Earth as seen from the moon

We've all seen the earth from the moon.

I don't see any way around it. How can an FES defend a flat-earth system when we've clearly seen our own planet from space several times?

Most flat-earthers believe that the moon landings, and sustained space flight in general, is patently absurd.  Hell, the entire Apollo 13 mission reads like a hollywood script and rolled out just when the public started loosing interest in the program.

Yet we just landed on Mars...again...

To say something "reads like a script" is the absurdity, not the events themselves. Also, the public was NOT losing interest in the space program. I don't know where you got that idea.

The constellations shift relative to the horizon as you move north and south around the globe, something that could only happen if you were standing on a sphere. QED. End of debate. FES hypothesis is null and a willful fabrication of the truth being twisted into a lie to support a dying religion.

I'm beginning to wonder: is any amount of proof sufficient for you? Are FES people open to being proven wrong?

It's either a testament to mankinds limited imigination or the fault of NASA's ever weakening budget that Mars looks exactly like the Southwest United States.

Flat Earth Theory is, unlike its competition, falsifiable.

Why does it matter that mars's geological features resemble the earths?

A tree looks very much like broccoli. But you and I both know that a tree is not broccoli.

Just because two things look similar does not mean they are the same. Basic gradeschool logic will help you understand this.

You say FES is falsifiable. I agree. And I think it is a tragedy that FES cannot change their view when evidence is presented. Debate implies persuasion. FES people cannot be persuaded, so what is the purpose of this forum, if not to enrage the public and incite anger?

It's a gathering place for like-minded people who believe in a flat-earth. I'm sorry if this enrages you, but we are in no way inciting public anger.

Also, don't you find it strange that NASA keeps sending probes to Mars, hands down the most easily faked environment, when there is an entire "solar system" of places to probe?  Curious.

Mars looks exactly like the Southwest United States.

  Not really, no.  There are few places in the southwest where there are literally no plants, not to mention all the geography due to water erosion.  The only similarity is that they're rocky and sandy.

Also, don't you find it strange that NASA keeps sending probes to Mars, hands down the most easily faked environment, when there is an entire "solar system" of places to probe?  Curious.

Yes, how curious that they'd send rovers to the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt them minutes after landing.  It really makes you think.

Quote from: Pongo on August 31, 2012, 04:31:07 AM

Also, don't you find it strange that NASA keeps sending probes to Mars, hands down the most easily faked environment, when there is an entire "solar system" of places to probe?  Curious.

Yes, how curious that they'd send rovers to the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt them minutes after landing.  It really makes you think.

Whatever, the moon is supposedly vastly closser than Mars; practically no distance in comparison. Yet it's rarely probed. The lunar surface, complete with stunning backdrops of a fabricated earth, is simply harder to reproduce in a studio than putting a few cameras on an RC car and dropping it in the desert is.

Whatever, the moon is supposedly vastly closser than Mars; practically no distance in comparison. Yet it's rarely probed. The lunar surface, complete with stunning backdrops of a fabricated earth, is simply harder to reproduce in a studio than putting a few cameras on an RC car and dropping it in the desert is.

And where in the desert would this be?  Having lived in the southwest I can assure you that finding somewhere with no plants is still quite difficult.

Because dusting an area with poison a couple months before shooting is beyond the concept or ability of NASA. Use your brain.

Because dusting an area with poison a couple months before shooting is beyond the concept or ability of NASA. Use your brain.

Use your brain. Your posts are making less and less sense.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on August 31, 2012, 04:49:59 AM

Quote from: Pongo on August 31, 2012, 04:31:07 AM

Also, don't you find it strange that NASA keeps sending probes to Mars, hands down the most easily faked environment, when there is an entire "solar system" of places to probe?  Curious.

Yes, how curious that they'd send rovers to the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt them minutes after landing.  It really makes you think.

Whatever, the moon is supposedly vastly closser than Mars; practically no distance in comparison. Yet it's rarely probed. The lunar surface, complete with stunning backdrops of a fabricated earth, is simply harder to reproduce in a studio than putting a few cameras on an RC car and dropping it in the desert is.

There's several rovers on the moon, and there are several satellites orbiting it. Nasa performed a kinetic bombardment of the lunar surface just a short while back to see if any water came out. The moon is always probed. It's not advertised as much because people have been there several times.

Because dusting an area with poison a couple months before shooting is beyond the concept or ability of NASA. Use your brain.

Poison may kill things, but it does not eliminate all traces of plant life. There would be something there. Your argument is quite ridiculous.

Ophello: permanoob or troll?

I think they are the only catagories on this site.

I have never seen the earth from the moon, I have seen pictures and videos of this though.

You aren't interested in the truth, are you? You invent a shoddy explanation for every piece of evidence and then sit back in your armchair, satisfied that you have made a compelling argument. You have not. You deny your own logic and reason (god-given talents) and instead rely on a belief system to draw a conclusion.

You're surrounded by people who want you to open your eyes to the universe. They are upset because you aren't arguing logically.

I don't have a problem with most religious beliefs because they at least allow room for the adoption of new knowledge. FES, however, wants to stay put exactly where they are -- forever. What kind of life is that? No growth? No new knowledge in an ever-changing universe? No exploration? No curiosity? Why would god give you a brain that is capable of drawing conclusions if he didn't intend for you to use it? Don't you have any curiosity for the universe?

You call the brave men and women who dare to explore the universe LIARS. They are not liars. They are intelligent, curious, brave human beings who deserve more from you than a petty dismissal of their efforts under the guise of a religious movement. You owe them so much that you take for granted.

"permanoob or troll" -- Neither. I'm a normal person who has faith in humanity's ability to learn new things and throw away old ways of thinking when they no longer serve them. I am not "new" at this. I am quite practiced in it, as are most people.

Flat Earth Theory is, unlike its competition, falsifiable.

Herein we hit paydirt. Pongo states in no uncertain terms that Flat Earth theory is falsifiable. Add to that the myth that we never explored the Moon or Mars.

I don't understand what the purpose of this forum is if it is only filled with FES folks who cannot argue rationally or offer any compelling evidence to support their claim. If you want to believe the earth is flat, be my guest. But if you're going to make an internet forum out of it, be prepared to fail over and over again to convince anyone that your beliefs are worthwhile.

You aren't interested in the truth, are you? You invent a shoddy explanation for every piece of evidence and then sit back in your armchair, satisfied that you have made a compelling argument. You have not. You deny your own logic and reason (god-given talents) and instead rely on a belief system to draw a conclusion.

To whom are you addressing this statment?

You're surrounded by people who want you to open your eyes to the universe. They are upset because you aren't arguing logically.

These are not the only kind of people that surround "you".

I don't have a problem with most religious beliefs because they at least allow room for the adoption of new knowledge. FES, however, wants to stay put exactly where they are -- forever. What kind of life is that? No growth? No new knowledge in an ever-changing universe? No exploration? No curiosity? Why would god give you a brain that is capable of drawing conclusions if he didn't intend for you to use it? Don't you have any curiosity for the universe?

Who says when you have settled on a theory, there isn't any room fro growth. The Spherical earth is a theory accepted more or less everywhere. but, in regards to this, you would not claim there is not room for exploration.

You call the brave men and women who dare to explore the universe LIARS. They are not liars. They are intelligent, curious, brave human beings who deserve more from you than a petty dismissal of their efforts under the guise of a religious movement. You owe them so much that you take for granted.

The brave men and women you talk about, might, if it exists, have been duped by The Conspiracy.

"permanoob or troll" -- Neither. I'm a normal person who has faith in humanity's ability to learn new things and throw away old ways of thinking when they no longer serve them. I am not "new" at this. I am quite practiced in it, as are most people.

This was a general jibe at the community decorum. look around, you'll see what I mean: the troll accuse the permanoobs of being permanoobs, and the permanoobs accuse the Trolls of being Trolls. This is true by defintion of what each of those words mean on this forum.

I am happy to oblige in confusing you.

Quote from: Pongo on August 31, 2012, 04:14:49 AM

Flat Earth Theory is, unlike its competition, falsifiable.

Herein we hit paydirt. Pongo states in no uncertain terms that Flat Earth theory is falsifiable. Add to that the myth that we never explored the Moon or Mars.

I don't understand what the purpose of this forum is if it is only filled with FES folks who cannot argue rationally or offer any compelling evidence to support their claim. If you want to believe the earth is flat, be my guest. But if you're going to make an internet forum out of it, be prepared to fail over and over again to convince anyone that your beliefs are worthwhile.

Pongo is the most lucid poster on the site, you will soon be blinded by his majesterial wit and lucidity. just you wait, this time next week you will be rooting for the FEers. Me, I pefer to remain ignorant to the truth of FE.

Quote from: Pongo on August 31, 2012, 04:14:49 AM

Flat Earth Theory is, unlike its competition, falsifiable.

Herein we hit paydirt. Pongo states in no uncertain terms that Flat Earth theory is falsifiable. Add to that the myth that we never explored the Moon or Mars.

I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here. Are you suggesting the round-earth theory is not falsifiable?

Quote from: ophello on August 31, 2012, 02:29:46 PM

Quote from: Pongo on August 31, 2012, 04:14:49 AM

Flat Earth Theory is, unlike its competition, falsifiable.

Herein we hit paydirt. Pongo states in no uncertain terms that Flat Earth theory is falsifiable. Add to that the myth that we never explored the Moon or Mars.

I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here. Are you suggesting the round-earth theory is not falsifiable?

Round Earth reality is by definition not falsifiable.

The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought. 

Tatooine, as seen from my intergalactic space ship:

The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.

I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.

Quote from: Pongo on August 31, 2012, 04:28:37 PM

The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.

I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.

Sometimes that is not always the answer in philosophy.

So we can all agree that round-earth theory is unfalsifiable?

So we can all agree that round-earth theory is unfalsifiable?

No, I do not "agree that round-earth theory is unfalsifiable".   I would, however, agree that FE'ers are completely unwilling to accept any experiment or data, falsifiable or not, that suggests that the earth is round.

Markjo, no evidence you can present suggests that the Earth is round because the Earth is not round.

Markjo, no evidence you can present suggests that the Earth is round because the Earth is not round.

Markjo has been trying this for years.

Markjo, no evidence you can present suggests that the Earth is round because the Earth is not round.

Oh, there's lots of evidence that suggests that the earth is round.  Getting an FE'er to accept that evidence is the hard part.

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 31, 2012, 05:09:55 PM

Quote from: Pongo on August 31, 2012, 04:28:37 PM

The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.

I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.

Sometimes that is not always the answer in philosophy.

"True" means "not false".
So yes, it is always the answer, in philosophy as well as everything else. You are failing to distinguish between things that can or cannot be known as true, and philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable. That's what it's for. Trying to claim that we can't ever properly know what is true would be a semantic side-track in this instance.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 31, 2012, 06:38:25 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 31, 2012, 05:09:55 PM

Quote from: Pongo on August 31, 2012, 04:28:37 PM

The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.

I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.

Sometimes that is not always the answer in philosophy.

"True" means "not false".
So yes, it is always the answer, in philosophy as well as everything else. You are failing to distinguish between things that can or cannot be known as true, and philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable. That's what it's for. Trying to claim that we can't ever properly know what is true would be a semantic side-track in this instance.

No it doesn't.
Also, "philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable"...really? I mean seriously, do you honestly think that?

Quote from: The Knowledge on September 01, 2012, 06:00:25 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 31, 2012, 06:38:25 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 31, 2012, 05:09:55 PM

Quote from: Pongo on August 31, 2012, 04:28:37 PM

The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.

I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.

Sometimes that is not always the answer in philosophy.

"True" means "not false".
So yes, it is always the answer, in philosophy as well as everything else. You are failing to distinguish between things that can or cannot be known as true, and philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable. That's what it's for. Trying to claim that we can't ever properly know what is true would be a semantic side-track in this instance.

No it doesn't.
Also, "philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable"...really? I mean seriously, do you honestly think that?

What I consider to be philosophy is the study of questioning the nature of things that we have no practical ability to address by experiment or observation. If we can observe them practically, then it falls into the realm of science, defined as distinct from philosophy because of the possibility of finding a definite answer to a question. For example "Is the universe expanding indefinitely?" is science, whereas "did a deity cause the expansion of the universe?" is philosophy. "Can our eyes tell us there is a table?" is science, whereas "Can we trust our senses that the table really exists?" is philosophy.
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.