A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century

  • 103 Replies
  • 17734 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #30 on: January 01, 2012, 04:40:36 PM »
Quote from: clocktower
So if NASA says the earth is round, then you can dismiss them.

If you say the picture is at LoC, then we can dismiss your claim too.

The topic wasn't about dismissal. The topic was about who's responsibility it was to spend money on demand.

I contend that I don't have to spend time and money to acquire the picture from the Library of Congress just as RE'ers don't have to spend money to send me on the ISS.

Quote from: squevil
my post wasnt posted properly and my post was inside the text. basicly tom why dont you just provide us with pictures from your experiments. you only post your own words or 3rd party evidence

Again, you guys seem to want us to invest time and money to perform special experiments at your demand. I am not your lapdog. If you want special experiments done to do things like map the world, cross the antarctic tundras, or whatever else you guys constantly demand, you're going to have to provide the funds yourself.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 04:42:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #31 on: January 01, 2012, 04:43:40 PM »
all you had to do was take a shot down your telescope. 3rd party = zetetic? it would be so difficult to show some of your own findings would it. i suspect all your evidence comes from other people and your a hypocrite

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #32 on: January 01, 2012, 04:44:17 PM »
You don't perform the exact experiments we want you to perform. I can understand that. But what experiments do you perform, exactly? Most flat earthers reference cherry picked imaginative theories or point to a book that was written over a hundred years ago by a con-artist. None of you have done any real research and its quite obvious you don't intend to.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #33 on: January 01, 2012, 04:46:31 PM »
You don't perform the exact experiments we want you to perform. I can understand that. But what experiments do you perform, exactly? Most flat earthers reference cherry picked imaginative theories or point to a book that was written over a hundred years ago by a con-artist. None of you have done any real research and its quite obvious you don't intend to.

and thats my point its neither zetetic or scientific. if you were going to do anything SURELY you would make some proof to acompany it

Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #34 on: January 01, 2012, 04:49:51 PM »
Quote from: clocktower
So if NASA says the earth is round, then you can dismiss them.

If you say the picture is at LoC, then we can dismiss your claim too.

The topic wasn't about dismissal. The topic was about who's responsibility it was to spend money on demand.

I contend that I don't have to spend time and money to acquire the picture from the Library of Congress just as RE'ers don't have to spend money to send me on the ISS.

Quote
my post wasnt posted properly and my post was inside the text. basicly tom why dont you just provide us with pictures from your experiments. you only post your own words or 3rd party evidence

Again, you guys seem to want us to invest time and money to perform experiments at your demand. I am not your lapdog. If you want special experiments done to do things like map the world, cross the antarctic tundras, or whatever else you guys constantly demand, you're going to have to provide the funds yourself.
So you agree. We can dismiss your positions when you don't provide evidence to support it. We have no reason to believe that the photo showing what you claim exists. Thanks.

Please do stop making wild claims, like seeing beach balls across Monterey Bay, without evidence. You just waste our time.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #35 on: January 01, 2012, 04:59:14 PM »
oh nothing to say.... why am i not surprised  :-\

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #36 on: January 01, 2012, 05:13:30 PM »
You don't perform the exact experiments we want you to perform. I can understand that. But what experiments do you perform, exactly? Most flat earthers reference cherry picked imaginative theories or point to a book that was written over a hundred years ago by a con-artist. None of you have done any real research and its quite obvious you don't intend to.

Numerous experiments have been performed
« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 05:15:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #37 on: January 01, 2012, 05:16:32 PM »
You don't perform the exact experiments we want you to perform. I can understand that. But what experiments do you perform, exactly? Most flat earthers reference cherry picked imaginative theories or point to a book that was written over a hundred years ago by a con-artist. None of you have done any real research and its quite obvious you don't intend to.

The FES has performed numerous experiments: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence

A book from 1904 and a textual telescopic prediction with no pictures. I am amazed that you still manage to take yourself seriously when you argue.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #38 on: January 01, 2012, 05:19:31 PM »
A book from 1904 and a textual telescopic prediction with no pictures. I am amazed that you still manage to take yourself seriously when you argue.

Who said that pictures were necessary to prove something?

If it's not pictures, you guys will want video. And if not video you'll want the observation to be endorsed and signed off by a local physics teacher.

None of the above is necessary as evidence. Witness testimony is evidence in a court of law, and enough to convict someone to a death sentence. It is evidence enough here.

Multiple people are in agreement that the earth appears flat in a manner opposed to what is predicted by Round Earth Theory. The evidence is not circumstantial based on a single observation, but overbearing and conclusive.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 05:35:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #39 on: January 01, 2012, 05:22:56 PM »
A book from 1904 and a textual telescopic prediction with no pictures. I am amazed that you still manage to take yourself seriously when you argue.

Who said that pictures were necessary to prove something?

If it's not pictures, you guys will want video. And if not video you'll want the observation to be endorsed and signed off by a local physics teacher.

None of the above is necessary as evidence. Witness testimony is evidence in a court of law, and enough to convict people to a death sentence. It is evidence enough here.
So then John Glenn's orbit is evidence too. Hurrah, we know that far and away the evidence favors RET. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">John Glenn Mercury 7 video.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #40 on: January 01, 2012, 05:24:19 PM »
Who said that pictures were necessary to prove something?

If it's not pictures, you guys will want video. And if not video you'll want the observation to be endorsed and signed off by a local physics teacher.

None of the above is necessary as evidence. Witness testimony is evidence in a court of law, and enough to convict people to a death sentence. It is evidence enough here.

Multiple people are in agreement that the earth appears flat in a manner opposed to what is predicted to Round Earth Theory. The evidence is not circumstantial based on a single observation, but overbearing and conclusive.

Witnesses alone are never enough to convict someone, much less of the death penalty. An experiment observed by a physics professor and signed off would be a significant find. My point here is you have no intention of performing experiments. Your defense is "There is no point in doing them, you wouldn't accept it!" Therefore, I am correct in my assumption that you have no intention of performing experiments.

You don't intend to perform experiments. Argument resolved.

Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #41 on: January 01, 2012, 05:25:47 PM »
A book from 1904 and a textual telescopic prediction with no pictures. I am amazed that you still manage to take yourself seriously when you argue.

Who said that pictures were necessary to prove something?

If it's not pictures, you guys will want video. And if not video you'll want the observation to be endorsed and signed off by a local physics teacher.

None of the above is necessary as evidence. Witness testimony is evidence in a court of law, and enough to convict people to a death sentence. It is evidence enough here.

Multiple people are in agreement that the earth appears flat in a manner opposed to what is predicted to Round Earth Theory. The evidence is not circumstantial based on a single observation, but overbearing and conclusive.
Do tell us how you reached the conclusion that it was overbearing and conclusive. The number of people? Surely not, ad populum. The best evidence? Surely not, NASA photos are clearly better documented and more convincing. I really don't think you'll win that argument--ever.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #42 on: January 01, 2012, 05:28:19 PM »
i forgot my suit, i didnt realise we were in court...
there is far more evidence to support RET.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #43 on: January 01, 2012, 06:00:31 PM »
Quote from: Irushwithscvs
Witnesses alone are never enough to convict someone, much less of the death penalty.

Incorrect. Eyewitness Testimony is widely used to convict people.

There are numerous examples of people being convicted based on witness testimony here: Mitigating the dangers of capital convictions based on eyewitness testimony

Pre-1980's, before DNA testing and widespread CCTV, all convictions were almost exclusively by witness testimony. It has been that way in the justice system for hundreds of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification

    Historically, eyewitness testimony had what Brennan described as "a powerful impact on juries", who noted in his dissent that "All the evidence points rather strikingly to the conclusion that there is almost nothing more convincing to a jury than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says 'That's the one!'". Another commentator observed that the eyewitness identification of a person as a perpetrator was persuasive to jurors even when "far outweighed by evidence of innocence."

Quote from: Irushwithscvs
My point here is you have no intention of performing experiments. Your defense is "There is no point in doing them, you wouldn't accept it!" Therefore, I am correct in my assumption that you have no intention of performing experiments.

You don't intend to perform experiments. Argument resolved.

But if you had been paying attention, you would know that I did perform the water convexity experiment. Look at the first entry in the 'Further Evidence' section here.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 06:07:33 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #44 on: January 01, 2012, 06:05:38 PM »
I'm still seeing only textual evidence and some unfortunate math skills.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #45 on: January 01, 2012, 06:20:00 PM »
I'm still seeing only textual evidence and some unfortunate math skills.

The math is correct, and there are multiple independent witnesses who have seen the same thing.

The problem with NASA's evidence is that it is not corroborated by independent parties. John Glen and Neil Armstrong both work for NASA and their testimony cannot be taken as corroborating evidence by an independent source just as two friends or two sisters cannot give valid independent testimony.

No one outside of NASA has peer-reviewed Apollo. But people outside of Samuel Birley Rowbotham and The Flat Earth Society have peer reviewed that the earth is flat. Mr. Clifton and Bernard H. Watson were not Flat Earthers, yet they saw that the earth was flat.

Dr. Mark Fonstead of Texas State University has no relation to the Flat Earth Society, and yet he has demonstrated that large sections of the earth are almost perfectly flat:

Quote from: Kansas Is Flatter Than a Pancake
One common method of quantifying ‘flatness’ in geodesy is the ‘flattening’ ratio. The length of an ellipse’s (or arc’s) semi-major axis a is compared with its measured semi-minor axis b using the formula for flattening, f = (a – b) / a. A perfectly flat surface will have a flattening f of one, whereas an ellipsoid with equal axis lengths will have no flattening, and f will equal zero.

For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335.


Quote from: Kansas Is Flatter Than a Pancake
Mathematically, a value of 1.000 would indicate perfect, platonic flatness. The calculated flatness of the pancake transect from the digital image is approximately 0.957, which is pretty flat, but far from perfectly flat. The confocal laser scan showed the pancake surface to be slightly rougher, still.

Measuring the flatness of Kansas presented us with a greater challenge than measuring the flatness of the pancake. The state is so flat that the off-the-shelf software produced a flatness value for it of 1. This value was, as they say, too good to be true, so we did a more complex analysis, and after many hours of programming work, we were able to estimate that Kansas’s flatness is approximately 0.9997. That degree of flatness might be described, mathematically, as “damn flat.”

The area of Kansas is 82,264 square miles. As stated above, large sections of land on a Round Earth should have a flatness of 0.00335. This is the expected value. But Kansas is measured with a flatness of 0.9997, which makes the area of Kansas nearly mathematically flat.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 07:00:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #46 on: January 01, 2012, 06:46:41 PM »
The problem with NASA's evidence is that it is not corroborated by independent parties. John Glen and Neil Armstrong both work for NASA and their testimony cannot be taken as corroborating evidence by an independent source just as two friends or two sisters cannot give valid testimony.

No one outside of NASA has peer-reviewed Apollo. But people outside of Samuel Birley Rowbotham and The Flat Earth Society have peer reviewed that the earth is flat. Mr. Clifton and Bernard H. Watson were not Flat Earthers, yet he saw that the earth was flat.
Two friends are less reliable than one person, really Tom? Do you read what you write?

NASA has published their results in many peer-reviewed top-shelf journals. You can see rocks from the Moon. You can see a vast array of photos of demonstrating Apollo's existence and evidence.

Please document how you know that Mr. Clifton and Bernard H. Watson were not secret members of FES?

Quote
Dr. Mark Fonstead of Texas State University has no relation to the Flat Earth Society, and yet he has demonstrated that large sections of the earth are almost perfectly flat:

Quote from: Kansas Is Flatter Than a Pancake
One common method of quantifying ‘flatness’ in geodesy is the ‘flattening’ ratio. The length of an ellipse’s (or arc’s) semi-major axis a is compared with its measured semi-minor axis b using the formula for flattening, f = (a – b) / a. A perfectly flat surface will have a flattening f of one, whereas an ellipsoid with equal axis lengths will have no flattening, and f will equal zero.

For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335.


Quote from: Kansas Is Flatter Than a Pancake
Mathematically, a value of 1.000 would indicate perfect, platonic flatness. The calculated flatness of the pancake transect from the digital image is approximately 0.957, which is pretty flat, but far from perfectly flat. The confocal laser scan showed the pancake surface to be slightly rougher, still.

Measuring the flatness of Kansas presented us with a greater challenge than measuring the flatness of the pancake. The state is so flat that the off-the-shelf software produced a flatness value for it of 1. This value was, as they say, too good to be true, so we did a more complex analysis, and after many hours of programming work, we were able to estimate that Kansas’s flatness is approximately 0.9997. That degree of flatness might be described, mathematically, as “damn flat.”

The area of Kansas is 82,264 square miles. As stated above, land on a round earth should have a flatness of 0.00335, but Kansas is measured with a flatness of 0.9997, which makes the area of Kansas nearly mathematically flat.
From the reference above:

Quote from: http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335. For both Kansas and the pancake, we approximated the local ellipsoid with a second-order polynomial line fit to the cross-sections. These polynomial equations allowed us to estimate the local ellipsoid’s semi-major and semi-minor axes and thus we can calculate the flattening measure f.

That's right, Tom! The study took into account the curvature of the RE. The study supports RE! The author believes in RE!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #47 on: January 01, 2012, 06:57:02 PM »
Quote from: ClockTower
Two friends are less reliable than one person, really Tom? Do you read what you write?

That's not what I said. Two friends cannot give valid independent testimony.

The testimony of two friends is not as powerful as testimony from two unconnected people.

Quote from: ClockTower
NASA has published their results in many peer-reviewed top-shelf journals. You can see rocks from the Moon. You can see a vast array of photos of demonstrating Apollo's existence and evidence.

No one reproduced the Apollo experiments.

After the Apollo missions NASA even announced that, surprise surprise, the rocks they brought back were exactly identical in chemical and material composition to earth rocks, with the sole exception of micro-meteorite impacts (sand blasting).

Quote from: ClockTower
Please document how you know that Mr. Clifton and Bernard H. Watson were not secret members of FES?

FES does not have secret members.

Quote from: ClockTower
That's right, Tom! The study took into account the curvature of the RE. The study supports RE! The author believes in RE!

Dr. Mark Fonstead of Texas State University believes in an RE and saw an FE in the geodesy experiment, just like Mr. Clifton and Bernard Watson did in their early 1900's water convexity experiment.

None of these people were members of the Flat Earth Society. They were RE'ers who published data which suggests a flat earth.

Large sections of the earth should be curvy, but they are not. Dr. Mark Fonstead and his associates have shown that Kansas is nearly mathematically flat.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 10:24:18 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #48 on: January 01, 2012, 07:08:05 PM »
Dr. Mark Fonstead of Texas State University believes in an RE and saw an FE in the geodesy experiment, just like Mr. Clifton and Bernard Watson did in their early 1900's water convexity experiment.
Do tell us how you know Dr. Fonstead saw an FE in the geodesy experiment. He added the effect of an RE to his mathematical model that provided the article's conclusion. I do hope you read the article carefully.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #49 on: January 01, 2012, 07:13:19 PM »
No one outside of NASA has peer-reviewed Apollo.
What evidence do you have of that?

Here's a counter-example: http://www.scribd.com/doc/54246675/Apollo-7-to-11-Medical-Concerns-and-Results.

Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #50 on: January 01, 2012, 07:16:31 PM »
And where exactly is this photographic evidence?  I've been asking you to produce this photograph for years and you still haven't.  It would be an excellent addition to your wiki article.

You know where to find it. It's available at the Library of Congress. We've been over this.

If you want it, get it. Otherwise shove off.

Sorry Tom, but it doesn't work that way.  You are the one that say that the photograph is evidence therefore it's your responsibility to provide the photograph for examination.  It's not my job to track down your "evidence".
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
  • 17920
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #51 on: January 01, 2012, 07:16:41 PM »
Dr. Mark Fonstead of Texas State University believes in an RE and saw an FE in the geodesy experiment, just like Mr. Clifton and Bernard Watson did in their early 1900's water convexity experiment.
Do tell us how you know Dr. Fonstead saw an FE in the geodesy experiment. He added the effect of an RE to his mathematical model that provided the article's conclusion. I do hope you read the article carefully.

There is only one definition of flat. He does not state that he subtracted RE curvature to get a flat Kansas.

The article clearly says that Kansas is flat.

No one outside of NASA has peer-reviewed Apollo.
What evidence do you have of that?

Here's a counter-example: http://www.scribd.com/doc/54246675/Apollo-7-to-11-Medical-Concerns-and-Results.

That document is authored by someone from the Manned Spacecraft Center, a NASA facility.

Quote from: markjo
Sorry Tom, but it doesn't work that way.  You are the one that say that the photograph is evidence therefore it's your responsibility to provide the photograph for examination.  It's not my job to track down your "evidence".

I stated a material fact that early Bedford Level Experiments used photography to demonstrate that the earth was flat. If you are concerned with seeing this early evidence for yourself then you are free to acquire the photograph for your own interests.

I have no interests in flying across country and devoting the time and money necessary to tracking this down. I already know that the earth is flat. Doing that won't satisfy my curiosity.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 07:41:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #52 on: January 01, 2012, 07:30:39 PM »

There is only one definition of flat. He does not state that he subtracted RE curvature to get a flat Kansas.

The article clearly says that Kansas is flat.
False. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flat.
Again:
Quote from: http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335. For both Kansas and the pancake, we approximated the local ellipsoid with a second-order polynomial line fit to the cross-sections. These polynomial equations allowed us to estimate the local ellipsoid’s semi-major and semi-minor axes and thus we can calculate the flattening measure f.

No one outside of NASA has peer-reviewed Apollo.
Quote
What evidence do you have of that?

Here's a counter-example: http://www.scribd.com/doc/54246675/Apollo-7-to-11-Medical-Concerns-and-Results.

That article is authored by someone from the Manned Spacecraft Center, a NASA facility.

And presented for peer review at that conference. Do pay attention.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #53 on: January 01, 2012, 07:32:00 PM »

There is only one definition of flat. He does not state that he subtracted RE curvature to get a flat Kansas.

The article clearly says that Kansas is flat.
False. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flat.
Again:
Quote from: http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335. For both Kansas and the pancake, we approximated the local ellipsoid with a second-order polynomial line fit to the cross-sections. These polynomial equations allowed us to estimate the local ellipsoid’s semi-major and semi-minor axes and thus we can calculate the flattening measure f.

You seem to believe in that text that the author is subtracting earth curvature from Kansas to get his result. But in the text he says that he did the procedure for BOTH Kansas and the pancake. Obviously he isn't subtracting earth curvature from the pancake. The text clearly means something different than your interpretation.

Quote
And presented for peer review at that conference. Do pay attention.

So who went into NASA's facilities and got access to the astronauts to peer review it?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 07:39:51 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #54 on: January 01, 2012, 07:32:56 PM »
3rd party evidence!

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #55 on: January 01, 2012, 07:33:44 PM »
your a fraud and do not even practice what you preach

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #56 on: January 01, 2012, 07:37:48 PM »
Who said that we couldn't quote third party evidence?   ???

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #57 on: January 01, 2012, 08:11:02 PM »
Witness testimony ... is evidence enough here.

Only when it supports FET.


Who said that we couldn't quote third party evidence?   ???

You do, all the time. Off the top of my head, in the CubeSat thread:

Who is this "we"? I'm not seeing the telemetry data.

I'm not seeing Lady Blount's photographic evidence.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #58 on: January 01, 2012, 08:12:56 PM »
Witness testimony ... is evidence enough here.

Only when it supports FET.


Who said that we couldn't quote third party evidence?   ???

You do, all the time. Off the top of my head, in the CubeSat thread:

Who is this "we"? I'm not seeing the telemetry data.

I'm not seeing Lady Blount's photographic evidence.

If you want to see the photograph you'll have to go to the Library of Congress, just like I have to build a Cubesat or otherwise partner with a university if I want to see Cubesat Telemetry data.

I'm not obligated to help you by flying across country to the Library of Congress just like you're not obligated to help me build a Cubesat.

The Cubesat thread ended with you guys telling me to build a Cubesat and see it myself, and this thread will end with me telling you to fly to the Library of Congress and get Lady Blount's picture yourself.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 09:57:12 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: A Bedford Levels Experiment for the 21st Century
« Reply #59 on: January 01, 2012, 08:49:04 PM »
I have to build a Cubesat or otherwise partner with a university if I want to see Cubesat Telemetry data.

Nope, you don't have to. You can see real-time CubeSat telemetry on your own computer with a cheap USB device. After I pointed this out to you in that thread, you went conspicuously silent as usual.

Plus there are plenty of photos and videos freely available on the web of the telemetry being received. Can we see Blount's photographs on the web?


That is just one example. You are constantly dismissing third party evidence by saying images are edited, people are lying, etcetera. You're a hypocrite Tom. We have given you plenty of photographic evidence for free. All we're asking for is one picture.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.