and by no means verified, or accepted

We use the zetetic method, not the scientific method. We believe that the scientific method causes unintentional bias.

We use the zetetic method, not the scientific method. We believe that the scientific method causes unintentional bias.

this is pure gold. so, the zetetic isn't scientific? so scientific research isn't inquiring, investigating, and proceeding by inquiry or investigation? lol, you really know your stuff

Quote from: john_hand on May 08, 2011, 03:47:14 AM

Ichimaru is not a scientist, and the methodologies described do not conform to what is accepted as viable scientific research that stands up to external scrutiny

you are failing, again, to provide any evidence from outside of this forum, which, as you would admit, from a scientific perspective, is slightly biased, and by no means verified, or accepted

We use the zetetic method, not the scientific method. We believe that the scientific method causes unintentional bias.

Is that why James calls himself a scientist, because he is unintentionally biased?

Quote from: Tausami on May 08, 2011, 07:09:01 AM

We use the zetetic method, not the scientific method. We believe that the scientific method causes unintentional bias.

this is pure gold. so, the zetetic isn't scientific? so scientific research isn't inquiring, investigating, and proceeding by inquiry or investigation? lol, you really know your stuff

im all about bieng open minded and al that fun stuff. but in all honesty most scientists havent heard of zetetic method. perhaps if they opened there minds and looked into it more they would use it. im not sure about if scientific or zetetic method is right but all i know is that alot of scientists revise there opinions alot and if that looks like flipflopping it reflects poorly on the scientific method!