Tom's original claim was regarding Voliva's map (Judging by the fact that he posted a picture of it in the link provided in the OP), which is not the map from the FAQ.
Actually, he
did make a claim about the map in the FAQ, as well as many others, not just Voliva's, and not just Rowbotham's. I don't understand why you're pursuing this, as Tom has already had the opportunity to correct my interpretation of his claim and he instead confirmed it. Your speculation on that matter is moot.
The map from the FAQ just happens to be a re-rendering of the original map, and it may have been generated in numerous ways. Quite possibly in a way similar to what you've described.
... Except the
exact opposite was claimed to be the case. I thought I spelled this out very plainly. Again,
read closely:
Tom claimed that the map in the FAQ was not produced by -- nor based on something produced by -- the formula which produces a map that looks exactly like it. Rather, they invented it from scratch on their own, and then after it already existed, Round Earthers cleverly devised a formula to transform the globe into that configuration.
The map and the formula is based on the original flat earth map.
Yes, that's correct.
The quotes you have provided are taken out of context and distort the conversation massively.
This accusation is made without any support. Please show us how you came to a different conclusion from these quotes than what I'm presenting them as. I really don't see how you could have unless
you didn't consider the whole context.
... I CAN fire up an IDE of my choice and write an application that will generate a brand new animation of nyan cat, but that doesn't make me the creator of nyan cat.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be paraphrasing this argument that Tom made:
I can make a mathematical formula to draw swastikas on graphic calculators. It doesn't mean that I invented the swastika.
Are you supporting the assertion that a formula could have been fabricated to produce an existing human-invented map layout, and it's just a coincidence that said design was a
mathematically perfect representation of the globe in the first place? The nyan-cat comparison doesn't even come close to representing the ludicrousness of this claim.
I had bothered to do that. His website (including, but not limited to the web page you have linked us to) contains absolutely no mention of FES, his allegiance to FES or lack thereof, be that in the present, past, or even the future. To make this simpler: You have absolutely no reason to speculate that he is, or is not, a member of FES.
What?
Are you serious? Yes, I
do have a very strong reason to speculate that he doesn't subscribe to FET: How about the fact that
the entire website is devoted to Round-Earth astronomy and geography? If you're playing devil's advocate, I'm afraid you're not very good at it.
Poll