Why the earth can't be flat

So why start believing in a flat earth in the first place?  I've never read a satisfactory answer to this question.  It's usually "Looks flat, must be flat" or "I read ENaG." 

What is it that's convincing?  I've seen ships disappear under the horizon, I've seen clouds disappear under the horizon, I see the sun disappear under the horizon.  I've never seen any hull restoration with the use of magnification like Rowbotham claims, and the claims about perspective don't match anything I've seen in my life.

It must be a pretty strong belief if you're willing to magic up a conspiracy to hold onto it.  Why?

Quote from: areyouguysserious on March 05, 2012, 12:35:55 PM

What in the world? Are you for real? It's with statements like that that you forever destroy any shred of credibility that you might have once had. What country do you live in? The UK, right? Well, I live in America and I can tell you without a doubt that poverty is rampant in the inner cities, also in extremely rural areas, such as on the Indian reservations where they barely eke out a living on welfare or social security. I bet it's like that in England too. You cannot be serious in expecting to be taken seriously when you talk out of your ass like that.

Nope. Poverty in America is having a secondary school education, indoor plumbing, a car, refrigeration, etc. This is in stark contrast to what poverty is in other countries. In China the poor don't having a living at all. They are impoverished.

No one in America is impoverished (unless willfully). No one is held back by a lack of literacy. The poor of America are skilled and have a much better position in life than the poor of China.

Ok I see what you're saying. You're referring to those rural Chinese folks who live in villages. They choose to live in these villages and farm, but that doesn't exclude them necessarily from having access to certain amenities. I will however concede your point. This does not, however, preclude the entire Chinese nation from being considered a first world country and an up and coming superpower. There is no need to generalize an entire nation of scientists and engineers because some of their population live in rural villages farming rice patties.

Oh and btw, the earth is round.

So why start believing in a flat earth in the first place?  I've never read a satisfactory answer to this question.  It's usually "Looks flat, must be flat" or "I read ENaG." 

What is it that's convincing?  I've seen ships disappear under the horizon, I've seen clouds disappear under the horizon, I see the sun disappear under the horizon.  I've never seen any hull restoration with the use of magnification like Rowbotham claims, and the claims about perspective don't match anything I've seen in my life.

It must be a pretty strong belief if you're willing to magic up a conspiracy to hold onto it.  Why?

Because for philosophical reasons I follow the Zetetic Method, and using that method has led me to believe that the Earth is flat.

Two: Yes, but just as with budget concerns, any lack of technology with regard to 'fakery' is compensated for by a lack of technology when it comes to presenting evidence. In other words, they had less to fake with, but a lot less to fake.

Funny, I would have thought that faking something like that, especially on such a scale, would've been more expensive in the past, and a large amount cheaper today.
Photoshop, for example, would be much cheaper, I would think, than say a large studio and assorted props for such.

Sure, but now you have to fake far more complex, high-quality videos and images than you did back in the 60s. I don't think it's proportionately much more (or less) difficult, really.

Sure, but now you have to fake far more complex, high-quality videos and images than you did back in the 60s. I don't think it's proportionately much more (or less) difficult, really.

Ah, but back then, there were very few experts on such fields.
Nowadays, there are millions of photoshop experts.
Besides; it isn't like you use one person.
Usually you would use several.
Oh, and they can always use a cheap camera.
The Government isn't well known for their quality materials.

There were plenty of experts in the field relative to the size of the field itself.

The Government isn't well known for their quality materials.

No wonder you guys are convinced they got to the Moon...

There were plenty of experts in the field relative to the size of the field itself.

Quote from: Graff on March 05, 2012, 07:10:13 PM

The Government isn't well known for their quality materials.

No wonder you guys are convinced they got to the Moon...

Fixed.
Damn emoticons...

Anywho; I mean simply that they are generally years back in a large number of their tech, yet years forward in others.
Radios are a prime example. For some reason they are insistent on ancient ones that rarely work without you jiggling it around for a while.

And I'm just saying that if NASA's supposed cameras are simple today, they were even simpler back in the 60s. Sure, it's easier to fake high-quality images now than it would have been in the 60s, but by the same token, they didn't have to fake high-quality images back then, because the technology they were using was even poorer.

And I'm just saying that if NASA's supposed cameras are simple today, they were even simpler back in the 60s. Sure, it's easier to fake high-quality images now than it would have been in the 60s, but by the same token, they didn't have to fake high-quality images back then, because the technology they were using was even poorer.

Granted, but still; why is it you can't look back at some of these older videos and find some proof in them?
One isn't proof; but a number of them might be.
You can't prove that the Chinese instance was part of the Conspiracy, but what if you found one of the same in another case?
Better yet; if you could match up such with two, it may look as though they were closely related.

On a side note; with the China case: How do you know that some political rival to the mission didn't alter the picture?

I thought it was flat when I was a child, but now I don't think so.

Granted, but still; why is it you can't look back at some of these older videos and find some proof in them?

Because those videos were faked very well.

One isn't proof; but a number of them might be.

Why, what number, and according to who?

You can't prove that the Chinese instance was part of the Conspiracy, but what if you found one of the same in another case?
Better yet; if you could match up such with two, it may look as though they were closely related.

By your reasoning, that wouldn't prove the existence of a supranational conspiracy either. The Conspiracy would not function as a conspiracy if it was so easy to find evidence of its existence.

On a side note; with the China case: How do you know that some political rival to the mission didn't alter the picture?

I don't. But if that's the case, why haven't the Chinese said as much?

Quote from: Graff on March 05, 2012, 07:48:20 PM

Granted, but still; why is it you can't look back at some of these older videos and find some proof in them?

Because those videos were faked very well.

Quote from: Graff on March 05, 2012, 07:48:20 PM

One isn't proof; but a number of them might be.

Why, what number, and according to who?

Quote from: Graff on March 05, 2012, 07:48:20 PM

You can't prove that the Chinese instance was part of the Conspiracy, but what if you found one of the same in another case?
Better yet; if you could match up such with two, it may look as though they were closely related.

By your reasoning, that wouldn't prove the existence of a supranational conspiracy either. The Conspiracy would not function as a conspiracy if it was so easy to find evidence of its existence.

Quote from: Graff on March 05, 2012, 07:48:20 PM

On a side note; with the China case: How do you know that some political rival to the mission didn't alter the picture?

I don't But if that's the case, why haven't the Chinese said as much?

That's exactly what I am saying.
If they are fake; why can't you find some evidence of such in them?

One out of hundreds wouldn't be proof. One out of five, or even ten, might be.

Then why use the Chinese example?
Isn't it too easy to find proof of such?
If it is supposedly hard to find evidence of the conspiracy; Why was it so easy in this case?

Do you honestly expect someone to admit they lied to you?

That's exactly what I am saying.
If they are fake; why can't you find some evidence of such in them?

One out of hundreds wouldn't be proof. One out of five, or even ten, might be.

Then why use the Chinese example?
Isn't it too easy to find proof of such?
If it is supposedly hard to find evidence of the conspiracy; Why was it so easy in this case?

Do you honestly expect someone to admit they lied to you?

Graff, it is obviously hard to find evidence of The Conspiracy when they don't make mistakes. It is obviously easier when they do make mistakes. I still don't see what's so problematic with that argument.

Graff, it is obviously hard to find evidence of The Conspiracy when they don't make mistakes. It is obviously easier when they do make mistakes. I still don't see what's so problematic with that argument.

The main problem is that there is no way to tell which ones are part of the Conspiracy; and which ones are just a government failure.

And I have consistently granted as much. All I am saying is that the Chinese fake shows that fakes by the ESA, NASA or the Soviets are plausible.

And I have consistently granted as much. All I am saying is that the Chinese fake shows that fakes by the ESA, NASA or the Soviets are plausible.

No, because it's not fake.

It'd be a Biblical miracle to have water appear that crystal clear with floodlights shining through it.

And I have consistently granted as much. All I am saying is that the Chinese fake shows that fakes by the ESA, NASA or the Soviets are plausible.

I never denied that they are possible.
Quite frankly; I wouldn't be surprised if half the Soviet missions were fake.
Though, I do doubt they all were.

I never denied that they are possible.
Quite frankly; I wouldn't be surprised if half the Soviet missions were fake.
Though, I do doubt they all were.

Well, that means you're more open-minded than most. This is still a point of contention between FE'ers and RE'ers, which is why such evidence is still relevant.

As Zetetics, we must assume space mission are are real.
Nasa and other space agenices don't "fake" anything.
They are just wrong about the shape.
When more Zetetics, possible from this great society, go to space,
we will know the truth, that more than likely its a giant disk.

no way, conspiracy