What makes FE sound?

Why is FE more credible by the repeated observations by stuff other than our(according to you) untrustworthy eyes. What makes FE a sounder theory than RE? Please provide stacks and stacks of peer-reviewed papers. I would post the ones of RE but the site would likely overload .
Joking aside, please tell me what makes FE sounder. And I want something along the lines of a bulletin list of multiple claims that do not sit with a RE.

What makes the flat earth hypothesis even less sound is the simple fact that not one of the earth's 6 million scientists accept that the earth is anything other than spherical.

The flat earthers have been asked on numerous occasions to name a few such scientists—if any— but thus far simply avoid the question.

That in itself should indicate how unsound is the flat earth notion.  If there were even the slightest possibility of the earth being flat, then I'm more than sure a handful of those scientists would've spoken up.  Imagine the esteem, the Nobel Prizes, and the big dollars if they could prove it.

What makes the flat earth hypothesis even less sound is the simple fact that not one of the earth's 6 million scientists accept that the earth is anything other than spherical.

Jroa's right, you do need a new shtick. That "6 million scientists" line is getting pretty stale.

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 17, 2015, 07:40:45 AM

What makes the flat earth hypothesis even less sound is the simple fact that not one of the earth's 6 million scientists accept that the earth is anything other than spherical.

Jroa's right, you do need a new shtick. That "6 million scientists" line is getting pretty stale.

Please don't confuse me for jroa.

Jroa's right, you do need a new shtick. That "6 million scientists" line is getting pretty stale.

The reason I repeatedly bring this up is due simply to the fact (which I've also repeated numerous times here) that not one flat earther has yet named six accredited scientists that accept that the earth is purportedly flat out of a pool of 6 million.

Further, if even one flat earther was to do so, I'd have no further need or desire to mention this statistic or ask the question.

So on that basis markjo... can you please name six "flat earth scientists"?  And stop me repeating myself ad nauseam?

Or, conversely, are you prepared to state unequivocally that no such scientists exist?  (And please don't sit on the fence as is your usual modus operandi on these forums.)

Accreditation doesn't necessarily make one a reputable scientist.

FE-ers will undoubtably jump in and talk about other theories that were not excepted by the scientific community when they were first proposed. However, the difference is that something like genetics or evolution was rejected by some people at first because it was a new theory. FE is not a new theory. People been debunking it for hundreds of years.

Accreditation doesn't necessarily make one a reputable scientist.

How would you then define a "reputable" scientist markjo?  If academic qualifications and subsequent accreditation doesn't make one reputable, then perhaps your definition is different to mine? 

—Or are you simply playing the semantics game here?

Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2015, 01:19:47 PM

Accreditation doesn't necessarily make one a reputable scientist.

How would you then define a "reputable" scientist markjo?  If academic qualifications and subsequent accreditation doesn't make one reputable, then perhaps your definition is different to mine?

I would say that a good reputation makes for a reputable scientist.  I would also say that a scientist (like just about anyone else) earns a good reputation by the work they do, not by the degrees or certificates they hold.  You might say that I'm one of those crazy people who respects experience above education.

You might say that I'm one of those crazy people who respects experience above education.

If that's truly the case, then you have no true idea of what a reputable scientist actually is.

This is a short list of educated scientists, mathematicians, psychologists and philosophers, whose "experience" led them to totally misconstrue their research results:

•  John Locke
•  Linus Pauling
•  Immanuel Velikovsky
•  Hanns Hörbiger
•  Franz Joseph Gall
•  William Thomson, Baron Kelvin
•  Wilhelm Reich
•  Zecharia Sitchin
•  Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons
•  Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier
•  Johan Joachim Becher
•  Giovanni Schiaparelli

Of course, there's nothing at all wrong with experience in the sciences, but it's critical that it's used in conjunction with accredited academic qualifications. 

Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2015, 08:23:27 PM

You might say that I'm one of those crazy people who respects experience above education.

If that's truly the case, then you have no true idea of what a reputable scientist actually is.

Then please enlighten me.  What do you think makes for a reputable scientist?

This is a short list of educated scientists, mathematicians, psychologists and philosophers, whose "experience" led them to totally misconstrue their research results:

•  John Locke
•  Linus Pauling
•  Immanuel Velikovsky
•  Hanns Hörbiger
•  Franz Joseph Gall
•  William Thomson, Baron Kelvin
•  Wilhelm Reich
•  Zecharia Sitchin
•  Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons
•  Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier
•  Johan Joachim Becher
•  Giovanni Schiaparelli

Of course, there's nothing at all wrong with experience in the sciences, but it's critical that it's used in conjunction with accredited academic qualifications.

I'm confused.  Are you saying that none of those scientists have accredited academic qualifications?  Perhaps you're confusing "accreditation" with "integrity".

I'm confused.  Are you saying that none of those scientists have accredited academic qualifications?  Perhaps you're confusing "accreditation" with "integrity".

I guess on second thoughts my intent wasn't all that clear.   

I was just making the point that relying solely on "experience"—which all those guys had in truckloads—doesn't guarantee any correct outcome.  The fact that they all had/have accredited academic qualifications doesn't alter the fact that their experience let them down badly.  And you were (apparently) hanging your hat solely on experience were you not?  You (apparently) said it trumped academia.

What makes the flat earth hypothesis even less sound is the simple fact that not one of the earth's 6 million scientists accept that the earth is anything other than spherical.

The flat earthers have been asked on numerous occasions to name a few such scientists—if any— but thus far simply avoid the question.

That in itself should indicate how unsound is the flat earth notion.  If there were even the slightest possibility of the earth being flat, then I'm more than sure a handful of those scientists would've spoken up.  Imagine the esteem, the Nobel Prizes, and the big dollars if they could prove it.

I dont know how much more proof  is reqiured to confirm,  the apollo missions & moon landings are contrived falsehoods. total engineering & scientific fraud. Yet it is  held as being  truthful achievement.
The hydraulics of water dosen't lie. UN like some scientists .

I don't know how much more proof  is required to confirm,  the Apollo missions & moon landings are contrived falsehoods. total engineering & scientific fraud. Yet it is  held as being  truthful achievement.

As it stands Charles, there is not one single piece of empirical evidence that would support your repeated claims that the Apollo missions were faked.

If you disagree with this, can you briefly post links to your sources of "proof"—other than third-party YouTube videos composed by conspiracy theorists who have no credible scientific qualifications in order to do so authoritatively.

And to answer your premise... there'd need to be a LOT more evidence in order to even suggest that the missions were faked.

Quote from: markjo on February 19, 2015, 09:05:21 AM

I'm confused.  Are you saying that none of those scientists have accredited academic qualifications?  Perhaps you're confusing "accreditation" with "integrity".

I guess on second thoughts my intent wasn't all that clear.   

I was just making the point that relying solely on "experience"—which all those guys had in truckloads—doesn't guarantee any correct outcome.  The fact that they all had/have accredited academic qualifications doesn't alter the fact that their experience let them down badly. 

It's been said that good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement.

And you were (apparently) hanging your hat solely on experience were you not?  You (apparently) said it trumped academia.

No, that is not what I'm saying.  Education is important, but it's nearly useless without practical experience.  After all, what kind of reputation did Einstein have before SR was finally validated by Eddington's eclipse pictures?

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 19, 2015, 09:51:39 AM

I don't know how much more proof  is required to confirm,  the Apollo missions & moon landings are contrived falsehoods. total engineering & scientific fraud. Yet it is  held as being  truthful achievement.

As it stands Charles, there is not one single piece of empirical evidence that would support your repeated claims that the Apollo missions were faked.

If you disagree with this, can you briefly post links to your sources of "proof"—other than third-party YouTube videos composed by conspiracy theorists who have no credible scientific qualifications in order to do so authoritatively.

And to answer your premise... there'd need to be a LOT more evidence in order to even suggest that the missions were faked.

One has to stand back to see the true picture . To see ones enslavement & the slave market one is being bought sold & traded in. Only when you see it for what it is , can you even remotely gauge what science to trust as factual & what is share maket shenanigans.

One has to stand back to see the true picture . To see ones enslavement & the slave market one is being bought sold & traded in. Only when you see it for what it is , can you even remotely gauge what science to trust as factual & what is share market shenanigans.

I for one am certainly not being "bought and sold" by any slave masters—whatever that means?

And as I asked you earlier, if you disagree that the Apollo missions were authentic, can you briefly post links to your sources of contrary "proof"—other than third-party YouTube videos composed by conspiracy theorists who have no credible scientific qualifications in order to do so authoritatively.

I'm also unclear as to what you mean by the phrase "share-market shenanigans".  Please clarify, and explain how the share market helps prove your flat earth notion.  The connection escapes me.

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 19, 2015, 10:37:15 AM

One has to stand back to see the true picture . To see ones enslavement & the slave market one is being bought sold & traded in. Only when you see it for what it is , can you even remotely gauge what science to trust as factual & what is share market shenanigans.

I for one am certainly not being "bought and sold" by any slave masters—whatever that means?

And as I asked you earlier, if you disagree that the Apollo missions were authentic, can you briefly post links to your sources of contrary "proof"—other than third-party YouTube videos composed by conspiracy theorists who have no credible scientific qualifications in order to do so authoritatively.

I'm also unclear as to what you mean by the phrase "share-market shenanigans".  Please clarify, and explain how the share market helps prove your flat earth notion.  The connection escapes me.

Geoff, how about the NASA video that has been posted plenty of times on here. I am not posting it again now. The video where the astronots are seen putting cardboard in the window to obtain their desired view of the earth. They are heard saying the camera is pushed against the window when it clearly is not. I don't know what you think about it, but you can clearly see NASA lying.

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 19, 2015, 11:57:07 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 19, 2015, 10:37:15 AM

One has to stand back to see the true picture . To see ones enslavement & the slave market one is being bought sold & traded in. Only when you see it for what it is , can you even remotely gauge what science to trust as factual & what is share market shenanigans.

I for one am certainly not being "bought and sold" by any slave masters—whatever that means?

And as I asked you earlier, if you disagree that the Apollo missions were authentic, can you briefly post links to your sources of contrary "proof"—other than third-party YouTube videos composed by conspiracy theorists who have no credible scientific qualifications in order to do so authoritatively.

I'm also unclear as to what you mean by the phrase "share-market shenanigans".  Please clarify, and explain how the share market helps prove your flat earth notion.  The connection escapes me.

Geoff, how about the NASA video that has been posted plenty of times on here. I am not posting it again now. The video where the astronots are seen putting cardboard in the window to obtain their desired view of the earth. They are heard saying the camera is pushed against the window when it clearly is not. I don't know what you think about it, but you can clearly see NASA lying.

Are you citing a video released by NASA and available to the public because of NASA as proof NASA are liars?

Doesn't that follow the rules of what should you believe when someone tells you they are a compulsive liar?

Quote from: markjo on February 17, 2015, 01:17:46 PM

Jroa's right, you do need a new shtick. That "6 million scientists" line is getting pretty stale.

The reason I repeatedly bring this up is due simply to the fact (which I've also repeated numerous times here) that not one flat earther has yet named six accredited scientists that accept that the earth is purportedly flat out of a pool of 6 million.

Further, if even one flat earther was to do so, I'd have no further need or desire to mention this statistic or ask the question.

So on that basis markjo... can you please name six "flat earth scientists"?  And stop me repeating myself ad nauseam?

Or, conversely, are you prepared to state unequivocally that no such scientists exist?  (And please don't sit on the fence as is your usual modus operandi on these forums.)

could you tell me who the queen of Australia is Geoff ? Could you  tell me how maritime & roman  law  became the rule of law , as opposed to to our constitutional common law ? Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of  congressman  approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating  under it . How many US  citizens are told that on voting day.

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 18, 2015, 09:57:59 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 17, 2015, 01:17:46 PM

Jroa's right, you do need a new shtick. That "6 million scientists" line is getting pretty stale.

The reason I repeatedly bring this up is due simply to the fact (which I've also repeated numerous times here) that not one flat earther has yet named six accredited scientists that accept that the earth is purportedly flat out of a pool of 6 million.

Further, if even one flat earther was to do so, I'd have no further need or desire to mention this statistic or ask the question.

So on that basis markjo... can you please name six "flat earth scientists"?  And stop me repeating myself ad nauseam?

Or, conversely, are you prepared to state unequivocally that no such scientists exist?  (And please don't sit on the fence as is your usual modus operandi on these forums.)

could you tell me who the queen of Australia is Geoff ? Could you  tell me how maritime & roman  law  became the rule of law , as opposed to to our constitutional common law ? Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of  congressman  approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating  under it . How many US  citizens are told that on voting day.

If the constitution was suspended then there would be no voting.

Also if it were suspended then please explain the long list of Supreme Court decisions upholding its amendments over the last 80 years, the laws passed by Congress based on its contents and the vetoes by Presidents due to Congress over reaching their constitutional bounds.

Seems to me its still quite in use.

Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of  congressman  approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating  under it . How many US  citizens are told that on voting day.

Umm...  You may want to check your facts.

In recent years, an ever-increasing number of alarming rumors have been paraded before Americans concerning their nation's future. Fears of United Nations forces in Montana, a concentration camp in downtown Indianapolis, and black helicopters everywhere are but a few of the sensational stories that have been spread through talk radio, the Internet, and tabloid newspapers.

The most recent addition to this maelstrom of false alarms offers the theory that the U.S. Constitution has been suspended since 1933 through a declaration of national emergency by President Franklin Roosevelt.

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 20, 2015, 03:26:03 AM

Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of  congressman  approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating  under it . How many US  citizens are told that on voting day.

Umm...  You may want to check your facts.

Quote from: http://constitution.org/pub/nam6205a.htm

In recent years, an ever-increasing number of alarming rumors have been paraded before Americans concerning their nation's future. Fears of United Nations forces in Montana, a concentration camp in downtown Indianapolis, and black helicopters everywhere are but a few of the sensational stories that have been spread through talk radio, the Internet, and tabloid newspapers.

The most recent addition to this maelstrom of false alarms offers the theory that the U.S. Constitution has been suspended since 1933 through a declaration of national emergency by President Franklin Roosevelt.

really well you need to ask your self how your President got to signed off òn ÙN agenda21, when its in complete breach of your constitutional rights & treason.

Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2015, 11:16:34 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 20, 2015, 03:26:03 AM

Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of  congressman  approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating  under it . How many US  citizens are told that on voting day.

Umm...  You may want to check your facts.

Quote from: /pub/nam6205a.htm

In recent years, an ever-increasing number of alarming rumors have been paraded before Americans concerning their nation's future. Fears of United Nations forces in Montana, a concentration camp in downtown Indianapolis, and black helicopters everywhere are but a few of the sensational stories that have been spread through talk radio, the Internet, and tabloid newspapers.

The most recent addition to this maelstrom of false alarms offers the theory that the U.S. Constitution has been suspended since 1933 through a declaration of national emergency by President Franklin Roosevelt.

really well you need to ask your self how your President got to signed off òn ÙN agenda21, when its in complete breach of your constitutional rights & treason.

You seem to not understand how the American political system works, which is ok because that majority of American's dont either.

The president can sign whatever he wants. But the only body that can ratify a treaty or agreement is the Congress. If the President were to sign something that was binding (which Agenda 21 is not btw) and Congress didn't ratify it, guess what? It never happens.

Its called checks and balances, and the only body that can enter the United States in a long term binding agreement is Congress.

The only reason that you see so much bullshit about Agenda 21 and Obama is because Republicans know that the majority of their voting base are mentally handicapped and wont realize that a non-binding photo op is meaningless to the American political landscape and that as long as Congress doesn't sign off on it, its meaningless, and therefore rail against Obama and give them more support in the midterms and presidential elections.

I'm sorry Chuck, the American system is working just fine, and the only people that think it isn't are those that dont understand how it works.

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 20, 2015, 01:06:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2015, 11:16:34 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 20, 2015, 03:26:03 AM

Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of  congressman  approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating  under it . How many US  citizens are told that on voting day.

Umm...  You may want to check your facts.

Quote from: /pub/nam6205a.htm

In recent years, an ever-increasing number of alarming rumors have been paraded before Americans concerning their nation's future. Fears of United Nations forces in Montana, a concentration camp in downtown Indianapolis, and black helicopters everywhere are but a few of the sensational stories that have been spread through talk radio, the Internet, and tabloid newspapers.

The most recent addition to this maelstrom of false alarms offers the theory that the U.S. Constitution has been suspended since 1933 through a declaration of national emergency by President Franklin Roosevelt.

really well you need to ask your self how your President got to signed off òn ÙN agenda21, when its in complete breach of your constitutional rights & treason.

You seem to not understand how the American political system works, which is ok because that majority of American's dont either.

The president can sign whatever he wants. But the only body that can ratify a treaty or agreement is the Congress. If the President were to sign something that was binding (which Agenda 21 is not btw) and Congress didn't ratify it, guess what? It never happens.

Its called checks and balances, and the only body that can enter the United States in a long term binding agreement is Congress.

The only reason that you see so much bullshit about Agenda 21 and Obama is because Republicans know that the majority of their voting base are mentally handicapped and wont realize that a non-binding photo op is meaningless to the American political landscape and that as long as Congress doesn't sign off on it, its meaningless, and therefore rail against Obama and give them more support in the midterms and presidential elections.

I'm sorry Chuck, the American system is working just fine, and the only people that think it isn't are those that dont understand how it works.

why would your  president sign it In the first place ? You dont sign 'any document 'as it is legally  binding in international law . Why is it being implemented if there is no consequence to signing . Your ether very nieve or a facilitating UN agenda21 stooge ?

Could you tell me who the queen of Australia is Geoff ? Could you  tell me how maritime & roman  law  became the rule of law , as opposed to to our constitutional common law ? Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of  congressman  approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating  under it . How many US  citizens are told that on voting day.

Uh... you're rambling incoherently again Charles LOL.

These comments have absolutely nothing to do with any alleged "proofs" of yours that the earth is purportedly flat.  Please try and stay on-topic for a change, rather than attempting to derail the thread.

And you still haven't addressed my earlier question:  "If you disagree that the Apollo missions were authentic, can you briefly post links to your sources of contrary 'proof'—other than third-party YouTube videos composed by conspiracy theorists who have no credible scientific qualifications in order to do so authoritatively."

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 20, 2015, 03:23:41 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 20, 2015, 01:06:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2015, 11:16:34 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 20, 2015, 03:26:03 AM

Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of  congressman  approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating  under it . How many US  citizens are told that on voting day.

Umm...  You may want to check your facts.

Quote from: /pub/nam6205a.htm

In recent years, an ever-increasing number of alarming rumors have been paraded before Americans concerning their nation's future. Fears of United Nations forces in Montana, a concentration camp in downtown Indianapolis, and black helicopters everywhere are but a few of the sensational stories that have been spread through talk radio, the Internet, and tabloid newspapers.

The most recent addition to this maelstrom of false alarms offers the theory that the U.S. Constitution has been suspended since 1933 through a declaration of national emergency by President Franklin Roosevelt.

really well you need to ask your self how your President got to signed off òn ÙN agenda21, when its in complete breach of your constitutional rights & treason.

You seem to not understand how the American political system works, which is ok because that majority of American's dont either.

The president can sign whatever he wants. But the only body that can ratify a treaty or agreement is the Congress. If the President were to sign something that was binding (which Agenda 21 is not btw) and Congress didn't ratify it, guess what? It never happens.

Its called checks and balances, and the only body that can enter the United States in a long term binding agreement is Congress.

The only reason that you see so much bullshit about Agenda 21 and Obama is because Republicans know that the majority of their voting base are mentally handicapped and wont realize that a non-binding photo op is meaningless to the American political landscape and that as long as Congress doesn't sign off on it, its meaningless, and therefore rail against Obama and give them more support in the midterms and presidential elections.

I'm sorry Chuck, the American system is working just fine, and the only people that think it isn't are those that dont understand how it works.

why would your  president sign it In the first place ? You dont sign 'any document 'as it is legally  binding in international law . Why is it being implemented if there is no consequence to signing . Your ether very nieve or a facilitating UN agenda21 stooge ?

Because it looks good to his voting base. That's all. If congress doesn't ratify it then it's a useless signature. Just the way america works.

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 20, 2015, 03:26:03 AM

Could you tell me who the queen of Australia is Geoff ? Could you  tell me how maritime & roman  law  became the rule of law , as opposed to to our constitutional common law ? Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of  congressman  approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating  under it . How many US  citizens are told that on voting day.

Uh... you're rambling incoherently again Charles LOL.

These comments have absolutely nothing to do with any alleged "proofs" of yours that the earth is purportedly flat.  Please try and stay on-topic for a change, rather than attempting to derail the thread.

And you still haven't addressed my earlier question:  "If you disagree that the Apollo missions were authentic, can you briefly post links to your sources of contrary 'proof'—other than third-party YouTube videos composed by conspiracy theorists who have no credible scientific qualifications in order to do so authoritatively."

thats no surprise you have  trouble understanding my ramblings, but then again I wouldn't expect a person like you to be  man enough to answer.: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

No response to how the United states political system works?