Rare Events

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Quote from: GlaringEye on July 10, 2016, 12:49:47 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 10, 2016, 09:10:52 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 09, 2016, 08:32:53 PM

So why is crossing Antarctica such a rare and noteworthy achievement?   

Well,  if you take the longest pole crossing path,  it's  about 5000 km or so of sub zero ice and snow,  with  100 km/hour driving blizzards,  and if you pick the wrong time of year it's 24 hours of pitch black all day every day.   Throw in a few mountain ranges,  and large areas criss-crossed with dangerous crevasses.

I'm not surprised that so few attempt it,  let alone make it.   But then again I'm not brain damaged like Triddles. 

Here's a job opportunity for a flat earther https://www.bas.ac.uk/jobs/vacancies/

Please can you leave behind the name-calling. It has no place in civilized discussion.
I do not contest that you claim it is as dangerous as that. I ask why you choose to use as evidence something that has been achieved so few times.

Few? Even if it had happened a single time it would prove clearly enough crossing Antarctica is possible. A ring of ice would make it impossible, as it would mean that an explorer starting their expedition south of Argentina would turn up south of New Zealand on foot!

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Look at the map and tell me how Worsley got from south of Argentina to south of New Zealand on foot in only 71 days using a flat map. Don't try to ignore the question.

Crossing the Antarctic continent is repeatable, but incredibly dangerous.

As for the Bedford level experiment, it's been explained hundreds of times how it was at first badly executed (Rowbotham to his companions: "See those boats down there? You wouldn't see them in a round earth" was all his experiment did) and later, when performed properly (with the alignment of discs to measure their aparent height), showed the curvature of the earth, so I wouldn't use it as evidence of the contrary if I were in your place.

I do not believe that map is accurate. There are, however, a number of manufactured spatial distortions further away from the central pole.
That 'all his experiment did' was all it was meant to do. Rowbotham performed the experiment multiple times, and Blount did the same. Morrow did much the same experiment at a different location on Earth, in an attempt to detect curvature as he believed the Earth was round, only to fail. Things that should not be visible according to curvature are visible. That is all that should be required, if you are to be consistent with how you apply your standards of knowledge.

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:37:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 10, 2016, 09:39:01 AM

Quote from: Triddles on July 10, 2016, 09:07:45 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 09, 2016, 03:12:02 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 03:09:08 PM

If it seems as though no one is capable of completing the journey, the reasonable conclusion is that those that claimed to did not.

Wow, that's one of the most circular arguments I've ever seen.  Well done?

It is no more circular than rejecting the accounts of the Bedford Level Experiment and similar observations that would be impossible on a round Earth, assuming a priori that a mistake was made, because you hold that the world is round.

On the basis that the Bedford experiment has not been shown to be correct when it is apparently so easy. Clearly the path of the sun and measured distances show a round earth.

Why do you believe it has not been shown to be correct? It was performed, the result was unambiguous, on more than one occasion. What more do you require?
Why do you believe the path of the Sun and distances cannot be explained on a flat surface? Please answer without appealing to a certain map, or to round earth mechanisms of light, as your claim would not follow. If only a round earth is possible, you should be capable of justifying your claim without needing specificity. Without assuming the details of your model, explain why the round earth is the exclusive explanation?
Doing so is impossible. You cannot refute models and knowledge you have no knowledge of.

The BLE has not been repeated, unless you can provide links to recent proofs using modern equipment which will be more accurate than that used 100 years ago.

Distances between points on earth have been proven without any doubt.  These only map to a round earth.

Maybe you could show a flat earth map that shows the path of the sun and accurate distances.  Please show the accurate shape of Australia as a start.

Or maybe you know the earth is round...

Why do you not hold the Antarctica crossing to the same standards? There have been few to none repeats, and most were conducted a huge amount of time ago.
Distance between points on a small scale have been proven without doubt. The Bedford Level experiment, as well as numerous other instances of seeing things that should not be visible (I have seen other threads on these topics) cast a great deal of doubt on distances on a large scale.

Quote from: GlaringEye on July 11, 2016, 02:49:06 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Quote from: GlaringEye on July 10, 2016, 12:49:47 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 10, 2016, 09:10:52 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 09, 2016, 08:32:53 PM

So why is crossing Antarctica such a rare and noteworthy achievement?   

Well,  if you take the longest pole crossing path,  it's  about 5000 km or so of sub zero ice and snow,  with  100 km/hour driving blizzards,  and if you pick the wrong time of year it's 24 hours of pitch black all day every day.   Throw in a few mountain ranges,  and large areas criss-crossed with dangerous crevasses.

I'm not surprised that so few attempt it,  let alone make it.   But then again I'm not brain damaged like Triddles. 

Here's a job opportunity for a flat earther https://www.bas.ac.uk/jobs/vacancies/

Please can you leave behind the name-calling. It has no place in civilized discussion.
I do not contest that you claim it is as dangerous as that. I ask why you choose to use as evidence something that has been achieved so few times.

Few? Even if it had happened a single time it would prove clearly enough crossing Antarctica is possible. A ring of ice would make it impossible, as it would mean that an explorer starting their expedition south of Argentina would turn up south of New Zealand on foot!

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Look at the map and tell me how Worsley got from south of Argentina to south of New Zealand on foot in only 71 days using a flat map. Don't try to ignore the question.

Crossing the Antarctic continent is repeatable, but incredibly dangerous.

As for the Bedford level experiment, it's been explained hundreds of times how it was at first badly executed (Rowbotham to his companions: "See those boats down there? You wouldn't see them in a round earth" was all his experiment did) and later, when performed properly (with the alignment of discs to measure their aparent height), showed the curvature of the earth, so I wouldn't use it as evidence of the contrary if I were in your place.

I do not believe that map is accurate. There are, however, a number of manufactured spatial distortions further away from the central pole.
That 'all his experiment did' was all it was meant to do. Rowbotham performed the experiment multiple times, and Blount did the same. Morrow did much the same experiment at a different location on Earth, in an attempt to detect curvature as he believed the Earth was round, only to fail. Things that should not be visible according to curvature are visible. That is all that should be required, if you are to be consistent with how you apply your standards of knowledge.

I do not believe that map is accurate either. Because the earth is not flat at all.
Manufactured spatial distortions? Surely you can provide evidence to support this claim.
Rowbotham's "experiment" didn't take into account atmospheric refraction, which alters perception. As you may deduce, it's what lets you see a little bit of what you shouldn't otherwise see because of the earth's curvature. If it helps you understand, think of it as a mirage, like when you're driving and the road looks like it's covered in water, but it's actually not. As visual perception was all the measuring Rowbotham was performing, the result was incorrect.

If you show me that something can happen, I will support that said thing is possible, of course. Otherwise, you wouldn't have been able to show it. But if you try to prove me something using wrong methods or incorrect values, or even no proof at all, then I will correct you and most likely stay unconvinced.

That is the opposite of what I claimed. I am only saying there are too few supposed expeditions that crossed Antarctica for it to be considered reliable information.

My whole point is that numerous people from Amundsen and Scott onwards have visited the actual South Geographic Pole. The Flat Earth Society goes to great lengths to deny the existence of the South Pole. So PROVING that the South Pole really exists ant least proves that the "Ice Wall" map is impossible.

The Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - 1955-58, Vivian Fuchs and Sir Edmund Hillary And go to the above site if you'd like to watch these old Kodachrome videos of the expedition:           The Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - Part 1 of 5,           The Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - Part 2 of 5,           The Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - Part 3 of 5,           The Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - Part 4 of 5,           The Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - Part 5 of 5.		1955-58 Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - Route
The International Trans-Antarctica Expedition, 1989-1990 The six members of the team at the geographic Pole, 12 December 1989 Is that close enough to "across Antarctica" for you?		The International Trans-Antarctica Expedition, 1989-1990 - Route

If you want more you can look them up! But Antarctica is a real island continent and the Geographic South Pole is a real single location.

How does this fit into your rotating flat earth?

Do you not believe it rotates?

Statement of Belief:
I believe the Earth is flat.

Now I am confused about a rotating, not-rotating flat earth model:

Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship
Thomas Winship presents conclusive evidence demonstrating that the world is not a rotating-revolving globe, but a stationary plane circle. This in-depth study provides further supporting evidence for the work of Samuel Birley Rowbotham by way of test, trial, and experiment.

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

I do not believe that map is accurate. There are, however, a number of manufactured spatial distortions further away from the central pole.

You don't need accurate map. All you need to know is that the ice land is below 60 degress and using Rowbotham's math/figures you can easily calculate minimal distance. Then you can ask yourself if it is possible to cross that in ~70 days.

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:32:20 PM

That is the opposite of what I claimed. I am only saying there are too few supposed expeditions that crossed Antarctica for it to be considered reliable information.

My whole point is that numerous people from Amundsen and Scott onwards have visited the actual South Geographic Pole. The Flat Earth Society goes to great lengths to deny the existence of the South Pole. So PROVING that the South Pole really exists ant least proves that the "Ice Wall" map is impossible.

But when it comes to Transantarctic Expeditions is more a case of "how many do you want?"

The Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - 1955-58, Vivian Fuchs and Sir Edmund Hillary And if you like to watch old Kodachrome videos: The Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - Part 1 of 5 by Simon Coggins The Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - Part 2 of 5 by Simon Coggins The Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - Part 3 of 5 by Simon Coggins The Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - Part 4 of 5 by Simon Coggins The Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - Part 5 of 5 by Simon Coggins		1955-58 Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition - Route
The International Trans-Antarctica Expedition, 1989-1990 The six members of the team at the geographic Pole, 12 December 1989 Is that close enough to "across Antarctica" for you?		The International Trans-Antarctica Expedition, 1989-1990 - Route

If you want more you can look them up! But Antarctica is a real island continent and the Geographic South Pole is a real single location.

How does this fit into your rotating flat earth?

Quote from: Triddles

Do you not believe it rotates?

Quote from: Triddles

Statement of Belief:
I believe the Earth is flat.

Now I am confused about a rotating, not-rotating flat earth model:

Quote from: the Wiki

Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship
Thomas Winship presents conclusive evidence demonstrating that the world is not a rotating-revolving globe, but a stationary plane circle. This in-depth study provides further supporting evidence for the work of Samuel Birley Rowbotham by way of test, trial, and experiment.

Please leave behind this tired mocking. You have one example of an expedition multiple times, and it is an example I have already brought up. Science is based upon repetition, why do you believe in this when the times it occurs are outliers, and do not believe in the multiple observations that imply a flat Earth.
I am not Thomas Winship, why should my view be the same as his?

Please add something substantive if you wish to consider this discussion.

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 04:38:32 PM

Quote from: GlaringEye on July 11, 2016, 02:49:06 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Quote from: GlaringEye on July 10, 2016, 12:49:47 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 10, 2016, 09:10:52 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 09, 2016, 08:32:53 PM

So why is crossing Antarctica such a rare and noteworthy achievement?   

Well,  if you take the longest pole crossing path,  it's  about 5000 km or so of sub zero ice and snow,  with  100 km/hour driving blizzards,  and if you pick the wrong time of year it's 24 hours of pitch black all day every day.   Throw in a few mountain ranges,  and large areas criss-crossed with dangerous crevasses.

I'm not surprised that so few attempt it,  let alone make it.   But then again I'm not brain damaged like Triddles. 

Here's a job opportunity for a flat earther https://www.bas.ac.uk/jobs/vacancies/

Please can you leave behind the name-calling. It has no place in civilized discussion.
I do not contest that you claim it is as dangerous as that. I ask why you choose to use as evidence something that has been achieved so few times.

Few? Even if it had happened a single time it would prove clearly enough crossing Antarctica is possible. A ring of ice would make it impossible, as it would mean that an explorer starting their expedition south of Argentina would turn up south of New Zealand on foot!

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Look at the map and tell me how Worsley got from south of Argentina to south of New Zealand on foot in only 71 days using a flat map. Don't try to ignore the question.

Crossing the Antarctic continent is repeatable, but incredibly dangerous.

As for the Bedford level experiment, it's been explained hundreds of times how it was at first badly executed (Rowbotham to his companions: "See those boats down there? You wouldn't see them in a round earth" was all his experiment did) and later, when performed properly (with the alignment of discs to measure their aparent height), showed the curvature of the earth, so I wouldn't use it as evidence of the contrary if I were in your place.

I do not believe that map is accurate. There are, however, a number of manufactured spatial distortions further away from the central pole.
That 'all his experiment did' was all it was meant to do. Rowbotham performed the experiment multiple times, and Blount did the same. Morrow did much the same experiment at a different location on Earth, in an attempt to detect curvature as he believed the Earth was round, only to fail. Things that should not be visible according to curvature are visible. That is all that should be required, if you are to be consistent with how you apply your standards of knowledge.

I do not believe that map is accurate either. Because the earth is not flat at all.
Manufactured spatial distortions? Surely you can provide evidence to support this claim.
Rowbotham's "experiment" didn't take into account atmospheric refraction, which alters perception. As you may deduce, it's what lets you see a little bit of what you shouldn't otherwise see because of the earth's curvature. If it helps you understand, think of it as a mirage, like when you're driving and the road looks like it's covered in water, but it's actually not. As visual perception was all the measuring Rowbotham was performing, the result was incorrect.

If you show me that something can happen, I will support that said thing is possible, of course. Otherwise, you wouldn't have been able to show it. But if you try to prove me something using wrong methods or incorrect values, or even no proof at all, then I will correct you and most likely stay unconvinced.

Given that no curvature has been detected on the Earth, there must be an explanation for the odd distances detected there. Manufactured spatial distortions conceal huge, mineral-full areas of Earth such as El Dorado. These are mined and harvested for profit, while the rest of the world has no access and no knowledge to these areas. Oil, gold, precious metals...

Why is the observation of curvature only unreliable and based upon refraction if the conclusion that the world is not round?

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?

Quote from: Rayzor on July 11, 2016, 07:43:58 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?

As discussed, the path of the sun with multiple measurements at different times and locations along with measured distances prove a round earth.

If you really believe the earth is flat why do distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, not plot correctly on a flat earth map, if it existed?

Ships going over the horizon show the earth is round.

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:30:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 11, 2016, 07:43:58 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?

As discussed, the path of the sun with multiple measurements at different times and locations along with measured distances prove a round earth.

If you really believe the earth is flat why do distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, not plot correctly on a flat earth map, if it existed?

Ships going over the horizon show the earth is round.

I responded to you when you said that before.
Everything fades in the distance, ships are not special. It means nothing.

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:42:38 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:30:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 11, 2016, 07:43:58 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?

As discussed, the path of the sun with multiple measurements at different times and locations along with measured distances prove a round earth.

If you really believe the earth is flat why do distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, not plot correctly on a flat earth map, if it existed?

Ships going over the horizon show the earth is round.

I responded to you when you said that before.
Everything fades in the distance, ships are not special. It means nothing.

Nice try, but you know you are wrong and can show no evidence of distances fitting on a flat earth map.

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:44:24 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:42:38 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:30:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 11, 2016, 07:43:58 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?

As discussed, the path of the sun with multiple measurements at different times and locations along with measured distances prove a round earth.

If you really believe the earth is flat why do distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, not plot correctly on a flat earth map, if it existed?

Ships going over the horizon show the earth is round.

I responded to you when you said that before.
Everything fades in the distance, ships are not special. It means nothing.

Nice try, but you know you are wrong and can show no evidence of distances fitting on a flat earth map.

Please add something substantive if you wish to continue this conversation,

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:46:41 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:44:24 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:42:38 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:30:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 11, 2016, 07:43:58 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?

As discussed, the path of the sun with multiple measurements at different times and locations along with measured distances prove a round earth.

If you really believe the earth is flat why do distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, not plot correctly on a flat earth map, if it existed?

Ships going over the horizon show the earth is round.

I responded to you when you said that before.
Everything fades in the distance, ships are not special. It means nothing.

Nice try, but you know you are wrong and can show no evidence of distances fitting on a flat earth map.

Please add something substantive if you wish to continue this conversation,

Please supply details of a recent BLE and a verified flat earth map.  With those we can have a meaningful discussion.

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:47:17 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:46:41 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:44:24 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:42:38 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:30:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 11, 2016, 07:43:58 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?

As discussed, the path of the sun with multiple measurements at different times and locations along with measured distances prove a round earth.

If you really believe the earth is flat why do distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, not plot correctly on a flat earth map, if it existed?

Ships going over the horizon show the earth is round.

I responded to you when you said that before.
Everything fades in the distance, ships are not special. It means nothing.

Nice try, but you know you are wrong and can show no evidence of distances fitting on a flat earth map.

Please add something substantive if you wish to continue this conversation,

Please supply details of a recent BLE and a verified flat earth map.  With those we can have a meaningful discussion.

Please supply details of a successful, recent trans-Antarctic crossing, as well as a map of the earth that you have created yourself, and the means to detect manufactured spatial distortions. The first two are only fair, as they are what you ask of me, and the last is required if I am to do what you ask.

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:49:44 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:47:17 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:46:41 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:44:24 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:42:38 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:30:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 11, 2016, 07:43:58 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?

As discussed, the path of the sun with multiple measurements at different times and locations along with measured distances prove a round earth.

If you really believe the earth is flat why do distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, not plot correctly on a flat earth map, if it existed?

Ships going over the horizon show the earth is round.

I responded to you when you said that before.
Everything fades in the distance, ships are not special. It means nothing.

Nice try, but you know you are wrong and can show no evidence of distances fitting on a flat earth map.

Please add something substantive if you wish to continue this conversation,

Please supply details of a recent BLE and a verified flat earth map.  With those we can have a meaningful discussion.

Please supply details of a successful, recent trans-Antarctic crossing, as well as a map of the earth that you have created yourself, and the means to detect manufactured spatial distortions. The first two are only fair, as they are what you ask of me, and the last is required if I am to do what you ask.

I am not asking for you to produce a map but to provide one that must exist to show a flat earth.  Are you aware of incorrect distances that would show the earth not to be round?

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:51:20 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:49:44 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:47:17 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:46:41 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:44:24 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:42:38 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:30:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 11, 2016, 07:43:58 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?

As discussed, the path of the sun with multiple measurements at different times and locations along with measured distances prove a round earth.

If you really believe the earth is flat why do distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, not plot correctly on a flat earth map, if it existed?

Ships going over the horizon show the earth is round.

I responded to you when you said that before.
Everything fades in the distance, ships are not special. It means nothing.

Nice try, but you know you are wrong and can show no evidence of distances fitting on a flat earth map.

Please add something substantive if you wish to continue this conversation,

Please supply details of a recent BLE and a verified flat earth map.  With those we can have a meaningful discussion.

Please supply details of a successful, recent trans-Antarctic crossing, as well as a map of the earth that you have created yourself, and the means to detect manufactured spatial distortions. The first two are only fair, as they are what you ask of me, and the last is required if I am to do what you ask.

I am not asking for you to produce a map but to provide one that must exist to show a flat earth.  Are you aware of incorrect distances that would show the earth not to be round?

How am I to provide a map without producing one? There are many flat earth maps, to determine which is accurate would require all the same stages as mapping out the earth myself. It is further complicated by the aforementioned manufactured distortions, which ensure the difficulty of getting an accurate picture.
The only distances we are told are those that are in line with the lie. I cannot refute propaganda with only that same propaganda.

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:55:09 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:51:20 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:49:44 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:47:17 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:46:41 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:44:24 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:42:38 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:30:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 11, 2016, 07:43:58 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?

As discussed, the path of the sun with multiple measurements at different times and locations along with measured distances prove a round earth.

If you really believe the earth is flat why do distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, not plot correctly on a flat earth map, if it existed?

Ships going over the horizon show the earth is round.

I responded to you when you said that before.
Everything fades in the distance, ships are not special. It means nothing.

Nice try, but you know you are wrong and can show no evidence of distances fitting on a flat earth map.

Please add something substantive if you wish to continue this conversation,

Please supply details of a recent BLE and a verified flat earth map.  With those we can have a meaningful discussion.

Please supply details of a successful, recent trans-Antarctic crossing, as well as a map of the earth that you have created yourself, and the means to detect manufactured spatial distortions. The first two are only fair, as they are what you ask of me, and the last is required if I am to do what you ask.

I am not asking for you to produce a map but to provide one that must exist to show a flat earth.  Are you aware of incorrect distances that would show the earth not to be round?

How am I to provide a map without producing one? There are many flat earth maps, to determine which is accurate would require all the same stages as mapping out the earth myself. It is further complicated by the aforementioned manufactured distortions, which ensure the difficulty of getting an accurate picture.
The only distances we are told are those that are in line with the lie. I cannot refute propaganda with only that same propaganda.

Please provide a distance measurement that is a lie.   Are you saying ships, planes, surveyors, cartographers, GPS users, all are measuring incorrectly?  Yet still no proof of the earth being flat, you have no evidence.

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:59:28 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:55:09 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:51:20 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:49:44 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:47:17 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:46:41 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:44:24 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:42:38 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:30:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 11, 2016, 07:43:58 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?

As discussed, the path of the sun with multiple measurements at different times and locations along with measured distances prove a round earth.

If you really believe the earth is flat why do distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, not plot correctly on a flat earth map, if it existed?

Ships going over the horizon show the earth is round.

I responded to you when you said that before.
Everything fades in the distance, ships are not special. It means nothing.

Nice try, but you know you are wrong and can show no evidence of distances fitting on a flat earth map.

Please add something substantive if you wish to continue this conversation,

Please supply details of a recent BLE and a verified flat earth map.  With those we can have a meaningful discussion.

Please supply details of a successful, recent trans-Antarctic crossing, as well as a map of the earth that you have created yourself, and the means to detect manufactured spatial distortions. The first two are only fair, as they are what you ask of me, and the last is required if I am to do what you ask.

I am not asking for you to produce a map but to provide one that must exist to show a flat earth.  Are you aware of incorrect distances that would show the earth not to be round?

How am I to provide a map without producing one? There are many flat earth maps, to determine which is accurate would require all the same stages as mapping out the earth myself. It is further complicated by the aforementioned manufactured distortions, which ensure the difficulty of getting an accurate picture.
The only distances we are told are those that are in line with the lie. I cannot refute propaganda with only that same propaganda.

Please provide a distance measurement that is a lie.   Are you saying ships, planes, surveyors, cartographers, GPS users, all are measuring incorrectly?  Yet still no proof of the earth being flat, you have no evidence.

I cannot talk with someone who does not provide anything and ignores the contents of the discussion had.
I cannot provide information that is a lie when all I have access to is that propaganda. Ships, GPS... do not measure, they follow the course already set, and very few people if any still work as cartographers of such distances.
You have elected to ignore all evidence, and have not explained why despite the fact I have asked you. I have answered your questions, please any any of mine.

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:55:09 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:51:20 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:49:44 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:47:17 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:46:41 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:44:24 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:42:38 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:30:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 11, 2016, 07:43:58 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?

As discussed, the path of the sun with multiple measurements at different times and locations along with measured distances prove a round earth.

If you really believe the earth is flat why do distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, not plot correctly on a flat earth map, if it existed?

Ships going over the horizon show the earth is round.

I responded to you when you said that before.
Everything fades in the distance, ships are not special. It means nothing.

Nice try, but you know you are wrong and can show no evidence of distances fitting on a flat earth map.

Please add something substantive if you wish to continue this conversation,

Please supply details of a recent BLE and a verified flat earth map.  With those we can have a meaningful discussion.

Please supply details of a successful, recent trans-Antarctic crossing, as well as a map of the earth that you have created yourself, and the means to detect manufactured spatial distortions. The first two are only fair, as they are what you ask of me, and the last is required if I am to do what you ask.

I am not asking for you to produce a map but to provide one that must exist to show a flat earth.  Are you aware of incorrect distances that would show the earth not to be round?

How am I to provide a map without producing one? There are many flat earth maps, to determine which is accurate would require all the same stages as mapping out the earth myself. It is further complicated by the aforementioned manufactured distortions, which ensure the difficulty of getting an accurate picture.
The only distances we are told are those that are in line with the lie. I cannot refute propaganda with only that same propaganda.

So, you're saying you have nothing better than the projections of the globe, and the only reason you think those projections are wrong is because you think the earth is flat.  Why?  Everything about the globe is entirely cohesive, and nothing about Antarctica crossings or Bedford Level "Experiments" will change that. 

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:59:28 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:55:09 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:51:20 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:49:44 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:47:17 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:46:41 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:44:24 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2016, 01:42:38 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:30:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 11, 2016, 07:43:58 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 11, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?

As discussed, the path of the sun with multiple measurements at different times and locations along with measured distances prove a round earth.

If you really believe the earth is flat why do distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, not plot correctly on a flat earth map, if it existed?

Ships going over the horizon show the earth is round.

I responded to you when you said that before.
Everything fades in the distance, ships are not special. It means nothing.

Nice try, but you know you are wrong and can show no evidence of distances fitting on a flat earth map.

Please add something substantive if you wish to continue this conversation,

Please supply details of a recent BLE and a verified flat earth map.  With those we can have a meaningful discussion.

Please supply details of a successful, recent trans-Antarctic crossing, as well as a map of the earth that you have created yourself, and the means to detect manufactured spatial distortions. The first two are only fair, as they are what you ask of me, and the last is required if I am to do what you ask.

I am not asking for you to produce a map but to provide one that must exist to show a flat earth.  Are you aware of incorrect distances that would show the earth not to be round?

How am I to provide a map without producing one? There are many flat earth maps, to determine which is accurate would require all the same stages as mapping out the earth myself. It is further complicated by the aforementioned manufactured distortions, which ensure the difficulty of getting an accurate picture.
The only distances we are told are those that are in line with the lie. I cannot refute propaganda with only that same propaganda.

So, you're saying you have nothing better than the projections of the globe, and the only reason you think those projections are wrong is because you think the earth is flat.  Why?  Everything about the globe is entirely cohesive, and nothing about Antarctica crossings or Bedford Level "Experiments" will change that.

I know the Earth is not a globe because the model is not cohesive. Even beyond heat and light, no curvature has ever been detected. The Bedford Level Experiment is only one example, you can find accounts of many similar observations on this forum, of things that should not have been visible if the world was round, and yet they are rejected only because the round earthers believe the world is round.

I know the Earth is not a globe because the model is not cohesive. Even beyond heat and light, no curvature has ever been detected. The Bedford Level Experiment is only one example, you can find accounts of many similar observations on this forum, of things that should not have been visible if the world was round, and yet they are rejected only because the round earthers believe the world is round.

Discounting all space exploration, seismology, navigation, weather, astronomy, and the like?  Your argument boils down to "the earth looks flat, so it must be flat, and everything must be a lie."  News flash: The earth does look flat, but only because it is huge.  The BLE has gotten multiple conflicting results, and the only people still performing it are Flat Earth sympathizers with obvious agendas. 

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 02:13:21 PM

I know the Earth is not a globe because the model is not cohesive. Even beyond heat and light, no curvature has ever been detected. The Bedford Level Experiment is only one example, you can find accounts of many similar observations on this forum, of things that should not have been visible if the world was round, and yet they are rejected only because the round earthers believe the world is round.

Discounting all space exploration, seismology, navigation, weather, astronomy, and the like?  Your argument boils down to "the earth looks flat, so it must be flat, and everything must be a lie."  News flash: The earth does look flat, but only because it is huge.  The BLE has gotten multiple conflicting results, and the only people still performing it are Flat Earth sympathizers with obvious agendas.

Like I said, the Bedford Level Experiment is only one example. Given that there is no curvature (a more profound result than "it looks flat,") the Earth cannot be round.

We already know people will lie to us for gain. If we were in North Korea, and you were told that your country was the greatest, that everyone everywhere else suffered, that you were at the forefront of science, and that your leader had near-superhuman athleticism, would you trust those people just because they were the only scientific authorities allowed to speak?

Quote from: Blue_Moon on July 12, 2016, 02:26:59 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 02:13:21 PM

I know the Earth is not a globe because the model is not cohesive. Even beyond heat and light, no curvature has ever been detected. The Bedford Level Experiment is only one example, you can find accounts of many similar observations on this forum, of things that should not have been visible if the world was round, and yet they are rejected only because the round earthers believe the world is round.

Discounting all space exploration, seismology, navigation, weather, astronomy, and the like?  Your argument boils down to "the earth looks flat, so it must be flat, and everything must be a lie."  News flash: The earth does look flat, but only because it is huge.  The BLE has gotten multiple conflicting results, and the only people still performing it are Flat Earth sympathizers with obvious agendas.

Like I said, the Bedford Level Experiment is only one example. Given that there is no curvature (a more profound result than "it looks flat,") the Earth cannot be round.

We already know people will lie to us for gain. If we were in North Korea, and you were told that your country was the greatest, that everyone everywhere else suffered, that you were at the forefront of science, and that your leader had near-superhuman athleticism, would you trust those people just because they were the only scientific authorities allowed to speak?

Please list these examples.

I am deleting the nested quotes for the sake of simplicity.

Given that no curvature has been detected on the Earth, there must be an explanation for the odd distances detected there. Manufactured spatial distortions conceal huge, mineral-full areas of Earth such as El Dorado. These are mined and harvested for profit, while the rest of the world has no access and no knowledge to these areas. Oil, gold, precious metals...

Why is the observation of curvature only unreliable and based upon refraction if the conclusion that the world is not round?

Curvature has indeed been detected multiple times. As has been stated in another thread, the curvature was visible to the users of the Concorde. The very same Bedford Level Experiment, when performed correctly, is evidence of the same. The fact that mountains get dark from bottom to top, too. Curvature is easily detectable and measurable, and your negative to accept such a well proven fact is apalling.

Your manmade spatial distortions hypothesis is, as per your own words, based on the existance of places such as El Dorado, a myth born from the massive amount of gold and silver the Spanish Empire acquired from its american territories. It has no real support aside from tales and your own imagination.

Refraction is a very real phenomenon. Cases such as the Flying Dutchman, Crocker Land and other ghostly things spotted by ship crews can be explained in the same way. So watching the horizon and saying "I see things that I shouldn't be able to see" is no proof of anything.

Like I said, the Bedford Level Experiment is only one example. Given that there is no curvature (a more profound result than "it looks flat,") the Earth cannot be round.

God almighty,  you are thick....  forget the Bedford Level experiment,  there are hundreds of thousands of geodetic surveys measuring the curvature of the earth. 

Go find a local surveyor and ask for an example of a geodetic survey.   NONE,  ( got that)  NONE of the hundreds of thousands of geodetic surveys ever done has ever shown a flat earth.

Why is that?

PS.  It occurs to me that you might not know what a geodetic survey is,  so here for your enlightenment and enjoyment is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesy

I've seen a lot of round earthers talk about how clear proofs that the world is flat, such as the bedford level experiment, or cases where the light of a light house was visible when it should be blocked by the Earth's curvature, or situations where more of the world over a lake could be seen than should be possible on a round Earth, are unreliable given they have only been performed a handful of times.

What would you say is the best-documented example of seeing a light house that should have been blocked by the Earth's curvature?

I am deleting the nested quotes for the sake of simplicity.

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 01:29:16 PM

Given that no curvature has been detected on the Earth, there must be an explanation for the odd distances detected there. Manufactured spatial distortions conceal huge, mineral-full areas of Earth such as El Dorado. These are mined and harvested for profit, while the rest of the world has no access and no knowledge to these areas. Oil, gold, precious metals...

Why is the observation of curvature only unreliable and based upon refraction if the conclusion that the world is not round?

Curvature has indeed been detected multiple times. As has been stated in another thread, the curvature was visible to the users of the Concorde. The very same Bedford Level Experiment, when performed correctly, is evidence of the same. The fact that mountains get dark from bottom to top, too. Curvature is easily detectable and measurable, and your negative to accept such a well proven fact is apalling.

Your manmade spatial distortions hypothesis is, as per your own words, based on the existance of places such as El Dorado, a myth born from the massive amount of gold and silver the Spanish Empire acquired from its american territories. It has no real support aside from tales and your own imagination.

Refraction is a very real phenomenon. Cases such as the Flying Dutchman, Crocker Land and other ghostly things spotted by ship crews can be explained in the same way. So watching the horizon and saying "I see things that I shouldn't be able to see" is no proof of anything.

Then why do you accept claimed accounts of the experiment only when they show curvature? Sunlight is explained by the caloric field.
The spatial distortion aspect is well-documented. As there is no curvature, there must be a reason for the distances we measure. El Dorado is but one example: there are many promised lands and places rich all throughout human history, in all kinds of cultures. There has to be a source for such a common theme. El Dorado wasn't the first. Promised lands have existed since before the birth of Christ.

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 10:11:26 AM

I've seen a lot of round earthers talk about how clear proofs that the world is flat, such as the bedford level experiment, or cases where the light of a light house was visible when it should be blocked by the Earth's curvature, or situations where more of the world over a lake could be seen than should be possible on a round Earth, are unreliable given they have only been performed a handful of times.

What would you say is the best-documented example of seeing a light house that should have been blocked by the Earth's curvature?

There are several instances here:
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/04/flat-earth-enlightenment.html

Quote from: Triddles on July 12, 2016, 04:39:40 PM

Like I said, the Bedford Level Experiment is only one example. Given that there is no curvature (a more profound result than "it looks flat,") the Earth cannot be round.

God almighty,  you are thick....  forget the Bedford Level experiment,  there are hundreds of thousands of geodetic surveys measuring the curvature of the earth. 

Go find a local surveyor and ask for an example of a geodetic survey.   NONE,  ( got that)  NONE of the hundreds of thousands of geodetic surveys ever done has ever shown a flat earth.

Why is that?

PS.  It occurs to me that you might not know what a geodetic survey is,  so here for your enlightenment and enjoyment is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesy

Why is it the experiments performed by individuals beyond influence detect flatness, and the surveys performed by large, sponsored organizations detect curvature?