If you want to get really picky, we can look at the upload date on Wikipedia: August 17, 2007, by user Trekky0623. Which still falls prior to the other three links I posted. Nice try.
That is not the map used in our FAQ. You didn't even use it in your OP. The map you used in the OP, and which is in the FAQ, was not uploaded until the 11th of November, 2008.
Let's take a real good look here. Tell me what differences you see between Flat_earth.jpg and Flat_earth.png. It's utterly laughable that you are pursuing this argument; if you were any other than the Lord Willmire I would think you were trolling. What exactly are you trying to say? That Trekky was a lost RE'er when he uploaded Flat_earth.jpg, and a year later he had reformed and uploaded a True Zetetic rendering, Flat_earth.png?
Tell me, why does he use the
exact same description from 2007 for the new file?
Original upload log
The original description page is/was here. All following user names refer to en.wikipedia.
2008-11-14 14:33 Trekky0623 543×543× (405315 bytes) {{PD-self|date=17 August 2007}} I made this map myself by creating an azimuthal projection of the entire Earth.
The reason for the change is given on the original page:
Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."
He reformatted it to PNG for a transparent background. And added some graticules. That's it. It's the same map.
How am I supposed to provide evidence of what isn't in there? You posted a link to the post - have you read it? It does not contain "RE sentiments" as you claimed.
Ah, a copout. Of course. Do you or do you not claim that he was not a RE believer at the time that he produced his map? If you do, provide evidence. I have provided strong evidence to the contrary, and all you have are excuses.
First of all, yes he obviously does need to have been a FE'er at the map's creation. If he was not, then it is a false statement that the map was created by a FE'er. This is extremely basic logic.
This is nonsense. Most people would agree that the Theory of Special Relativity was created by the scientist, Albert Einstein. This is not a controversial statement. But of course he was not a scientist at the time, so by your reasoning, the above statement is false. This is a classic case of you making an argumentative mountain out of a semantic molehill.
Actually, I'll give you that. Indeed there are two ways to interpret a sentence like "X was done by a Y". I tend to take it literally and look at Y in the context where/when X was done, but you could say for instance, "Mrs. X married Mr. X" while she of course didn't exist as Mrs. X at the time.
However, in
this particular case, the distinction matters a great deal. We are dealing with the claim that the map is a Flat-Earth design. We are talking about polar opposite schools of thought, so we certainly must consider which side motivated it. For example, it would be misleading to say that superstition is endorsed by science if someone who dabbled with it in his youth later became a scientist.
Moreover, Tom's claim was not that FE'ers created the map. He claimed that "we" created the map, referring to "FES" in your original post:
Yes, exactly -- Tom's "we" did not refer to himself or the forum, but the FES in general spanning back to Rowbotham. It's this distinction that I refer to when I say:
This is not about who was directly responsible for bringing this particular image file into being, it's about the lineage of its development
Tom's claim is that the
lineage of its development traces back to Rowbotham, and that others that resemble it (RE maps) are imitations; plagiarism from the FES. However, as yet, we have no evidence of this claim, only evidence of the opposite -- that your current map is an imitation/plagiarism of RE material.
Why is Tom Bishop telling me that this map was developed independently from the azimuthal projection formula?
When did Tom make the bolded claim with respect to the map Trekky created?
Read closely:
Because that map is a direct result of the formula. It's not traced or adapted from a drawing, it's constructed mathematically by applying a distortion formula to a globe. Therefore, when you claim that they based it off of your "design", you must be claiming at least one of the following:- You created the globe.
- You created the distortion formula.
If you can't back up either of these, then you're lying.
I didn't make any claims about a formula. If someone made a formula for turning a Mercator map into our Northern Azimuthal map, then they made a formula to do that. It's still our map. We're the ones who published and popularized it.
Tom, this is the result of applying that formula to a globe:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg
And this is the map that you claim the FES "designed":
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png <-- Trekky's map
You're telling me this is a coincidence?
I can make a mathematical formula to draw swastikas on graphic calculators. It doesn't mean that I invented the swastika.
A Mercator map can be turned into a Northern Azimuthal map, and it doesn't matter. It's our map. We came up with it. We published it. We popularized it. End of story. I'm right on the "Flat Earther" subject, and I'm right on this one. My time here is done.
All Tom is claiming is that the map from Earth Not a Globe inspired Trekky to create the map in the FAQ, and to replicate the geographic layout seen in Earth Not a Globe.
Wrong. As you can see above, he claimed that the mainstream azimuthal projection was stolen from the FES, not the other way around. He clearly refers to the northern azimuthal equidistant projection as "
ours" multiple times and suggests that the formula which produces the same map was manufactured specifically to copy the FES design much like graphing calculators can produce swastikas.
Tom makes his position very clear in that thread, and has confirmed my interpretation of it in this one. If you don't agree with Tom's bold accusations, you can say so (that was the original point of this thread), but it'll do you no good to sit in denial that they occurred.
The scope of your OP has nothing to do with what is the appropriate response to the poll.
Good grief, you're really reaching. The whole point of the OP was to ask the question. What would you have me do -- cram the whole post into the title? The OP has
everything to do with the poll. Did you forget what you were trying to prove here? I supposedly moved the goalposts, remember? Unless you're trying to say that the moving of goalposts happened sometime in between me writing the title and poll answers, and in writing the OP (which for all you know happened in the reverse order
), what is your point?
It is not a matter of us not paying attention. Simply put, you asked one question in the poll and another in the OP. The correct answer to the question posed in the poll is 'FES'.
The fact that you jumped to conclusions before reading the OP doesn't make it two different questions! I have always been asking the same question: the source of the map. I ask if it's derived independently from Rowbotham and co., (FES), or if it is a RE map (elsewhere). Merriam-Webster defines
source as
a firsthand document or primary reference work. If the primary reference work were FES material (the works of Rowbotham or Voliva or pure zeteticism), how do we have a RE projection as a result?
and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question
Please show me where in this thread I concluded specifically that one person in particular was lying. You'll find that I said "someone is lying -- who?". It's basic inference -- when you have two mutually exclusive claims, at least one of them is clearly not the truth.
Sorry, what? All I said is that you "claim[ed] LIES", which you did. Is this another strawman under construction?
Fair enough, I suppose. I presumed Roundy thought I was directly levelling an accusation against someone of lying. I don't know why you're saying "I said you claimed lies..." when it was never you who said it. Perhaps you should let Roundy speak for himself. Or have we just uncovered an alt?
Poll