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
  • 54616 Views
?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #180 on: May 19, 2012, 04:58:16 PM »
Ask again for a non-distorted FE map ignoring the fact that you don't have a non-distorted RET one either.

The true nature of the earth has nothing to do with whether a map is distorted. Learn a thing or two about cartography and try to wrap your thick head around what is meant by a "distorted map".

The globe is the map that we start from. I am asking which map you start from, how it was developed, and how you transform it to produce your projections.

I understand what you mean. We can goad Thork into answering the question by stating that if I understand it and he doesn't, then I must be more intelligent than him. His ego won't allow that to stand, and he'll have to answer the question.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #181 on: May 20, 2012, 04:52:16 AM »
Let's note that Thork cannot provide a FE map, hasn't got a sufficient grasp to understand that all the RE maps and globes (and websites) are sufficient enough and move on.

For instance: why does any FE map has got a grid on it where we could see the distorsions (ie 1 square of the grid represents 1,000 miles x 1,000 miles)?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #182 on: May 20, 2012, 07:45:59 PM »
Had the file from 2008 been uploaded in 2007, you would not have that case at all. So, indeed, this question is relevant to your claim. You are dodging it, because you know full well that the necessary implication is ludicrous.


But the map you originally linked to is the one from 2008. It's the one that's been under discussion from the start. You're the one who's trying to shift the goalposts.


I am not the one doing so. You are, and you were being weasely by suddenly pretending that you're undecided on the matter when confronted with the suggestion to find out the actual truth.

Bottom line:
Do you claim that Tom does not claim that it is likely that the UN stole their map design from the FES? Yes or no.
Do you claim that Tom does not claim that the northern azimuthal formula was designed to copy a FES design? Yes or no.


If by "does claim" you mean would claim or does believe, then I have no opinion on the matter. I am not a psychic.


However, if by "does claim" you mean did claim or has stated, then no, he has not, as anyone can see.


Finally, why is the wording above different to what you had in the OP? Your claims are so watered down at this point that I can see through them.
"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
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #183 on: May 20, 2012, 07:47:22 PM »
Let's note that Thork cannot provide a FE map, hasn't got a sufficient grasp to understand that all the RE maps and globes (and websites) are sufficient enough and move on.

For instance: why does any FE map has got a grid on it where we could see the distorsions (ie 1 square of the grid represents 1,000 miles x 1,000 miles)?


FE maps, created from scracth by FE'ers, exist. I have posted them here before. Please do your research and read Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood.
"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

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #184 on: May 20, 2012, 10:11:27 PM »
Can you link me to the manufacturer's or vendor's website so as I may examine this rare globe for myself?

I made it, so no.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #185 on: May 21, 2012, 12:11:04 AM »
Had the file from 2008 been uploaded in 2007, you would not have that case at all. So, indeed, this question is relevant to your claim. You are dodging it, because you know full well that the necessary implication is ludicrous.

But the map you originally linked to is the one from 2008. It's the one that's been under discussion from the start. You're the one who's trying to shift the goalposts.

Wil, is the 2007 file a RE map, or is it a FE map?



Do you claim that Tom does not claim that it is likely that the UN stole their map design from the FES? Yes or no.
Do you claim that Tom does not claim that the northern azimuthal formula was designed to copy a FES design? Yes or no.

If by "does claim" you mean would claim or does believe, then I have no opinion on the matter. I am not a psychic.

However, if by "does claim" you mean did claim or has stated, then no, he has not, as anyone can see.

As "anyone" can see? Who might those people be? Everyone else seems to understand what I'm saying and agrees with the fact that this is what Tom had claimed -- including Tom. Why don't you ask him what he meant? Hey Tom, what did you mean when you said this:

Has it ever occurred to anyone that FEers were lazy about their map and just colored in the UN flag?

Has it occurred to you that FES was in existence about 100 years before the UN was formed, and it's more likely that the UN stole that map from us?

and this:

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.

?



Finally, why is the wording above different to what you had in the OP? Your claims are so watered down at this point that I can see through them.

Actually, for a 10-page thread, this has remained remarkably true to the original topic. The OP remains unedited, and I stand by it. Further clarification is found in the fourth reply. My analysis of Tom's posts in the referenced thread are the same on page 1 as they are on page 10.

You jumped into this thread without having read the background material. That's fine, on its own. The trouble is where you went with it: In true Zetetic tradition, you have crafted a conspiracy theory -- wherein you paint me as a lying malevolent spin doctor who crafted this whole thread to smear Tom Bishop --  to make reality conform to those initial uninformed impressions, rather than modify the impressions to conform to reality.
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
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #186 on: May 21, 2012, 11:42:34 AM »
Wil, is the 2007 file a RE map, or is it a FE map?


Why does it matter, when no-one was talking about it?


As "anyone" can see? Who might those people be? Everyone else seems to understand what I'm saying and agrees with the fact that this is what Tom had claimed -- including Tom. Why don't you ask him what he meant? Hey Tom, what did you mean when you said this:

Has it ever occurred to anyone that FEers were lazy about their map and just colored in the UN flag?

Has it occurred to you that FES was in existence about 100 years before the UN was formed, and it's more likely that the UN stole that map from us?

and this:

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.

?


Here's my '?': where does Tom say


that all maps which resemble [the map from the FAQ] 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.


any of that? Because he doesn't say it in any of the posts you have quoted. He says some things are possible, and that some things are more likely than other things (without saying either is the case). He does not say the maps were stolen from us, or that the formulae were concocted after the fact. And bear in mind, he was defending us against your false claim that the map in question was not created by the FES.


Actually, for a 10-page thread, this has remained remarkably true to the original topic. The OP remains unedited, and I stand by it. Further clarification is found in the fourth reply. My analysis of Tom's posts in the referenced thread are the same on page 1 as they are on page 10.


Yes, but you want to shift from maps that we were talking about to maps we weren't talking about, and claims Tom has made to claims he hasn't made. You haven't substantiated any of your accusations.


You jumped into this thread without having read the background material. That's fine, on its own. The trouble is where you went with it: In true Zetetic tradition, you have crafted a conspiracy theory -- wherein you paint me as a lying malevolent spin doctor who crafted this whole thread to smear Tom Bishop --  to make reality conform to those initial uninformed impressions, rather than modify the impressions to conform to reality.


 ???


The map you were discussing originally is not the map you're now using to try and make your point. The accusations you've levelled at Tom in the OP are not supported by his posts, and you've since reworded and watered them down in order to make them look justifiable. I have read the background material, which is why it's obvious that you are behaving like a "malevolent spin doctor".
"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 #187 on: May 21, 2012, 11:56:49 AM »
Let's note that Thork cannot provide a FE map, hasn't got a sufficient grasp to understand that all the RE maps and globes (and websites) are sufficient enough and move on.

For instance: why does any FE map has got a grid on it where we could see the distorsions (ie 1 square of the grid represents 1,000 miles x 1,000 miles)?


FE maps, created from scracth by FE'ers, exist. I have posted them here before. Please do your research and read Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood.

Fe maps exist. They are all distorted and got the distances wrong. Unless you use a grid that we don't understand.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #188 on: May 21, 2012, 11:58:44 AM »
Fe maps exist. They are all distorted and got the distances wrong. Unless you use a grid that we don't understand.


You're begging the question here. Your original claim is false, as I have shown.
"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 #189 on: May 21, 2012, 12:00:36 PM »
Fe maps exist. They are all distorted and got the distances wrong. Unless you use a grid that we don't understand.


You're begging the question here. Your original claim is false, as I have shown.

Nobody here has never ever shown me a workable FE map.
Every attempt has been crushed in the easiest way possible.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #190 on: May 21, 2012, 01:24:42 PM »
Nobody here has never ever shown me a workable FE map.
Every attempt has been crushed in the easiest way possible.


Ah, "shown me" is a slightly different claim, no?


In any event, I have told you where to find one. I await your crushing critique.
"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 #191 on: May 21, 2012, 03:04:56 PM »
Nobody here has never ever shown me a workable FE map.
Every attempt has been crushed in the easiest way possible.

Ah, "shown me" is a slightly different claim, no?

In any event, I have told you where to find one. I await your crushing critique.

The only fact that 2 FE maps are in the Q&A clearly shows the riduculousness of your theory. All your circonvolutions are a bit pointless.

“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #192 on: May 21, 2012, 04:07:30 PM »
Uh, I'm telling you where to find a map. You're ignoring it, because you can't be bothered. I'm not the one guilty of "circonvolutions".
"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 #193 on: May 22, 2012, 12:02:58 AM »
Uh, I'm telling you where to find a map. You're ignoring it, because you can't be bothered. I'm not the one guilty of "circonvolutions".

I looked where to find a map. The FE maps are wrong. In shape and distances.

How does stand a theory of a flat Earth which cannot show a representation of it?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #194 on: May 22, 2012, 05:01:36 PM »
you've since reworded and watered them down in order to make them look justifiable.

No, I haven't. This is what watering down to make oneself look justifiable looks like:

He says some things are possible, and that some things are more likely than other things (without saying either is the case).

::)



Wil, is the 2007 file a RE map, or is it a FE map?

Why does it matter, when no-one was talking about it?

Why do you continue to stall -- why not just answer the question?

It matters because you claimed that the map was created by a FE'er. When faced with clear evidence that the creator was a RE'er, you pretended that he could have "switched sides" in the intervening years. You gloss over the fact that the latest map is merely a reformat of the original file.

I understand that you just want to be able to claim that your map is the brainchild of the FE community, rather than admit that you lazily leeched the work of a bored RE'er, but there are easier ways to do this than by blatantly denying the obvious fact that these two files are of the same map.



He does not say the maps were stolen from us, or that the formulae were concocted after the fact.

Yes, he does. Again, if you have trouble following that, refer to the clarification in the fourth reply:

I was trying to be succinct, not vague. It's a common idiom, at least in my experience, and I didn't think it would cause any confusion. What I mean is that 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.

Now, are you going to continue to broadcast your poor reading comprehension skills, or are you going to take my advice and ask Tom if this is indeed what he meant? I'll even save you some time by just directing you to reply #7.




The FE maps are wrong. In shape and distances.

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't even care whether the distances are wrong. Thork told us that FE'ers use distortion purposefully, to "emphasise" certain regions. What I want to know is which map they used as a starting point and how those distortions, or "emphases", were mapped out from it. I'm especially curious as to how a 2-dimensional circular map is transformed to result in a different 2-dimensional circular map; in my experience the only way to create two different usable maps with the same 2D shape is by starting from a 3D one.
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
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #195 on: May 26, 2012, 03:16:16 PM »
you've since reworded and watered them down in order to make them look justifiable.

No, I haven't. This is what watering down to make oneself look justifiable looks like:

He says some things are possible, and that some things are more likely than other things (without saying either is the case).

::)


No zarg, that's what accurately representing someone's claims looks like. You should try it some time.




Wil, is the 2007 file a RE map, or is it a FE map?

Why does it matter, when no-one was talking about it?

Why do you continue to stall -- why not just answer the question?

It matters because you claimed that the map was created by a FE'er. When faced with clear evidence that the creator was a RE'er, you pretended that he could have "switched sides" in the intervening years. You gloss over the fact that the latest map is merely a reformat of the original file.

I understand that you just want to be able to claim that your map is the brainchild of the FE community, rather than admit that you lazily leeched the work of a bored RE'er, but there are easier ways to do this than by blatantly denying the obvious fact that these two files are of the same map.


I have highlighted the two relevant issues. We did not claim a FE'er created the 2007 map. We claimed a FE'er made the map from 2008, which is a different map. They are different claims, and you are trying to conflate them in order to score points. Who created the 2007 map is totally irrelevant, because it's not what was being discussed in the original thread, upon which you have based your outlandish and unsupported claims.



He does not say the maps were stolen from us, or that the formulae were concocted after the fact.

Yes, he does. Again, if you have trouble following that, refer to the clarification in the fourth reply:

I was trying to be succinct, not vague. It's a common idiom, at least in my experience, and I didn't think it would cause any confusion. What I mean is that 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.

Now, are you going to continue to broadcast your poor reading comprehension skills, or are you going to take my advice and ask Tom if this is indeed what he meant? I'll even save you some time by just directing you to reply #7.


Why is it my job to ask what Tom meant? What's clear is what he said. If you think he meant something other than what he said, you ask him. That way you can post his response here and substantiate your currently baseless claims.


I don't have to prove Tom didn't mean something he didn't say. You have to prove he did mean something he didn't say.
"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 #196 on: May 26, 2012, 06:29:43 PM »
We did not claim a FE'er created the 2007 map. We claimed a FE'er made the map from 2008, which is a different map.

No, it is not a different map. It's a different file. It's the same map reuploaded in a new format with the same description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.jpg

Quote
This file has been superseded by File:Flat earth.png. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent.
Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png

Both files are clearly of the same map. One has transparency and graticules overlaid, the other doesn't; that is the only difference. You are being laughably dishonest by claiming they are unique creations.



... post his response here and substantiate your currently baseless claims

Tom already did confirm my explanation of his view on the first page. If you think that his "yes" meant "no", you're going to have to substantiate that.
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
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #197 on: May 30, 2012, 07:36:05 PM »
We did not claim a FE'er created the 2007 map. We claimed a FE'er made the map from 2008, which is a different map.

No, it is not a different map. It's a different file. It's the same map reuploaded in a new format with the same description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.jpg

Quote
This file has been superseded by File:Flat earth.png. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent.
Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png

Both files are clearly of the same map. One has transparency and graticules overlaid, the other doesn't; that is the only difference. You are being laughably dishonest by claiming they are unique creations.


Two maps, created a different times, which look different. Yet according to you, they are the same. You are laughably ridiculous by suggesting they are the same. ::)



... post his response here and substantiate your currently baseless claims

Tom already did confirm my explanation of his view on the first page. If you think that his "yes" meant "no", you're going to have to substantiate that.


Tom made those claims about the map from the 1800s. He clearly refers to the map being from the 1800s in his post, and refers exclusively to it. No matter how you interpret his post, it doesn't support your claims, because he's clearly talking about the map from the 1800s in that post.
[/quote]
"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 #198 on: May 31, 2012, 02:36:07 AM »
We did not claim a FE'er created the 2007 map. We claimed a FE'er made the map from 2008, which is a different map.

No, it is not a different map. It's a different file. It's the same map reuploaded in a new format with the same description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.jpg

Quote
This file has been superseded by File:Flat earth.png. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent.
Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png

Both files are clearly of the same map. One has transparency and graticules overlaid, the other doesn't; that is the only difference. You are being laughably dishonest by claiming they are unique creations.


Two maps, created a different times, which look different. Yet according to you, they are the same. You are laughably ridiculous by suggesting they are the same. ::)


They are the same in the same in a way that there are both wrong in proportions and distances.
And if you'd bothered superposing the both of them, you would have seen that they are almost identical.

THis whole FE map is ridiculous because the only maps you can provide are very small and the data used to create them are very unlikely to come from FE'ers.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #199 on: June 10, 2012, 08:37:18 PM »
They are the same in the same in a way that there are both wrong in proportions and distances.
And if you'd bothered superposing the both of them, you would have seen that they are almost identical.


They are the same because they are both wrong? Even if we assume they are wrong for the sake of argument, this is a terrible piece of reasoning.


Alternatively, they are the same because they're similar? Again, stupid.
"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 #200 on: June 11, 2012, 12:37:16 AM »
They are the same in the same in a way that there are both wrong in proportions and distances.
And if you'd bothered superposing the both of them, you would have seen that they are almost identical.


They are the same because they are both wrong? Even if we assume they are wrong for the sake of argument, this is a terrible piece of reasoning.


Alternatively, they are the same because they're similar? Again, stupid.

They are both wrong in the same way, on the same grounds.

Insted of bickering, why don't you supply a real FE map?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #201 on: June 11, 2012, 04:26:43 PM »
They're not the same. And there are loads of FE maps.
"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 #202 on: June 12, 2012, 12:22:49 AM »
They're not the same. And there are loads of FE maps.

Yep. Lots of FE maps all wrong. Just a hint:
– mass of land deformed beyond recognition in the southern hemisphere
– distances utterly wrong in the southern hemisphere

Why bother with FET when you don't have a map which depicts clearly what FET is about?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #203 on: June 12, 2012, 08:29:22 PM »
Tom made those claims about the map from the 1800s. He clearly refers to the map being from the 1800s in his post, and refers exclusively to it. No matter how you interpret his post, it doesn't support your claims, because he's clearly talking about the map from the 1800s in that post.

Exactly, he says they are all based on that hundreds-year-old FES design. The modern azimuthal equidistant map that the FES now displays as their own supposedly evolved directly from that map, and the fact that it's a RET-based calculation is explained by the concept of people deriving the mathematics backward from the image, rather than the other way around.

This is either true, or it isn't. It's not a complicated question. The purpose of this thread was to determine how many people share Tom's opinion. If they do, I'd like some documentation to support the allegation.
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.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11680
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #204 on: June 19, 2012, 01:34:51 PM »
Maplandia.com in partnership with Booking.com offers highly competitive rates for all types of hotels in Fes, from affordable family hotels to the most luxurious ones. Booking.com, being established in 1996, is longtime Europe’s leader in online hotel reservations.

At Maplandia.com you won't be charged any booking fees, cancellation fees, or administration fees – the reservation service is free of charge. The reservation system is secure and your personal information and credit card is encrypted.

We have put together also a carefully selected list of recommended hotels in Fes, only hotels with the highest level of guest satisfaction are included.y
Hi rainsummer, welcome to TFES. If I give you my credit card numer, do tbink you could book me a trip to England. I want the closet room to Buckingham palace. Thank 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 #205 on: June 19, 2012, 01:51:04 PM »
Maplandia.com in partnership with Booking.com offers highly competitive rates for all types of hotels in Fes, from affordable family hotels to the most luxurious ones. Booking.com, being established in 1996, is longtime Europe’s leader in online hotel reservations.

At Maplandia.com you won't be charged any booking fees, cancellation fees, or administration fees – the reservation service is free of charge. The reservation system is secure and your personal information and credit card is encrypted.

We have put together also a carefully selected list of recommended hotels in Fes, only hotels with the highest level of guest satisfaction are included.y
Hi rainsummer, welcome to TFES. If I give you my credit card numer, do tbink you could book me a trip to England. I want the closet room to Buckingham palace. Thank you.

Or a trip to the Bedford canal.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #206 on: June 19, 2012, 05:30:35 PM »
Tom made those claims about the map from the 1800s. He clearly refers to the map being from the 1800s in his post, and refers exclusively to it. No matter how you interpret his post, it doesn't support your claims, because he's clearly talking about the map from the 1800s in that post.

Exactly, he says they are all based on that hundreds-year-old FES design. The modern azimuthal equidistant map that the FES now displays as their own supposedly evolved directly from that map, and the fact that it's a RET-based calculation is explained by the concept of people deriving the mathematics backward from the image, rather than the other way around.

This is either true, or it isn't. It's not a complicated question. The purpose of this thread was to determine how many people share Tom's opinion. If they do, I'd like some documentation to support the allegation.


The modern FES map is based on those 1800s maps. Tom has not made any claims about "deriving mathematics backward from the image". Please quote him doing so.
"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 #207 on: June 20, 2012, 12:40:30 AM »
Tom made those claims about the map from the 1800s. He clearly refers to the map being from the 1800s in his post, and refers exclusively to it. No matter how you interpret his post, it doesn't support your claims, because he's clearly talking about the map from the 1800s in that post.

Exactly, he says they are all based on that hundreds-year-old FES design. The modern azimuthal equidistant map that the FES now displays as their own supposedly evolved directly from that map, and the fact that it's a RET-based calculation is explained by the concept of people deriving the mathematics backward from the image, rather than the other way around.

This is either true, or it isn't. It's not a complicated question. The purpose of this thread was to determine how many people share Tom's opinion. If they do, I'd like some documentation to support the allegation.

Maps derived from RE maps.

Let's face it: you don't have the resources to produce a FE map.


The modern FES map is based on those 1800s maps. Tom has not made any claims about "deriving mathematics backward from the image". Please quote him doing so.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #208 on: November 15, 2015, 05:21:48 AM »
The map at the beginning of this thread is a Polar Azimuthal Equidistant projection map.  Its principal features are that, FROM the center point (here, the North Pole) the direction and distance to any other place is correctly depicted.  This projection and the mathematics behind it has been in use for centuries.  This one here is centered on the North Pole, but an Azimuthal Equidistant map can be centered on any spot on Earth to show, e.g., how antennae should be turned to maximize radio signals to/from some other location. (Here is an Azimuthal Equidistant map centered on Delhi, India: [url=http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/poor-mapping-by-military-survey/]http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/poor-mapping-by-military-survey/ [/url].) This projection is the one used in the UN emblem - originally it was turned so the United States appeared right-side-up as would be extremely familiar to Americans, but after a few years the UN turned the map so that the more neutral spot of Zero longitude is at the middle.  There is more than one Azimuthal Equidistant projection, with very similar but not identical results.

But the Azimuthal Equidistant map is not reliable for shapes or area, especially as the distance from the center point increases, nor are the distances or directions between any two non-center points reliable (esp as distance increases between the two non-center points).  Here in the Polar version, the East-West dimension of Australia seems to be three times the North-South dimension - and Australia, east-west, appears to be much larger than the east-west dimension of the US.  In reality the the ratio of Australia is more like 5:4 and Australia and the US are about equally wide, east-west.

On this Polar map, the trip along the entire coastline of Antarctica appears to be prohibitively long, the longest journey possible on Earth.  Yet, ships and planes (and even birds) have traveled along the entire coastline and the clock and fuel gauge show it was not as arduous as the map makes it appear.   The coastline's 11,165 miles is less than the coastline of South America (19,325 miles) which ships from the east/west of the US had to travel before the building of the Panama Canal.  On the map, the distance between Buenos Aires and Perth appears to be prohibitive but the actual distance (7836 miles) is just slightly more than a NYC/Paris round-trip (7274 miles).

This is an Azimuthal Equidistant map with Mecca as its center, showing the direction and distance FROM Mecca to any non-center point.  https://anyasword.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/mecca-centred-map.jpg Having mentioned the Azimuthal Equidistant map and its characteristics, there is a rather bizarre projection, the Retro-Azimuthal Equidistant, in which the direction FROM any non-center point TO the center point is correct (the accuracy of the distance is somewhat less crucial).  This is sometimes called the Mecca map because very often centered on Mecca to show the reader in which direction he must face when praying wherever (away from Mecca) he may be.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_retroazimuthal_projection (unfortunately, this had to replace a more interesting interactive map that vanished from the internet).   (In an interactive Hammer Retroazimuthal Equidistant projection, the distortion becomes extreme as the distance from Mecca increases: [url=https://www.jasondavies.com/maps/hammer-retroazimuthal/]https://www.jasondavies.com/maps/hammer-retroazimuthal/ .)

The Polar Azimuthal Equidistant map seems to be popular among FE enthusiasts, in large part because the Antarctic coastline has the appearance of a pie crust and suggests an explanation why ships don't fall off the edge.  But measurements made at Antarctica are very incompatible with the impression made by the map.  Here, for example, is an Azimuthal Equidistant map centered on the South Pole, instead of the more familiar North Pole, ....   http://www.emapsworld.com/images/world-south-pole-azimuthal-equidistant-projection-map.gif    ... and, as you can see, Antarctica is much less impressive in size than on most other flat maps where it appears on the outer edges.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2016, 04:58:38 PM by cartog »

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: The source of FES's map
« Reply #209 on: November 17, 2015, 05:16:30 PM »
You can not make a determination by using a ball Earth map for comparison. As the Earth is proven to be a flat plane how the land masses actually reside upon it needs to be calculated by removing the ball Earth error factors from any data. The shape of the Earth is not known by common man. It may or may not be a circle. Likely, it does not look the way you think it is.
If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?