what's left now?

Wow, we are still waiting for this "proof" that you keep claiming.  Saying you have it without sharing it is just retarted. 

Wow, we are still waiting for this "proof" that you keep claiming.  Saying you have it without sharing it is just retarted.

and you still asking for it after I've presented it MANY MANY MANY times is a joke

read the thread
ask me a direct question regarding my points

its not difficult

the thread you replied to had thorough explanations.. why not tackle them first?

holy fuckin shit, you guys are so unwilling to discuss anything its embarrassing

1) no, perspective or optical illusion
2) no, maybe it's just too far away
3) no, the shadow doesn't prove the shape of what made it

Have you considered eating a diet high in fiber?

I thought the orbit guy was getting better at actually asking questions.  I was wrong. 

1) no, perspective or optical illusion
2) no, maybe it's just too far away
3) no, the shadow doesn't prove the shape of what made it

Have you considered eating a diet high in fiber?

is that it? after all the effort you put into your ridicule of others, your actual flat earth 'evidence' is 2 word answers with absolutely no backup (again)?

that's not debating one bit.. you're not supposed to guess, I'm asking what makes you BELIEVE the things you're saying


high fibre diet? erm yes, you're hilarious? is that what you're going for? humour? its not working (if you hadn't guessed)


jroa - I've asked plenty CLEAR AND CONCISE questions, I've given CLEAR AND CONCISE, TESTABLE VISUAL EVIDENCE too..

you're claiming I've not even asked a question? is your screen broken? are you only seeing half of my posts or something?

the questions are clearly there, you're CHOOSING to simply not answer them, that's totally up to you

Have you checked your blood pressure lately?

Have you checked your blood pressure lately?

"shit, he's not falling for my bullshit diversion tactics, he's asking me to elaborate.." PANIC!!

not a shred of substance to you

You mad bro?

I'm not going to bother with going back and quoting things, there's been a lot of activity since my last post, but man JO I pointed out something you said, after you told me you didn't say it, and then you puked all over the thread. As I said in a previous post, it's hard to keep up with everything you've said and stuck with, said and walked back, or never said but said you've said. So I went and posted references to exactly the posts I was referring to, to make sure (for myself and for you) that I wasn't putting words in your mouth or taking anything out of context. You say you don't post anything without lots of research, and that you don't post speculation (I'm admittedly paraphrasing here but I don't think I'm doing so unfairly) and sometimes you say things are aren't well researched and/or seem speculative - or at the very least, could use a little more attention to detail before being proclaimed a "disproof" with an arrogant flair.

Also, SCG answered your questions in a simple, direct way. You didn't ask for evidence. You asked "Do you agree

• , if not, why?" and she answered those questions. If it wasn't to your liking or expectation, that's where conversation would generally happen rather than attacks.

Moving on, though. With respect to that celestial movement argument: you aren't grasping the non-Euclidean plane thing. And that's OK, it's a weird concept, I'm not faulting you but I am pointing out that it has been a source of misunderstanding since I first brought it up. There is room in that framework for celestial movement to look the same as it does on the globe model, because the plane can, in a specific interpretation, resemble the shape of a globe. It's such a loosely defined concept that there's not much to hang a hat on and say "that's wrong because [words]" with respect to observations we make of space from the surface. You seemed like someone who was interested in a mental exercise back then, and your [proof|disproof|evidence|insert phrase of choice here] list seemed to omit anything that would address that concept. So I pointed it out. My bad. Obviously I was wrong and you wanted to hash out inconsistencies between your specific set of observations and the FE concepts you were familiar with. But by asking "what's left now?" I was not exactly presented with a way of inferring that.

again boydster, I got the smoke thing wrong
I admitted I got the smoke thing wrong

you cling to it no end

how about tackling some of the points I've raised?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm giving NO credit to one man and his made up flat ball.. why should I?
Isn't it the same guy that was peddling the old theory until proven wrong?

and you're giving him more respect than me? someone who's actually giving testable evidence?

that says a lot about you and what you WANT to believe

again, no substantial response from spacecowgirl (but when I respond in a similar fashion, you're all over me like a rash, double standards)

and jroa was stopped in his tracks



as for debating skills, leaving you lot without an answer after WEEKS of asking, says a lot



not ONE substantial answer to ANY of my points

once again, feel free to discuss my points and attempt to prove me wrong

in fact, I've been begging for a discussion / debate since I joined

boydster, you said I omitted something?
Every claim I've made has had thorough explanations, you've yet to discuss ANYTHING with me, or prove anything, or tackle anything

all you've done is cling to 2 things: what I said about smoke, and some random theory you want me to disprove first

that's not how it works, seeing as everyone else is acting like a child, I will too..... 'I asked first'

johnyorbital is the only person in the history of mankind who can prove things wrong simply by declaring that they are wrong.  I wish I was like johny.   

Aren't you?

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2016, 03:00:00 PM

johnyorbital is the only person in the history of mankind who can prove things wrong simply by declaring that they are wrong.  I wish I was like johny.   

Aren't you?

lol cheers mate but I wouldn't bother, pointing out contradictions and double standards would be a full time job in this place

I appreciate your comment though

once again, feel free to discuss my points and attempt to prove me wrong

in fact, I've been begging for a discussion / debate since I joined

boydster, you said I omitted something?
Every claim I've made has had thorough explanations, you've yet to discuss ANYTHING with me, or prove anything, or tackle anything

all you've done is cling to 2 things: what I said about smoke, and some random theory you want me to disprove first

that's not how it works, seeing as everyone else is acting like a child, I will too..... 'I asked first'

I just reread my post. You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say you omitted something. I said you are misunderstanding what a non-Euclidean flat plane can look like, namely a sphere. On a sphere, which is a valid non-Euclidean flat plane, observations from the surface of celestial movement would be identical to the globe model.

I pointed out the smoke thing because you are clear to express how you never post anything that isn't well-researched. Well, turns out you do sometimes. If you weren't so hostile, it would be easier to let stuff like that slide. But you are hostile, and even though you seem to dislike it, you are also wrong sometimes. It happens.

Your question at the beginning of this thread was "what's left" wasn't it? How am I in the wrong here for offering up a mental exercise about something that you hadn't addressed again? Why is it you can't take any ownership for your actions here? When I first brought it up, you dismissed it, said you disproved it, then said it was invalid for discussion, even though it's a FE idea put forth by John Davis.

Regarding all of your questions from reply #95 (I'm guessing you wanted me to address those and that is what you say I keep evading, but I'm probably wrong since I seem to be perpetually wrong in your eyes), I'm not sure why it's my responsibility to answer those. You asked, in the thread title, what's left?


WHY DOESN'T the lunar disprove the whole theory? Because in JD's concept, it would look the same as on a globe.

WHY DONT meteors disprove the dome? Who here has tried defending the dome? Certainly not I. And I won't. But meteors don't disprove any of the models that don't include a dome, of which there are several.

WHY DONT constellation positions disprove the whole theory? Again, JD's concept would look the same as a globe.

WHY DOESN'T the landmark explanation prove a curve? The mirage/super mirage effect doesn't prove a curve, it explains why things can be visible from further away than curve would normally allow. Sometimes the Chicago skyline is visible, sometimes it isn't. And sometimes it's upside down. If presented with ACTUAL DATA sufficient to allow someone to calculate how much light should bend in a certain set of conditions, it could be considered EVIDENCE for a curve. But simply stating that sometimes you can see Chicago from across the lake, THEREFORE CURVE!!!! isn't really meaningful.

WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work? We've been over crepuscular rays, they don't prove either way, and I don't think you would still raise this question today (like the smoke thing) so I'm not going to put further effort into it.

In rereading some of your posts close to #95 where I got that list from, it seems you think I'm trying to disprove you. That's not the case. Again, you asked what's left for the FE community to cling to and I simply presented something I had quite literally just read days earlier that seemed like a good candidate.

Lastly, JO, commence auto-honing. I answered your request for something that remained for FEers to cling to in post #1 and was met with dismissal and then hostility. I explained why I thought it deserved more attention than you gave it, and was met with more hostility. I answered your additional questions from 90+ posts into the thread even though you have still just been hostile. Obviously, there was no actual desire on your part to have a discussion outside of a very narrow field, so it was disingenuous of you to suggest you were open to debate.

I don't understand what a non-Euclidean flat plane is. A flat plane is Euclidean by definition. A plane that is non-Euclidean cannot reasonably be called flat.

Can someone provide more detail as to what is meant by a plane being both flat and non-Euclidean?

I just reread my post. You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say you omitted something. I said you are misunderstanding what a non-Euclidean flat plane can look like, namely a sphere. On a sphere, which is a valid non-Euclidean flat plane, observations from the surface of celestial movement would be identical to the globe model

so it's a globe?
look man, I'm purposely questioning in this way, because the whole idea is ridiculous.. a non-flat, non-spherical, flat, spherical earth? and you're actually wondering why I'm not giving it the time of day?

well I'm not as full of cognitive dissonance as you, so I'll take it exactly how it is, nonsensical

I'll explain again, it's a ridiculous attempt to cover the huge holes in the original theory.. made by some random guy that YOU seem to think deserves some respect for a reason you're clearly not sharing

I pointed out the smoke thing because you are clear to express how you never post anything that isn't well-researched. Well, turns out you do sometimes. If you weren't so hostile, it would be easier to let stuff like that slide. But you are hostile, and even though you seem to dislike it, you are also wrong sometimes. It happens.

I blatantly admitted I was wrong MANY times regarding the smoke, I even explained when I FIRST mentioned it that I didn't have enough knowledge on the subject and admitted it was an 'off the cuff' remark.. but ignore all that, just concentrate on that 1 thing I got wrong

as for hostile? I've been very reserved here, can you honestly say people weren't out to antagonise me? from the off..
quite clearly because I wasn't allowing the diversion tactics (I don't see you pulling spacecowgirl over calling me a fuckin crybaby, again, double standards)

Your question at the beginning of this thread was "what's left" wasn't it? How am I in the wrong here for offering up a mental exercise about something that you hadn't addressed again? Why is it you can't take any ownership for your actions here? When I first brought it up, you dismissed it, said you disproved it, then said it was invalid for discussion, even though it's a FE idea put forth by John Davis.

absolutely agree, you provided a link to something I'd not heard before, kudos.. I apologise for my reaction at the time, looking back, TECHNICALLY you answered the question, but you ignored my points that I made and instead asked me to disprove a completely different theory.. obviously I didn't take that well due to the amount of diversion I'd encountered by everyone here, yours, in all fairness, was not much different

Regarding all of your questions from reply #95 (I'm guessing you wanted me to address those and that is what you say I keep evading, but I'm probably wrong since I seem to be perpetually wrong in your eyes), I'm not sure why it's my responsibility to answer those. You asked, in the thread title, what's left?


WHY DOESN'T the lunar disprove the whole theory? Because in JD's concept, it would look the same as on a globe.

I hope you can respect why I am taking that comment as an off topic comment, my questions are not directed to one man's random theory, it's aimed at the believers of a flat earth

WHY DONT meteors disprove the dome? Who here has tried defending the dome? Certainly not I. And I won't. But meteors don't disprove any of the models that don't include a dome, of which there are several.

yes they do, irrefutably..
most flat earthers don't even have an answer for meteors, how would YOU explain a meteor passing through a solid dome? (as you're the one claiming it doesn't disprove any dome)

WHY DONT constellation positions disprove the whole theory? Again, JD's concept would look the same as a globe.

again, I'm not talking about some other random one man theory, I'm talking about the flat earth theory, I know you're not purposely diverting, and I'm not taking it offensively, I'd just like some answers regarding the FLAT earth theory

WHY DOESN'T the landmark explanation prove a curve? The mirage/super mirage effect doesn't prove a curve, it explains why things can be visible from further away than curve would normally allow. Sometimes the Chicago skyline is visible, sometimes it isn't. And sometimes it's upside down. If presented with ACTUAL DATA sufficient to allow someone to calculate how much light should bend in a certain set of conditions, it could be considered EVIDENCE for a curve. But simply stating that sometimes you can see Chicago from across the lake, THEREFORE CURVE!!!! isn't really meaningful.

that's not what I've said, not even once..
I said, very clearly, when the people are doing the 'landmarks from far away' test to PROVE no curvature, they are not doing the test from ground/sea level, therefore the test is instantly flawed.. my example was simple.. go to a place where you can see a landmark from too far away, put your camera on the ground, take a photo, no more landmark

WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work? We've been over crepuscular rays, they don't prove either way, and I don't think you would still raise this question today (like the smoke thing) so I'm not going to put further effort into it.

I've said very blatantly, MANY times, that crepuscular rays only prove that the sun is much further away than the flat earth theory dictates, and I'm not wrong, it doesn't prove either shape, but it does disprove the flat earth theory's 'localised sun'

In rereading some of your posts close to #95 where I got that list from, it seems you think I'm trying to disprove you. That's not the case. Again, you asked what's left for the FE community to cling to and I simply presented something I had quite literally just read days earlier that seemed like a good candidate.

Lastly, JO, commence auto-honing. I answered your request for something that remained for FEers to cling to in post #1 and was met with dismissal and then hostility. I explained why I thought it deserved more attention than you gave it, and was met with more hostility. I answered your additional questions from 90+ posts into the thread even though you have still just been hostile. Obviously, there was no actual desire on your part to have a discussion outside of a very narrow field, so it was disingenuous of you to suggest you were open to debate.

ok, to clear that up

when I asked 'what's left', I didn't mean 'what other theories are left', I simply wanted to know, from the people who use the things I stated to PROVE a flat earth or DISPROVE a globe earth, what do they use NOW as proof, seeing as those 'proofs' can no longer be used

I did think the question was clear, apologies if it was too confusing for everyone

so it's a globe?
look man, I'm purposely questioning in this way, because the whole idea is ridiculous.. a non-flat, non-spherical, flat, spherical earth? and you're actually wondering why I'm not giving it the time of day?

well I'm not as full of cognitive dissonance as you, so I'll take it exactly how it is, nonsensical

I'll explain again, it's a ridiculous attempt to cover the huge holes in the original theory.. made by some random guy that YOU seem to think deserves some respect for a reason you're clearly not sharing

It could be interpreted to resemble a globe. It's not the most cohesive idea (notice, I don't call these ideas "theories") so it's hard to say exactly what it looks like from any particular frame of reference, you'd have to ask the guy that came up with the idea. But a sphere is an acceptable form for an elliptical non-Euclidean shape, so within the loose framework that JD put forth a spherical shape isn't ruled out. And I agree - it's ridiculous! I think I actually said as much in his original thread, but I can't remember exactly what I wrote off hand. I posted it as a mental exercise, because I thought that's what you were looking for. No more, no less. But take note: it's not put forth by some random FEer. It's put forth by one that is taken pretty seriously by the community.

I blatantly admitted I was wrong MANY times regarding the smoke, I even explained when I FIRST mentioned it that I didn't have enough knowledge on the subject and admitted it was an 'off the cuff' remark.. but ignore all that, just concentrate on that 1 thing I got wrong

Right, but there are 2 things worth noting. First, it wasn't researched even though you've been very vocal (some might say aggressive) with insisting to others that you never post anything you haven't researched. You've hit me with the cognitive dissonance thing a couple times now... try and understand why I might point out something like this. Second, you returned to it after owning up to the fact that it wasn't a valid argument, and in another thread entirely asked me again to explain why it was wrong, so it became more than just off-the-cuff, at least from my vantage point (which, much like your vantage point, is behind a glowing screen with some text on it that doesn't have much personality...). But I get what you are saying, it's over, I'm not trying to imply you are still sticking with it.

as for hostile? I've been very reserved here, can you honestly say people weren't out to antagonise me? from the off..
quite clearly because I wasn't allowing the diversion tactics (I don't see you pulling spacecowgirl over calling me a fuckin crybaby, again, double standards)

I guess I wouldn't want to be around you when you are feeling hostile then. Sure, people tried antagonizing you, but reread your posts from before that and pretend you're someone else - you came off more than a little abrasive. It probably wasn't your intention, but it is what it is. And for it being your first posts right out of the gate, what kind of reception would one expect? Open arms while you're flinging insults? I'm sure you wouldn't expect that. As for not going after SCG, that's kinda hard to expect when, from my perspective, you were lashing out at everyone and then went asking the mods to intervene when people starting shoveling some of the shit back at you.

absolutely agree, you provided a link to something I'd not heard before, kudos.. I apologise for my reaction at the time, looking back, TECHNICALLY you answered the question, but you ignored my points that I made and instead asked me to disprove a completely different theory.. obviously I didn't take that well due to the amount of diversion I'd encountered by everyone here, yours, in all fairness, was not much different

Chalk it up to a misunderstanding between us. I'm not here to defend all your points from a FE vantage point, so frankly I wasn't interested in rehashing those (there are, as has been pointed out, lots of other threads that cover topics just like you listed in the beginning). But I think we're at the same place here - just a misunderstanding, you thought my intentions were different, I thought your expectations were different.

I hope you can respect why I am taking that comment as an off topic comment, my questions are not directed to one man's random theory, it's aimed at the believers of a flat earth

As stated, that's an idea put forth by someone who is taken very seriously by the FE community, so I respectfully submit that you should consider it to be ON topic. But your opinions are yours.

Quote

WHY DONT meteors disprove the dome? Who here has tried defending the dome? Certainly not I. And I won't. But meteors don't disprove any of the models that don't include a dome, of which there are several.

yes they do, irrefutably..
most flat earthers don't even have an answer for meteors, how would YOU explain a meteor passing through a solid dome? (as you're the one claiming it doesn't disprove any dome)

Reread what I said. Meteors don't disprove any models that DO NOT include a dome. We are agreeing here, I think you overlooked part of my post - maybe my fault, for using a double-negative. Dome models don't have much room for meteors flying around in space and crashing into the Earth. But lots of FEers don't believe there is a dome. So, in the same way you consider JD's idea off-topic, this idea could also be dismissed as such. Or both could be considered to be on topic as they relate to things currently discussed in the FE community.

Quote

WHY DONT constellation positions disprove the whole theory? Again, JD's concept would look the same as a globe.

again, I'm not talking about some other random one man theory, I'm talking about the flat earth theory, I know you're not purposely diverting, and I'm not taking it offensively, I'd just like some answers regarding the FLAT earth theory

I get it, no sweat, my thoughts are written above already.

Quote

WHY DOESN'T the landmark explanation prove a curve? The mirage/super mirage effect doesn't prove a curve...

that's not what I've said, not even once..
I said, very clearly, when the people are doing the 'landmarks from far away' test to PROVE no curvature, they are not doing the test from ground/sea level, therefore the test is instantly flawed.. my example was simple.. go to a place where you can see a landmark from too far away, put your camera on the ground, take a photo, no more landmark

Hang on, I got a couple posts confused. That test is somewhat flawed, though, and the mirage effect has a lot to do with it. The mirage could be showing high enough up that your camera could still see it, again it is weather dependent though. This is what I meant the first time I said that, many many posts ago, but it seemed off topic so I didn't go into it. But to be clear, it's not a solid disproof because there are outlier cases where it fails. If a FEer took your thought experiment as something that should work 100% of the time, and found that even once it failed, they would (could) hold that up as a victory of sorts for FE (as in, "one more proof disproven, yay earth is flat!!").

Quote

WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work? We've been over crepuscular rays, they don't prove either way, and I don't think you would still raise this question today (like the smoke thing) so I'm not going to put further effort into it.

I've said very blatantly, MANY times, that crepuscular rays only prove that the sun is much further away than the flat earth theory dictates, and I'm not wrong, it doesn't prove either shape, but it does disprove the flat earth theory's 'localised sun'

Yes but you also said before that they only work on a round Earth, and not all FE believers think the sun is at one particular height, so again we can split hairs over which models you want to pick apart and which ones need to be shelved for another time but I'll just say, and I think this is fair, it's hard to know ahead of time which model or models you have in mind because I'm not psychic. You started all of this before you had much time to dig around on the site, I think, so it would make sense that maybe you didn't know just how diverse the beliefs are for the FEers, but holy moly there's a lot of things that get thrown around on here. How am I supposed to know you only want to talk about super-localised sun with dome above AND Universal Acceleration (which may or may not include a dome) models BUT none of the others if that's not explained at the outset? Likewise though, how are you supposed to know how to even express that if you haven't been around long enough to see what's out there for ideas right now?

ok, to clear that up

when I asked 'what's left', I didn't mean 'what other theories are left', I simply wanted to know, from the people who use the things I stated to PROVE a flat earth or DISPROVE a globe earth, what do they use NOW as proof, seeing as those 'proofs' can no longer be used

I did think the question was clear, apologies if it was too confusing for everyone

We good now?

John Davis theory is not some random theory. It is flat earth theory. If you really researched before you post then you would know this.

We good now?

almost.. a few points..

1. thanks, not had many respect-worthy replies since being here, that was definitely one

2. if you look back, there was absolutely no incitement for that attack from spacecowgirl, I asked the few people who were clearly out to derail the thread, POLITELY first, to please take the chit chat elsewhere, you all didn't..

"Flat Earth Debate
This board is reserved for debates on Flat Earth Theory. Please note that it is strictly moderated!"
"Flat Earth Debate - Rules & Guidelines
..This forum is also subject to the Forum Rules, which are strictly enforced in this board.
..8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic."

I was well within my rights to report the thread, I wanted certain posts looking at so I reported them.. It was my first day on the forum, I didn't know what to do properly

3. For what reason is John Davis any more 'respected' than anyone else? I've more respect for spacecowgirl at the moment, she's here replying at least

4. If you remember, I said, I've come direct from years worth of debating the same theory on Facebook and YouTube, there's absolutely no variety of theories, they all pretty much follow the same model.. a couple of tweaks here and there but nothing to the extent of this place, it's like a circus of ideas made up on the spot, so my apologies but I'm definitely following the majority verdict with regards to the model

5. Yes, I 100% missed the double negative, my bad



look, I'm a very reasonable guy, an intelligent guy, a respectful guy, I've done plenty research, if I'm not sure of something, I'll say from the off, if I'm proved wrong I'm happy to hold my hands up
..but I'm not gonna have someone like spacecowgirl trying to wind me up for her own amusement, so yeah, I not so discreetly politely patronised the shit out of her.. she deserved it, I'd ask your opinion but I reckon at this point you'd probably plead the 5th

but yeah man, I'm not wanting an argument, I'd like a back and forth discussion with a calm and reasonable flat earther one day.. they're hard to find though

We're going to have to agree to disagree on some things. I'm OK with that. It would be weird if we didn't have areas of disagreement.

1. Cheers

2. I'm assuming you mean the crybaby post at the beginning? This thread didn't happen in a microcosm. Other conversations bled into it. Not just in that post, but in plenty of other posts in this thread. I think it can safely be said that a lot of the head-butting started before this thread, and then this thread was started kind of in the midst of things being heated in the other. That's life for ya. A new thread isn't a reset button. Also, I get that this is a place we might disagree.

3. He's been running the forum for a long time, and been interviewed as a representative of the Flat Earth Society in the news before, and I can't really speak to his other credentials. I think he wrote a book, too? Someone else with more knowledge should probably answer, but suffice to say that he's not just some random Joe. His opinion carries some weight around here.

4. What I meant was, perhaps you weren't being so inconsiderate as to assume that I was reading your mind while you were not reading mine. I'm leaving that olive branch dangling out there.

5. I figured. Glad we're on the same page.

4. absolutely..
- I didn't anticipate the variety
- you, being here for a while, wouldn't have anticipated someone unaware of that fact

the rest, water under the bridge

Are you actually trying to suck up to boydster now? Like you think you've got some bro thing going on, and he's gonna fist bump you or some shit? You're the one being patronized, you dingbat.

you're boring

to be honest. he answered respectfully, he got a respectful answer

I know, that may be hard for you to grasp

You've been answered many ways, I hope you take the time to actually look into the theories put forth on this website and not expect us to answer for Facebook and YouTube.

John Davis' infinite plane theory was not dreamed up over night because UA failed. The search feature on this forum is your friend.

wrong.. its clear that it was dreamed up to cover the lunar eclipse as every other model failed at explaining it

so again, it's NOW a..
non-spherical, non-flat, spherical, flat earth

as far as 'lots of theories' goes, that's definitely one of the most ridiculous

You really shouldn't claim that you always do your research!

riiiiiiiight..
says little miss no substance, awesome

you've got absolutely nothing to say