Poll

What is the source of the FES map in the FAQ?

FES
13 (38.2%)
Elsewhere
21 (61.8%)

Total Members Voted: 31

The source of FES's map

  • 220 Replies
  • 58635 Views
?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #90 on: May 08, 2012, 11:12:04 PM »
Wilmore, did you even read the OP?  It's unedited.

If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #91 on: May 08, 2012, 11:56:36 PM »
May 4th, 2007: Trekky posts the original version his map. [link]


Funny, that isn't the map you posted in the OP. Did you make a mistake?

No, you did. Please try to pay attention.

edit: 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.


Moreover, the only post you provide that was made after he created the map used in the OP in no way indicates belief in a RE. Meaning you're wrong again.

Elaborate, with evidence.


Uh... the map in question was created here, at tFES, for tFES, by someone who is an Official Member of tFES, and a long-time defender of FET. Now you're saying he has to have been a FE'er at the time of the map's creation, which is neither in your poll nor your OP.

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.

Secondly, again, whether it was produced here and/or by a FE'er does not fully address the question. Again, this is from the OP, not something new I pulled out of my ass. The Original Post:

Quote
designed by Flat Earthers and that all maps which resemble it were stolen from the FES, and even that the geometrical transformation formulae which project the globe into this configuration were actually concocted after the fact

So, let's pretend that Trekky0623 is/was a die-hard FET proponent. How would that even address the above? Why is he using / claiming to use a globular map for FET? Why is Tom Bishop telling me that this map was developed independently from the azimuthal projection formula? Where is the lineage between this map and Rowbotham's (see Kendrick's post)? If you are going to stand by the claims of Tom Bishop / James etc., there are many, many unanswered questions.



So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.

No it doesn't.

Yes. The poll answers are and always were what I am looking for: Does the map design originate from within or without?


The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".

Again, read the freaking OP. You gave a knee-jerk answer in your first reply, having only paid attention to the thread title, which I immediately corrected by quoting the OP. Regarding your reply, I said, quote: It was answered with an apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the question.


I can see using a simple poll question as a springboard for discussion, of course; it just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to make that question completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand

It's not irrelevant, however I will concede that if people answered without paying close attention to the question, as you did, then the results aren't meaningful. That said however, we still have at least 3 who explicitly stand by the allegation: Tom Bishop, Irushwithcvs, and James.


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.



And you have to wonder, what point of value did he aim to make anyway?

Originally, it was merely a question, to find out if Tom was on his own. I'm also trying to encourage the claimants to either provide evidence or admit that they were making shit up. If you read carefully, you'll notice I have avoided actually making any positive claims in this thread. All I'm doing is asking for explanations.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 12:01:36 AM by zarg »
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.

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #92 on: May 09, 2012, 12:28:34 AM »
So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.  The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".  Why ask this question, then ignore it in favor of a completely different discussion in the thread itself?  I can see using a simple poll question as a springboard for discussion, of course; it just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to make that question completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question).

Nice poll! 14 people answered it.
What does this number tell us? That we cannot draw any conclusions from such a small group of people.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #93 on: May 09, 2012, 06:44:30 AM »
So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.  Saying "They are about the same thing!" when they so clearly aren't doesn't address the question, it handwaves it.  Also interesting that instead of choosing to give a real answer to my post you shorten it to its bare bones and handwave its central point again.  Whatever you're discussing in the body of this thread, it remains a fact that the source of that map is the FES.

So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.  The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".  Why ask this question, then ignore it in favor of a completely different discussion in the thread itself?  I can see using a simple poll question as a springboard for discussion, of course; it just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to make that question completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question).

Nice poll! 14 people answered it.
What does this number tell us? That we cannot draw any conclusions from such a small group of people.


Wait, you mean a poll on an internet message board is meaningless?  Shocking!
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #94 on: May 09, 2012, 08:34:01 AM »

So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.  The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".  Why ask this question, then ignore it in favor of a completely different discussion in the thread itself?  I can see using a simple poll question as a springboard for discussion, of course; it just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to make that question completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question).

Nice poll! 14 people answered it.
What does this number tell us? That we cannot draw any conclusions from such a small group of people.


Wait, you mean a poll on an internet message board is meaningless?  Shocking!

Yep! It's called statistics.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #95 on: May 09, 2012, 10:48:47 AM »
May 4th, 2007: Trekky posts the original version his map. [link]


Funny, that isn't the map you posted in the OP. Did you make a mistake?

No, you did. Please try to pay attention.

edit: 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.


So you did make a mistake.



Elaborate, with evidence.


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.


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.


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:


So let me get this straight. You're saying that it's more likely that the UN stole this to produce this than it is likely that the FES stole this to produce this.

Those are all versions of the FE map. We came up with the design


This whole thread is predicated on a misrepresentation of what Tom actually said. The simple fact is that his description aligns with the facts.


Secondly, again, whether it was produced here and/or by a FE'er does not fully address the question. Again, this is from the OP, not something new I pulled out of my ass. The Original Post:

Quote
designed by Flat Earthers and that all maps which resemble it were stolen from the FES, and even that the geometrical transformation formulae which project the globe into this configuration were actually concocted after the fact

So, let's pretend that Trekky0623 is/was a die-hard FET proponent. How would that even address the above? Why is he using / claiming to use a globular map for FET? Why is Tom Bishop telling me that this map was developed independently from the azimuthal projection formula? Where is the lineage between this map and Rowbotham's (see Kendrick's post)? If you are going to stand by the claims of Tom Bishop / James etc., there are many, many unanswered questions.


Again, this is a total misrepresentation of what Tom actually said. When did Tom make the bolded claim with respect to the map Trekky created? As for the lineage between them, it's simple: Trekky came here, saw the map from Earth Not a Globe (and possibly others such as Voliva's), and decided to create a similar representation of the continents.


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. You're trying to get one over on Tom by distorting what he actually said, but unlike you, he hasn't made claims that cannot be backed up.




The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".

Again, read the freaking OP. You gave a knee-jerk answer in your first reply, having only paid attention to the thread title, which I immediately corrected by quoting the OP. Regarding your reply, I said, quote: It was answered with an apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the question.


The questions in the OP have also been dealt with. Moreover, you are responsible for creating the poll. The poll is part of your OP. Clearly, the answer to your poll is 'FES', and not 'Elsewhere'. The scope of your OP has nothing to do with what is the appropriate response to the poll.



It's not irrelevant, however I will concede that if people answered without paying close attention to the question, as you did, then the results aren't meaningful. That said however, we still have at least 3 who explicitly stand by the allegation: Tom Bishop, Irushwithcvs, and James.


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'.


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?



Originally, it was merely a question, to find out if Tom was on his own. I'm also trying to encourage the claimants to either provide evidence or admit that they were making shit up. If you read carefully, you'll notice I have avoided actually making any positive claims in this thread. All I'm doing is asking for explanations.


Sorry, but you haven't just been asking for explanations. Rather, you've been distorting the claims made by others in order to claim they've been "making shit up". The trouble is, you're the one whose been "making shit up", namely the claims you have attributed to others.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 11:37:44 AM by Ski »
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #96 on: May 09, 2012, 02:20:36 PM »
Did I do a quote-fart? If so, thanks for fixing it up, Ski!
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #97 on: May 09, 2012, 07:16:28 PM »

So why is the answer to your poll different from the answer you were looking for?

This remains unanswered.  The answer to the question in the poll is demonstrably FES, not "elsewhere".  Why ask this question, then ignore it in favor of a completely different discussion in the thread itself?  I can see using a simple poll question as a springboard for discussion, of course; it just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to make that question completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (and making matters worse, to claim LIES! when given an honest answer to that question).

Nice poll! 14 people answered it.
What does this number tell us? That we cannot draw any conclusions from such a small group of people.


Wait, you mean a poll on an internet message board is meaningless?  Shocking!

Yep! It's called statistics.

Do you have trouble recognizing sarcasm?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #98 on: May 09, 2012, 10:19:46 PM »
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.

;D 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?
Quote
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:
Quote
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:

Quote
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 ;D), 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? ;D
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.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #99 on: May 14, 2012, 08:25:27 AM »
;D 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?
Quote
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:
Quote
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.


It looks different, is in a different format, and was uploaded at a different time. It's a different map, and was uploaded shortly before Trekky became an official member of TFES, and after he made any posts in support of RET. You were wrong.


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.


No you haven't! Several of the posts you linked to are dated prior to the uploading of the above map, and the only one that came after does not express support for RET. I mean, it just isn't in there.


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.


But the only relevant point is that it was created here, at FES, which is all that Tom originally claimed. And it was.



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.


But Tom did not claim that. He simply made the claim that the maps you originally linked to were created by FES. And they were all created by FES. You've distorted his claims, but that's all he said.



Read closely:


Read more closelier:


So let me get this straight. You're saying that it's more likely that the UN stole this to produce this than it is likely that the FES stole this to produce this.

Those are all versions of the FE map. We came up with the design, not the UN, and not some guy in the 1970's. There have been intermittent maps we've made between Rowbotham's time and the creation of the UN, which has Australia and New Zealand in proper proportions. See this one we made in the 1930's for instance, published in Modern Mechanics, 1931.


This is the "we" that was under discussion from the beginning - the FES. This is the FES. Right here. Trekky posts here, created the map for here, and is even an official member. So yes, "we" created that map.



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.


Where did he say it was stolen from us? All he did was deny your accusations that we stole it from someone else. You're just distorting his position.


::) 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 ;D), what is your point?


My point is that you're moaning about people saying that the correct response the poll is 'FES'. Now you're saying we have to include all the stuff in your OP, which in addition to not being in any way obvious or necessary, makes a nonsense of the options you've given us.


The correct response to the poll is 'FES'. If you think picking the correct option misses the point of your post, write a better poll next time.


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?


Goalpost shifting. Nobody claimed 'FES' exclusively meant Rowbotham or Voliva. Rowbotham wasn't even a member of the UZS, which in any case was not called the FES. You're defining 'FES' in unduly (and indeed inaccurate) terms.


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? ;D


I did so because you attributed the quote to me, and this being a long exchange, I simply assumed I had said it:


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.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #100 on: May 14, 2012, 05:48:32 PM »
;D 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?
Quote
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:
Quote
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.


It looks different, is in a different format, and was uploaded at a different time. It's a different map, and was uploaded shortly before Trekky became an official member of TFES, and after he made any posts in support of RET. You were wrong.

You haven't addressed any of the above.



that it was created here, at FES ... is all that Tom originally claimed

Incorrect.



Read more closelier:


So let me get this straight. You're saying that it's more likely that the UN stole this to produce this than it is likely that the FES stole this to produce this.

Those are all versions of the FE map. We came up with the design, not the UN, and not some guy in the 1970's. There have been intermittent maps we've made between Rowbotham's time and the creation of the UN, which has Australia and New Zealand in proper proportions. See this one we made in the 1930's for instance, published in Modern Mechanics, 1931.

I have read that. Now you read it again, as well as the other parts I highlighted. Pay particular attention to the first sentence.



Where did he say it was stolen from us?

Quote
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.

How about you stop digging yourself into this hole? Ask Tom if he believes the northern azimuthal formula was designed to copycat FES material. Ask him if he believes the UN stole their design from the FES. Stop embarrassing yourself by falsely proclaiming what he believes. You have already upset him at least once for doing so.



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?

Goalpost shifting. Nobody claimed 'FES' exclusively meant Rowbotham or Voliva. Rowbotham wasn't even a member of the UZS, which in any case was not called the FES. You're defining 'FES' in unduly (and indeed inaccurate) terms.

"Unduly terms"? Typical Wilmorian pseudointellectual nonsense. ::)

Reading comprehension, Wil. I never meant FES exclusively meant Rowbotham or Voliva either. Focus. Primary reference work. For the source to be within, the map would need to be either a completely original work or the next iteration directly derived from past internal original works.
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.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #101 on: May 14, 2012, 06:12:29 PM »
It looks different, is in a different format, and was uploaded at a different time. It's a different map, and was uploaded shortly before Trekky became an official member of TFES, and after he made any posts in support of RET. You were wrong.

You haven't addressed any of the above.


Because it's irrelevant. I've bolded what is relevant.


Incorrect.


Another substantial argument. ::)


I have read that. Now you read it again, as well as the other parts I highlighted. Pay particular attention to the first sentence.


We (as in FES) did come up with that layout. The fact that someone came up with something that looked similar afterwards is of no consequence. You're inflating his claims.


Where did he say it was stolen from us?

Quote
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.


Sorry, did you miss the bolded pronoun above?


How about you stop digging yourself into this hole? Ask Tom if he believes the northern azimuthal formula was designed to copycat FES material. Ask him if he believes the UN stole their design from the FES. Stop embarrassing yourself by falsely proclaiming what he believes. You have already upset him at least once for doing so.


I'm not claiming that he believes anything. All I'm doing is pointing out what he has or hasn't said. You're the one making claims about what he has said, and as that is a positive claim it's up to you to substantiate it, which you have failed to do. If Tom comes here and substantiates all the claims you have made about him, well and good, but he hasn't and neither have you.


"Unduly terms"? Typical Wilmorian pseudointellectual nonsense. ::)


Congratulations, you have discovered a missing word. It was 'narrow'. Now, I have supplied my missing word. Would you care to supply the missing quotes that substantiate the various claims you have made throughout this thread?


Reading comprehension, Wil. I never meant FES exclusively meant Rowbotham or Voliva either. Focus. Primary reference work. For the source to be within, the map would need to be either a completely original work or the next iteration directly derived from past internal original works.


Why? Who says? And Trekky's map is derived from Rowbotham and Voliva's maps. Why have you only mentioned this ultra-narrow concept of what is or isn't made by the Flat Earth Society now, and why do you think Tom or anyone else here is retroactively bound by it?
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 09:41:29 AM by Pongo »
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #102 on: May 15, 2012, 06:03:06 AM »
FE'ers say that the UN logo looks like a lot a map of a FE, therefore... Wait a minute, isn' there a conspiracy trying to force us to think that the Earth is round!?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11705
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #103 on: May 15, 2012, 06:46:12 AM »
FE'ers say that the UN logo looks like a lot a map of a FE, therefore... Wait a minute, isn' there a conspiracy trying to force us to think that the Earth is round!?
It is hidden in plain sight from you.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #104 on: May 15, 2012, 07:25:34 AM »
FE'ers say that the UN logo looks like a lot a map of a FE, therefore... Wait a minute, isn' there a conspiracy trying to force us to think that the Earth is round!?
It is hidden in plain sight from you.

The conspiracy brainwashes us to think that the Earth is round therefore they put a FE map on the UN flag?

That's your logic?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #105 on: May 15, 2012, 09:51:54 AM »
I doubt there's a single FE'er here capable of drawing a FE map.

Even if they tried, they couldn't.

What's your point? I doubt a RE'er could draw a RE map either. Cartography is a highly complex discipline and as far as I know, no one here possesses the required skills. It's like saying, "I doubt there is a single FE'er here capable of creating a hadron collider. They couldn't if they tried."

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #106 on: May 15, 2012, 11:17:13 AM »
I doubt there's a single FE'er here capable of drawing a FE map.

Even if they tried, they couldn't.

What's your point? I doubt a RE'er could draw a RE map either. Cartography is a highly complex discipline and as far as I know, no one here possesses the required skills. It's like saying, "I doubt there is a single FE'er here capable of creating a hadron collider. They couldn't if they tried."

Cartographers are RE'ers!

It's a pity to have a theory without a map, it makes all the concept more or less useless.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Thork

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #107 on: May 15, 2012, 11:24:36 AM »
I doubt there's a single FE'er here capable of drawing a FE map.

Even if they tried, they couldn't.

What's your point? I doubt a RE'er could draw a RE map either. Cartography is a highly complex discipline and as far as I know, no one here possesses the required skills. It's like saying, "I doubt there is a single FE'er here capable of creating a hadron collider. They couldn't if they tried."

Cartographers are RE'ers!

It's a pity to have a theory without a map, it makes all the concept more or less useless.

Do you have a map of the sun? If not, that makes the concept of a big round sun more or less useless.

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #108 on: May 15, 2012, 11:47:42 AM »
I doubt there's a single FE'er here capable of drawing a FE map.

Even if they tried, they couldn't.

What's your point? I doubt a RE'er could draw a RE map either. Cartography is a highly complex discipline and as far as I know, no one here possesses the required skills. It's like saying, "I doubt there is a single FE'er here capable of creating a hadron collider. They couldn't if they tried."

Cartographers are RE'ers!

It's a pity to have a theory without a map, it makes all the concept more or less useless.

Do you have a map of the sun? If not, that makes the concept of a big round sun more or less useless.

Do you have a map of FE? (not you 2 bogey ones which are debunked as RE maps)
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #109 on: May 15, 2012, 11:58:27 AM »
Do you have a map of the sun? If not, that makes the concept of a big round sun more or less useless.

John Davis and Wilmore are the people to ask, as they think they are flat discs.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Thork

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #110 on: May 15, 2012, 12:27:18 PM »
Do you have a map of the sun? If not, that makes the concept of a big round sun more or less useless.

John Davis and Wilmore are the people to ask, as they think they are flat discs.
I'll take that as a 'no' then.

Do you have a map of FE? (not you 2 bogey ones which are debunked as RE maps)
Look at any map you like. Its a map of the flat earth usually stretched into some format like a Mercator or polar azimuthal projection. All maps of earth represent its features. Distortions are supposedly added to explain how a flat map can represent a round earth, but frankly that tenuous excuse is RET's charge to answer. Earth's flat, maps are flat, QED. Occam's razor etc etc.

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #111 on: May 15, 2012, 01:01:45 PM »
Do you have a map of the sun? If not, that makes the concept of a big round sun more or less useless.

John Davis and Wilmore are the people to ask, as they think they are flat discs.
I'll take that as a 'no' then.

Do you have a map of FE? (not you 2 bogey ones which are debunked as RE maps)
Look at any map you like. Its a map of the flat earth usually stretched into some format like a Mercator or polar azimuthal projection. All maps of earth represent its features. Distortions are supposedly added to explain how a flat map can represent a round earth, but frankly that tenuous excuse is RET's charge to answer. Earth's flat, maps are flat, QED. Occam's razor etc etc.

So show us a FE maps with no distorsion.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #112 on: May 15, 2012, 04:05:46 PM »
Do you have a map of the sun? If not, that makes the concept of a big round sun more or less useless.

John Davis and Wilmore are the people to ask, as they think they are flat discs.
I'll take that as a 'no' then.

Do you have a map of FE? (not you 2 bogey ones which are debunked as RE maps)
Look at any map you like. Its a map of the flat earth usually stretched into some format like a Mercator or polar azimuthal projection. All maps of earth represent its features. Distortions are supposedly added to explain how a flat map can represent a round earth, but frankly that tenuous excuse is RET's charge to answer. Earth's flat, maps are flat, QED. Occam's razor etc etc.

Distortion is necessary to render a map of a three dimensional object into two dimensions. However, it's not necessary for a flat earth. You have no excuse for inaccuracy. Start with the south pole at the centre, why don't you?
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #113 on: May 15, 2012, 09:40:17 PM »
Because it's irrelevant.

No it isn't. Answer this question:

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?



I'm not claiming that he believes anything. All I'm doing is pointing out what he has or hasn't said.

How predictably weasely of you.



Trekky's map is derived from Rowbotham and Voliva's maps.

Thanks for your vote!
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.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #114 on: May 15, 2012, 09:43:51 PM »
Distortions are supposedly added to explain how a flat map can represent a round earth, but frankly that tenuous excuse is RET's charge to answer. Earth's flat, maps are flat, QED. Occam's razor etc etc.

Hey, ever seen a globe?

Learn geometry. Distortion is a tool, not an excuse.

Explain this:

I measure the distance from the center of that map to any other point on it; for example, let's say the southeastern corner of Australia. Now if I take a globe which has a circumference equal to the diameter of your map, and wrap a string from the north pole of that globe to the southeastern corner of Australia, the length of the string will be exactly the same measurement. This will work for a line from the north pole to anywhere else on the map. How do you explain this phenomenon?
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.

?

Thork

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #115 on: May 17, 2012, 08:45:13 AM »
Below is a nice map of the earth. Feel free to click on it for the original source.


?

Thork

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #116 on: May 17, 2012, 08:54:31 AM »
Below is another map. That was crafted by a brilliant young FE cartographer called Thork. (I made it.)

The earth at night. Click it for high def version.


I also made a model below.


Why FErs are always accused of never doing anything I don't know.

In short the answer to the OP is that some of our maps are from various internet sources, and some of them are originals.

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #117 on: May 17, 2012, 09:18:36 AM »
Doesnt'it bother you to show us do many different maps with so many different distorsions,whereas in  FE, there should be no distorsion but a scale effect?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Thork

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #118 on: May 17, 2012, 11:32:57 AM »
Why can't we distort maps as well? If I want to make the polar regions more prominent, I'll use a Mercator. Distorting maps is just an aid to help the reader.

Don't you like my maps? That night one took some time to make.  :(
« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 11:35:18 AM by Thork »

*

Sphere

  • 131
  • Earth is ROUND
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #119 on: May 17, 2012, 11:37:26 AM »
Below is another map. That was crafted by a brilliant young FE cartographer called Thork. (I made it.)

The earth at night. Click it for high def version.


I also made a model below.


Why FErs are always accused of never doing anything I don't know.

In short the answer to the OP is that some of our maps are from various internet sources, and some of them are originals.
If it works this way, how do other planets have sunlight?