Enough Beating around the bush

I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.

Have you absorbed the information in Tom Bishop's signature-links?

I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.

Look out your window.

Quote from: rad_creeper on March 03, 2012, 01:10:29 PM

I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.

Look out your window.

Okay. Why do you suggest that? Are you arguing something in the least bit relevant?

Quote from: rad_creeper on March 03, 2012, 01:10:29 PM

I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.

Look out your window.

I see trees, a parking lot, and a cloudy sky.  Now what?

Quote from: rad_creeper on March 03, 2012, 01:10:29 PM

I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.

Look out your window.

I see exactly what I'd expect on a giant sphere, due to a sharp horizon with objects like the sun and moon being obscured by it. Not what you would expect to see on a flat plane. The earth does not look flat.

I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.

I'm not sure about other posters you have encountered, but I assure you that I have beaten no bushes or around them for that matter.

Quote from: rad_creeper on March 03, 2012, 01:10:29 PM

I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.

I'm not sure about other posters you have encountered, but I assure you that I have beaten no bushes or around them for that matter.

I see what you did there, cool story bro, how about a quality post retorting his comment?

 Look out your window your five senses are the supreme beings of understanding the truth of the universe around you, we can't see air so its obviously not there, we see in color so its obvious that objects in reality are colored and their colors arent based off the reflected light that goes into and get processed by our eyes.

Look outside and the world look flat therefore it is flat. As Bill O'Rielly would say to RE'rs: You can't explain that!

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on March 03, 2012, 03:52:59 PM

Quote from: rad_creeper on March 03, 2012, 01:10:29 PM

I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.

I'm not sure about other posters you have encountered, but I assure you that I have beaten no bushes or around them for that matter.

I see what you did there, cool story bro, how about a quality post retorting his comment?

 Look out your window your five senses are the supreme beings of understanding the truth of the universe around you, we can't see air so its obviously not there, we see in color so its obvious that objects in reality are colored and their colors arent based off the reflected light that goes into and get processed by our eyes.

Look outside and the world look flat therefore it is flat. As Bill O'Rielly would say to RE'rs: You can't explain that!

Stop with the "it looks flat" phrase, because it doesn't. If it looked flat it would not ever have a sharp horizon and celestial objects would not be obscured by the horizon. It doesn't even look f*cking flat. The horizon prevents it from having the appearance of a flat plane. Anyone who babbles "it looks flat" ought to compare it with any other flat surface and note the difference in appearance.

Bedford.

Bedford.

Which experiments?  Just the ones you agree with?

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 06:58:43 PM

Bedford.

Which experiments?  Just the ones you agree with?

All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 03, 2012, 07:05:30 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 06:58:43 PM

Bedford.

Which experiments?  Just the ones you agree with?

All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.

So just the ones you agree with. Got it.

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 07:39:37 PM

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 03, 2012, 07:05:30 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 06:58:43 PM

Bedford.

Which experiments?  Just the ones you agree with?

All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.

So just the ones you agree with. Got it.

Right. All of the one's that weren't obviously fake support FET. What a coincidence.

Quote from: ClockTower on March 03, 2012, 07:43:20 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 07:39:37 PM

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 03, 2012, 07:05:30 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 06:58:43 PM

Bedford.

Which experiments?  Just the ones you agree with?

All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.

So just the ones you agree with. Got it.

Right. All of the one's that weren't obviously fake support FET. What a coincidence.

Correction. All the ones that you say you think weren't obviously fake. Big difference. Please be honest.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 03, 2012, 07:05:30 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 06:58:43 PM

Bedford.

Which experiments?  Just the ones you agree with?

All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.

Lol, how predictable.  Unless you have some actual proof that they were faked, the Bedford Level isn't evidence.

What's mysterious to me is that the Rowbotham/Blount experiments are fairly easy to do, so why haven't the results been reproduced?  If the earth is truly flat it should be quite easy to get the same results in any other slow-moving body of water.  It would clear things up so nicely.  We wouldn't have to have all these arguments over who cheated and who didn't over a hundred years ago.

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 07:49:37 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on March 03, 2012, 07:43:20 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 07:39:37 PM

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 03, 2012, 07:05:30 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 06:58:43 PM

Bedford.

Which experiments?  Just the ones you agree with?

All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.

So just the ones you agree with. Got it.

Right. All of the one's that weren't obviously fake support FET. What a coincidence.

Correction. All the ones that you say you think weren't obviously fake. Big difference. Please be honest.

If you consider the Hampden/Wallace trial to have been evidence of RET, you must truly be desperate. And Oldham was his only witness as he took his pictures (which have yet to be produced by an RE'er, I might add) where Rowbotham and Blount had plenty. If this were a court case, I think we all know who would win.

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 07:39:37 PM

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 03, 2012, 07:05:30 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 06:58:43 PM

Bedford.

Which experiments?  Just the ones you agree with?

All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.

Lol, how predictable.  Unless you have some actual proof that they were faked, the Bedford Level isn't evidence.

What's mysterious to me is that the Rowbotham/Blount experiments are fairly easy to do, so why haven't the results been reproduced?  If the earth is truly flat it should be quite easy to get the same results in any other slow-moving body of water.  It would clear things up so nicely.  We wouldn't have to have all these arguments over who cheated and who didn't over a hundred years ago.

Daniel Shenton, our president, performed it successfully a couple of years ago. If I'm ever in the area, I'll do it myself.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 03, 2012, 07:56:03 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 07:39:37 PM

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 03, 2012, 07:05:30 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 06:58:43 PM

Bedford.

Which experiments?  Just the ones you agree with?

All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.

Lol, how predictable.  Unless you have some actual proof that they were faked, the Bedford Level isn't evidence.

What's mysterious to me is that the Rowbotham/Blount experiments are fairly easy to do, so why haven't the results been reproduced?  If the earth is truly flat it should be quite easy to get the same results in any other slow-moving body of water.  It would clear things up so nicely.  We wouldn't have to have all these arguments over who cheated and who didn't over a hundred years ago.

Daniel Shenton, our president, performed it successfully a couple of years ago. If I'm ever in the area, I'll do it myself.

Did he take any pictures?  Is there a link where I could learn more about it?

Ah, I think I found the right thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31522.0

edit: Just read the whole thread.... and nothing

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 07:59:09 PM

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 03, 2012, 07:56:03 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 07:39:37 PM

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 03, 2012, 07:05:30 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 06:58:43 PM

Bedford.

Which experiments?  Just the ones you agree with?

All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.

Lol, how predictable.  Unless you have some actual proof that they were faked, the Bedford Level isn't evidence.

What's mysterious to me is that the Rowbotham/Blount experiments are fairly easy to do, so why haven't the results been reproduced?  If the earth is truly flat it should be quite easy to get the same results in any other slow-moving body of water.  It would clear things up so nicely.  We wouldn't have to have all these arguments over who cheated and who didn't over a hundred years ago.

Daniel Shenton, our president, performed it successfully a couple of years ago. If I'm ever in the area, I'll do it myself.

Did he take any pictures?  Is there a link where I could learn more about it?

Considering that the original river-based canal hasn't existed for years, you might want to give Ts an easier task first: show us a picture of the river involved. Then tell us the reason we should expect a river to be level to the RE surface. Then show us a photo better than this counter-example.



Reference: http://www.orcawatcher.com/2011/01/niagara-falls.html

Ah, I think I found the right thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31522.0

Yep, that looks like the failure. Isn't odd that Ts claims it's a success?

The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.

Yep, that looks like the failure. Isn't odd that Ts claims it's a success?

Yeah, I don't see any results in that thread.  I wonder why?

Maybe there are more pictures on facebook, but I don't have access.

Quote from: ClockTower on March 03, 2012, 08:12:44 PM

The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.

It's not obvious to me.

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 08:16:26 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on March 03, 2012, 08:12:44 PM

The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.

It's not obvious to me.

We are all aware of your handicapped perception abilities, Markjo. It is not necessary to admit them in every thread.

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2012, 08:19:40 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 08:16:26 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on March 03, 2012, 08:12:44 PM

The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.

It's not obvious to me.

We are all aware of your handicapped perception abilities, Markjo. It is not necessary to admit them in every thread.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 08:16:26 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on March 03, 2012, 08:12:44 PM

The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.

It's not obvious to me.

Are you honestly saying that you don't see the waves on the horizon in that image?

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2012, 08:19:40 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 08:16:26 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on March 03, 2012, 08:12:44 PM

The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.

It's not obvious to me.

Are you honestly saying that you don't see the waves on the horizon in that image?

Are these waves 20 feet high?

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2012, 08:19:40 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 08:16:26 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on March 03, 2012, 08:12:44 PM

The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.

It's not obvious to me.

Are you honestly saying that you don't see the waves on the horizon in that image?

What does seeing the waves on the horizon have to do with your outlandish claim that the city is obviously being obscured by the waves? Are you saying that only the waves are obscuring the missing part of the Toronto skyline?

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 03, 2012, 07:05:30 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 03, 2012, 06:58:43 PM

Bedford.

Which experiments?  Just the ones you agree with?

All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.

So essentially all of the people that misinterpreted Bedford's experiments?