what's left now?

- no curvature
- angular sun rays
- flight paths
- dome
- fake photos of earth
- fake photos of moon
- no satellites or ISS
- landmarks from too far away

all these 'evidences' and more, used by the FE community, have been irrefutably disproven

my question is, as those points above can no long be used, what's left for the FE to use as evidence?

[purposeful derailment will be reported]

Seeing as you appear to believe it's all been sorted; what's left is for you to have no reason whatsoever to be here continually putting up threads having a pop at flat Earth, unless you're a paid shill or simply some antagonistic loner that wants to scream and scream that you've proved flat earth wrong by citing everything you read in your fantasy books.

Nothing left here for you now, unless you decide to use your brain and start thinking for yourself.

Seeing as you appear to believe it's all been sorted; what's left is for you to have no reason whatsoever to be here continually putting up threads having a pop at flat Earth, unless you're a paid shill or simply some antagonistic loner that wants to scream and scream that you've proved flat earth wrong by citing everything you read in your fantasy books.

Nothing left here for you now, unless you decide to use your brain and start thinking for yourself.

You must have me mistaken
I'm not one to quote proof, I'm the one that has testable evidence, you can test it yourself, anyone can

the reason I'm still here is to explain to those that are actually fooled by the flat earth wild goose chase why they're here

if you believe the earth is flat, you're being duped by the elite, you think you're getting one over them by 'cracking their secret', but in all seriousness, you're falling for their tricks

the flat earth theory is clearly just a distraction from the secrets of Antarctica

I'm a person, I care about my fellow man, I'm against the elite.. divide and conquer has always been their most useful tool

you shouldn't be falling for it

also, why don't you answer the question..

with those 'proofs' exposed, what is it that still makes you believe the earth is flat?

You're assertions aren't "proof" they're just words.

Cry to the mods all you want! I hope you spam the report feature again, you big fucking crybaby.

You're assertions aren't "proof" they're just words.

Cry to the mods all you want! I hope you spam the report feature again, you big fucking crybaby.

No they're evidence, you refuse to even attempt to prove any wrong

why don't you actually do what globe earthers do; research and present findings

but no, you've no evidence, you've nothing to support your theory and you've absolutely no argument against the IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE I've presented

instead you just try to wind me up, you're just showing how little argument there is

for the THIRD time, feel free to talk to me about my points, individually

if you're brave enough?

Stop being ridiculous. There are thousands of posts on this forum discussing all these things you bring up. It doesn't require bravery to post on a forum.

Why don't you tell us who these "elite" are who have convinced us the earth is flat. If you're brave enough.

my question is, as those points above can no long be used, what's left for the FE to use as evidence?

I like turtles. Someone once said that under the Earth, it's just turtles all the way down. Since I like them a lot, I think the statement is rather attractive. But it may or may not be true. Also, this:



Now, to get to the heart of your question, I think JD's non-Euclidean flat surface remains to be disproven. AND, like your evidence that you have, it's not in your list. Maybe you could just assert that it's wrong though and everything will be better?

FWIW though, I bet it's wrong. I like turtles.

Stop being ridiculous. There are thousands of posts on this forum discussing all these things you bring up. It doesn't require bravery to post on a forum.

Why don't you tell us who these "elite" are who have convinced us the earth is flat. If you're brave enough.

I suppose it was ridiculous of me to expect anything other than diversion from you.. absolutely unwilling to discuss any of the IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE I've presented

the only 'proof' I've seen you present is the same piece of evidence, twice: "look out your window"

I'm sorry but you've got to do more than that

you've agreed that angular sun rays do not prove a flat earth (in fact, angular sun rays actually prove a globe earth, but one point at a time).. so doesn't that make you realise that other things that some flat earthers use as 'absolute proof' may also be incorrect?

like the ones I've listed above?

they've ALL been irrefutably proven with tests, not maths, tests that I can explain in easy terms so no one is left asking questions

so my previous question remains

what do you have left to actually use as evidence?



@boydster

you seem to also only want to antagonise me, why can't people just talk like normal humans on the internet? leave your ego at the door man, I'm not interested

if you've got any argument against my findings, I'm all ears..
if not, you're just another person who may as well have replied 'you're absolutely right'

if you don't think I'm right, discuss by all means.. unless ASKING for your opinion constitutes 'demanding' answers again?

I've said it before, I'll say it again..
I'M ALL EARS!!!

So.... go ahead and disprove John Davis' non-Euclidean flat surface.

Also, you came into this place reeking of ego from the get-go. You literally just posted that I should have just replied with "You're absolutely right" even though you ignored what I said about JD's latest theory that you haven't addressed.

So.... go ahead and disprove John Davis' non-Euclidean flat surface.

gimme a link

please

If you search "John Davis Non Euclidean Surface" it's the first thread to come up... so... yeah. Here ya go.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66391.0

Your posts just seem so conflict-driven. I don't know why you get upset when people respond accordingly. Reread your OPs on the threads you have started and ask yourself who wants to antagonize who.

you're confusing 'matter of fact' and 'layman terms' with an attempt to antagonise

as for 'layman terms', that post has confused me, too many scientific terms that aren't needed

if I understand correctly, then the lunar eclipse shadow instantly disproves his model, he claims a 'finite plane', which is NOT what we see with our eyes, the flat earth explanation for the lunar eclipse doesn't stand up to testing

so unless I misunderstood his post (very possible), then I'd class that as job done

you're confusing 'matter of fact' and 'layman terms' with an attempt to antagonise

No, I'm not. You have been arrogant and condescending while offering very little to back up your position and being very demanding of everyone else to bow to your requests for information. Example: asking me to provide you a link instead of searching. Or demanding that I defend FE for some weird reason after I just tried to offer you the usual responses that I've seen (you know, since you were new here and maybe hadn't seen those answers before).

as for 'layman terms', that post has confused me, too many scientific terms that aren't needed

if I understand correctly, then the lunar eclipse shadow instantly disproves his model, he claims a 'finite plane', which is NOT what we see with our eyes, the flat earth explanation for the lunar eclipse doesn't stand up to testing

so unless I misunderstood his post (very possible), then I'd class that as job done

Ok, so no resolution then. So stop being so cocky.

@JO

You are confrontational and demanding. 

As boydster points out you do not come off as asking, but demanding people to give you answers.

You also need to consider what site you are on.  You are going to run into true believers of FE and people who just enjoy trolling or playing devil's advocate.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on July 02, 2016, 11:41:40 AM

Stop being ridiculous. There are thousands of posts on this forum discussing all these things you bring up. It doesn't require bravery to post on a forum.

Why don't you tell us who these "elite" are who have convinced us the earth is flat. If you're brave enough.

I suppose it was ridiculous of me to expect anything other than diversion from you.. absolutely unwilling to discuss any of the IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE I've presented

the only 'proof' I've seen you present is the same piece of evidence, twice: "look out your window"

I'm sorry but you've got to do more than that

you've agreed that angular sun rays do not prove a flat earth (in fact, angular sun rays actually prove a globe earth, but one point at a time).. so doesn't that make you realise that other things that some flat earthers use as 'absolute proof' may also be incorrect?

like the ones I've listed above?

they've ALL been irrefutably proven with tests, not maths, tests that I can explain in easy terms so no one is left asking questions

so my previous question remains

what do you have left to actually use as evidence?

You haven't posted a single bit of evidence. You've made assertions, you've made demands, you've cried to the mods. No one here "has got to do" what you tell us to do.

I never agreed with your angular sun rays nonsense. You're the one stating absolutes here, not the flat earthers.

So my previous question remains. Who are the "elite" you referred to?

let me get this straight..

boydster - stating that the 'proofs' that the flat earthers use have already been disproved beyond question and asking bluntly why people still believe AFTER seeing the evidence, is not arrogant or cocky..
when people ask a question, they usually expect an answer, that's not demanding, that's standard asking
 
I apologise if anything I've said has offended you, and I have obviously noticed you're not FE.. but still, YOU said I had NO evidence, and refused to challenge anything I've stated, making me take you with the same pinch of salt I take anyone else avoiding the actual question, it's obvious you've got a bit more about you, I'm unsure as to why you're unwilling to discuss

woody - again, if it seems demanding, apologies.. I'm asking questions in the right place, I'm just expecting more that diversion tactics

space cowgirl - how can you possibly say I've just presented no evidence? I've asked you directly more than once - there's a list in this thread's OP and also in my other thread's OP, you've failed to challenge anything on either thread, you've just said 'you've got no evidence', that's called 'cognitive dissonance'
also please don't lie, you clearly stated angular sun rays do not prove a flat earth

as for the elite, that'll be the same ones YOU claim nasa are working for

if you don't know who the elite are, I not surprised you're easily led a mery dance by the FE society

SPACE COWGIRL -
my apologies, it was someone else who said that about the sun rays

DO you think angular sun rays prove a localised sun?

let me get this straight..

boydster - stating that the 'proofs' that the flat earthers use have already been disproved beyond question and asking bluntly why people still believe AFTER seeing the evidence, is not arrogant or cocky..
when people ask a question, they usually expect an answer, that's not demanding, that's standard asking
 
I apologise if anything I've said has offended you, and I have obviously noticed you're not FE.. but still, YOU said I had NO evidence, and refused to challenge anything I've stated, making me take you with the same pinch of salt I take anyone else avoiding the actual question, it's obvious you've got a bit more about you, I'm unsure as to why you're unwilling to discuss

woody - again, if it seems demanding, apologies.. I'm asking questions in the right place, I'm just expecting more that diversion tactics

space cowgirl - how can you possibly say I've just presented no evidence? I've asked you directly more than once - there's a list in this thread's OP and also in my other thread's OP, you've failed to challenge anything on either thread, you've just said 'you've got no evidence', that's called 'cognitive dissonance'
also please don't lie, you clearly stated angular sun rays do not prove a flat earth

as for the elite, that'll be the same ones YOU claim nasa are working for

if you don't know who the elite are, I not surprised you're easily led a mery dance by the FE society

It's not that I'm offended, it's just that I don't feel I owe you anything. I'm happy to have a conversation. I may not be a seasoned vet here, but I've certainly had more substantive dialogue than what I've felt inclined to get into on your threads. You listed a bunch of stuff that you think has been disproven at the beginning of this thread with no support, and then ask what else is left. So maybe those things have (probably the case) or maybe they haven't (and who's to say you know one way or the other, or if you are just listing things that Google agrees with you about after a cursory search), but there's no justification that I've seen for the assertions. And I provided you something that would be good to put a little bit of thought into in order to provide a reasoned argument against it. But you dismissed it because it had too many sciencey words that you said (read: asserted) were unnecessary. And something about the moon. I think there is an argument to be made about the complexity of such a system vs a RE model, and why would space warp a flat surface enough to make observers on the surface see the external universe behave as if it were moving around a sphere, but you just dismissed the whole thing without any apparent thought.

Also, crepuscular rays don't prove or disprove FE or RE. So what's the deal with going after SCG about lying? I don't remember that happening? And now I'm playing FEer apologetics again! Arrgh.

Edit: ok I see you retracted the crepuscular rays argument at SCG, disregard.

So.... go ahead and disprove John Davis' non-Euclidean flat surface.

Also, you came into this place reeking of ego from the get-go. You literally just posted that I should have just replied with "You're absolutely right" even though you ignored what I said about JD's latest theory that you haven't addressed.

It all boils down to the single point S. Celestial Pole that needs to be above a single point S.Pole. As demonstrated here, it can not be on a disk/plane with people living on just one side: (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)

To make the non-Euclidean flat surface work, it will have to be something along the lines of the following: (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66985.msg1787756#msg1787756)

Of course you have to invoke something that will convert the non-Euclidean plane to appear spherical and something on the "edge" that will instantaneous teleport light and matter to the other side of the "edge".

As I keep saying, amateur astronomy (visual/photographic) supports/proves or falsifies/disproves /destroys/annihilates all Earth models. You can't fake the sky.

So although you can play theoretical mind games like "would an infinite plane collapse because of gravity?", all that, like UA on a disk, is totally irrelevant if you can't make the sky "work". THE difficulty that must be explained is how the S. Celestial Pole "works" on any FE model - in this case a non-Euclidean plane. Once you have THAT, then we can discuss other stuff. No S. Celestial Pole/S. Pole as a single point, no working FE model.

I only offered that example as a mental exercise for Johnorbital to put his money where he mouth has been. It was something for him to disprove, because he seems to have a big boner for finding a new way to disprove FE and when I first brought it up, he dismissed it with no thought. So now he still doesn't have to think. Oh well.

But your answer is a great debunk, and totally worth contributing. I don't want to take away from that, as you make a very valid point. It's just that JO has been walking around with his balls dragging on the ground and I was hoping to provide him an opportunity to think through an answer about a topic that doesn't come up on every thread.

SPACE COWGIRL -
my apologies, it was someone else who said that about the sun rays

DO you think angular sun rays prove a localised sun?

Apology accepted 

I don't know what you mean by "localised sun", so I can't answer that.

@boydster

my points are NOT from google

1. lunar eclipse - our shadow, it's round - the FE explanation for the lunar eclipse doesn't stand up to testing (absolute evidence of a globe earth)
2. landmarks from too far away - when looking at the Chicago skyline (for instance) from too far away, when the camera is put at ground level, the skyline is no longer visible (evidence of curve)
3. meteors - the mere fact they exist, and have been documented/photographed/collected by some non-government agents immediately disproves the dome (absolute evidence of no dome)
4. angular sun rays - when using perspective from different angles at the same time, the location of the sun is in different places (absolute evidence of a non-localised sun, disproving the flat earth model's location of the sun)
5. satellites and the ISS - visible with the naked eye and in detail with a telescope/binoculars (disproving their non-existence, in turn, absolute evidence they exist)

to name a few

5 pieces of IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE

as for you making out I've some sort of mental deficiency because I'm not scientifically literate just makes you a dick, I wanted to make that clear

what someone who actually wanted me to answer would have done, would have been break it down for me, in layman terms, like I made it clear that I needed.. but no, you'd rather be able to just 'get one over' on me.. awesome

I read it, it stated a plane, therefore it has a major flaw.. the lunar eclipse.. I'm sure I said that in my last response


@space cowgirl

the flat earth theory dictates the sun is just above us, the same 3000ish miles away that the moon is.. unless there's a photo of angular sun rays, at which point the believers tell you it's just above the clouds, localised, with the moon, under the dome (the model has no third celestial body)

Dude. I didn't say anything about you have a mental deficiency. Another poster came and answered a question I posed to you. One that you dodged earlier. Pardon me for acknowledging that.

1) I can't imagine a way the FE can explain lunar eclipses reasonably. Maybe there is something they could come up with, I don't know.
2) The non-Euclidean surface could have explained this. After all, a sphere is a non-Euclidean flat surface.
3) "No dome" doesn't mean "no FE"
4) Really very few people cling to this as a real argument, as has been stated before
5) Tell me about it. I know! I've said as much before. I'm sure there are several different FE responses though.

It's not really 5 pieces of irrefutable evidence, and it's certainly not 5 things that all FEers believe. It's 5 assertions that could have alternate explanations than RE given certain initial conditions. I think lunar eclipses are a good example of something that really helps support RE over FE, and same with satellites. But "prove" and "irrefutable" are strong words you keep using without proving anything with irrefutable evidence.

And seriously, I'm a dick?! Because you read something into my post about you being scientifically illiterate? All I said was that you claimed the sciencey sounding words were irrelevant. If you don't even know what they mean, that's not because of anything I said, implied, or you thought I implied. It's because you don't know what they mean. Ignorance isn't a problem. Willful ignorance is. And blaming others for your ignorance, willful or otherwise. It's OK not to know something. No one knows it all. And if you have a handle on the vocab, then the words shouldn't be an issue.

Finally: I don't want to get one over on you. But I'd love it if you showed some critical thinking, instead of asking everyone else to do that so you can just tell them they are wrong. And if you don't want to do that, that's cool too. But I'm not being a dick by expecting the same from you that you are asking of other people.

critical thinking?

I've been cross examining the flat earth evidences for years, I know exactly what I'm talking about

I was almost convinced for a short while too, but there's absolutes that stop the theory in its tracks, things that the flat earth theory has no explanation for, and 99% of the flat earth's 'proofs' can be picked apart by a 10yr old

the fact they have to change the theory when it's proven wrong, to a totally different theory, speaks volumes

I honestly don't understand why people still follow the theory, ots been proven wrong beyond doubt, people are simply being manipulated and I, for one, don't think it's right, I'd happily bet that a good 50% of 'flat earthers' don't really believe it themselves

are you willing to explain what you want me to look into, I'm not dismissing or ignoring, dragging my balls or whatever else you'd like to say, I answered both times, if the theory involves a flat plane and not a round celestial body, then it's failed on the drawing board and needs no more inspection.. do you not agree?

I'm surprised no one's stated we're in a glass ball, with a flat plane in the middle yet..

I mean anyone can just make something up on the spot

there's a flat earth model, you either follow it or you don't, it's not a bloody tv show with spin offs

holy moly

the fact they have to change the theory when it's proven wrong, to a totally different theory, speaks volumes

The infinite plane theory has been around for a long time. We did not change to a totally different theory! If you have been "cross examining" flat earth theory for years, then you'd know this.

infinite plane is actually quite a new one.. used when flat earthers wrongly quoted Admiral Byrd after his Antarctica expedition, dismissed by most flat earthers now anyway

even though in the video he clearly says, more than once 'the continent of Antarctica'