Evidences Of The Flat Earth (On Going @142)

This would be true if it was for the benefit of myself. However many do hold the models of Rowbotham, Voliva, Scott, et al. As such, and as Secretary of the Flat Earth Society, I have a duty to ensure these views get their time of day for those interested flatists.

  As long as first post don't specify that I surely hold that you believe on every single thing of this list and they are evidence for flat earth in your personal opinion. It surely gives some interesting things for pointing out later.

Quote from: John Davis on September 05, 2016, 10:51:30 AM

This would be true if it was for the benefit of myself. However many do hold the models of Rowbotham, Voliva, Scott, et al. As such, and as Secretary of the Flat Earth Society, I have a duty to ensure these views get their time of day for those interested flatists.

Surely it'd be a greater benefit to not propagate what you presumably have reason to believe is false information? If memory serves, that's what a lot of the more conspiracy-minded FEers accused this site of being for.
The reason FET gets such a bad reputation is because of the standard of reasoning that gets encouraged. I understand your duties as Secretary, but you aren't encouraging FEers, you're limiting them; there's no indication that some arguments may not hold, and no indication various FE models would themselves be targeted by the arguments.
Further, given your model I'm guessing you find there to be a reason to think the distances in each hemisphere may not be so distant to one another, and you find the evidence against such things questionable, in which case you're actively disseminating and encouraging FEers to hold to lies.

There's a difference between giving views the time of day, and presenting them as the default.

First off, sorry for not responding to all the posts, but I feel responding to this will resolve the majority of concerns here.

Facts, as they are, only can be given a true or false judgement within a tradition and a framework. I don't believe this is false information simply because a subset of them do not fit within my order of things - though I'd hesitate to even say that a subset do not fit within my overall worldview. There is a tyranny to science, and I think its quite clear from the posts in this thread that its one of the reasons folks are driven to our cause. My 'duty' to the society, or society in large, is not to arbitrate what is 'true'; not to dictate what is not and discern for others what views are given their time and which are not - quite the opposite. I feel it is the duty of each of us to realize this basic tenet: there will always be data unexplained by any theory no matter how base, simple, or inherent to our reality it may seem. Not only are facts and theories in constant juxtaposition, they are never as distinct as they are seen. From this we see the use of all these facts, evidences, and frameworks to the greater good of us all - and more than this that the intolerance of them as a hinderance to the cause of truth.

My goal is not to replace one set of facts by another; it is to convince folks that all sets, even the most ridiculous, have their limits and areas of application. As such, I am not presenting falsehoods - for such a thing is not possible. All I am presenting are the evidences given towards various frameworks, each which have their own merits and pitfalls. In this way, I stand with Fort, Popper, and Feyerabend and with a society that is open and against tyranny of thought and belief.

Most scientists are concerned only with coherence with academia and current tradition - adding another paper to the inundation of useless prose we have. Like the Christian scientist their first defense against evidences outside their framework, which will always exist, is to ignore them, claim them false, and damn them to the outside. This list stands as a testament to the damned facts.

When the round earther stands so closely to his beliefs he is intolerant to those that are outside, he is unwittingly playing the exact part which he supposedly despises. He is a tyrant bigot fundamentalist; the least he could do is recognize this. The least we can do is be prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant.

I'm a bit bored so I've decided to comment few "proofs" or "evidences".

LUNAR

• How are the moon phases are lit in seemingly impossible ways when both the sun and moon are in sky?
• Daytime lunar eclipses as noted by Kepler.  Over 50 Lunar Eclipses have been reported while the Sun is in the sky. How can a lunar eclipse happen when the three bodies are not in a straight line? We are given the answer that its because of refraction. Charles Fort would call this attempted positivism and I happen to agree. The necessity to conform all damned facts to orthodoxy is strong within the indoctrinated. Luckily Samuel Rowbotham gives us a simple experiment to debunk this in ENaG.
• The lunar eclipse is red. If this was caused by refraction and rayleigh scattering, we'd see a red tint to the everything during the lunar eclipse. Instead, only the moon is red.
• The moon is semi-transparent. Many reports historically and in moderns times have been given where one can see stars through the moon.
• The moon's light is of a different nature than the sun - it has its own set of dangerous properties.
• "We have seen that during a Lunar Eclipse the Moon's self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent 'something'; and this 'something' is a definite mass, because it has a distinct and circular outline, as seen during its first and last contact with the Moon. As a Solar Eclipse occurs from the Moon passing before the Sun, so, from the evidence above collected, it is evidence that a Lunar Eclipse arises from a similar cause. A body, semi-transparent and well defined, passing before the Moon; or between the Moon's surface and the observe on the surface of the Earth. " Zetetic Astronomy

1. Seemingly impossible? It's called a moon termination illusion and it is caused by the perspective. Lunar eclipse can happen when all three bodies aren't perfectly aligned.
2. Possible on a globe thanks to refraction. Are there any records of such eclipses where either of the bodies is significantly higher above the horizon? That would be a real evidence.
3. Everything = ? The atmosphere? What exactly?
4. Or they were dead pixels or other star-unrelated things. I watched a moon hundred of times and never seen through it. Nor my collegues. Nor anyone else that I know. There are records of moon passing through bright stars and planets, none of them showing bright objects on the lunar disc like it was transparent.
5. Spectral analysis says lunar light is a reflection of sun's. What dangerous properties?
6. Not enough details. Too much "something"

I'd still prefer a single and detailed argument over a long list where basically every point leads to further questions.

I'd also like to remind that when something is an "evidence" against the globe, it isn't the evindence for flat earth.

My goal is not to replace one set of facts by another; it is to convince folks that all sets, even the most ridiculous, have their limits and areas of application. As such, I am not presenting falsehoods - for such a thing is not possible. All I am presenting are the evidences given towards various frameworks, each which have their own merits and pitfalls. In this way, I stand with Fort, Popper, and Feyerabend and with a society that is open and against tyranny of thought and belief.

In short you are saying that anyone can call you (not personally you) liar, child abuser or whatever he/she wants and this is not falsehood. Because someone saw you glance in some direction it can be presented as evidence.  Because you said some word and even when its taken totally out of context it still can be presented as evidence for something else. There are no facts, everything is evidence for everything and personal experience trumps every other observation.
 I really don't get the point for evidence at all. Because like you present it it is always only evidence for specific situation in specific conditions. Its like the story with blind people and elephant. Every person touches different part and refuses to touch any other part for additional information. And as someone lets go and moment passes there is no evidence at all any more. So in conclusion there is no evidence at all for anything else but for the current moment where you are. Because if anything changes then there is evidence for a new thing but old evidence has lost its value and you can't call it evidence anymore.

Always when I think I've seen and heard it all, mr. Davis appears to show me wrong:

My goal is not to replace one set of facts by another; it is to convince folks that all sets, even the most ridiculous, have their limits and areas of application. As such, I am not presenting falsehoods - for such a thing is not possible

This sure is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard.

I think Karl Popper will be spinning his grave if he knew Davis was using his name to support the bullshit he propogates.

Quote from: Jane on September 05, 2016, 02:45:30 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 05, 2016, 10:51:30 AM

This would be true if it was for the benefit of myself. However many do hold the models of Rowbotham, Voliva, Scott, et al. As such, and as Secretary of the Flat Earth Society, I have a duty to ensure these views get their time of day for those interested flatists.

Surely it'd be a greater benefit to not propagate what you presumably have reason to believe is false information? If memory serves, that's what a lot of the more conspiracy-minded FEers accused this site of being for.
The reason FET gets such a bad reputation is because of the standard of reasoning that gets encouraged. I understand your duties as Secretary, but you aren't encouraging FEers, you're limiting them; there's no indication that some arguments may not hold, and no indication various FE models would themselves be targeted by the arguments.
Further, given your model I'm guessing you find there to be a reason to think the distances in each hemisphere may not be so distant to one another, and you find the evidence against such things questionable, in which case you're actively disseminating and encouraging FEers to hold to lies.

There's a difference between giving views the time of day, and presenting them as the default.

First off, sorry for not responding to all the posts, but I feel responding to this will resolve the majority of concerns here.

Facts, as they are, only can be given a true or false judgement within a tradition and a framework. I don't believe this is false information simply because a subset of them do not fit within my order of things - though I'd hesitate to even say that a subset do not fit within my overall worldview. There is a tyranny to science, and I think its quite clear from the posts in this thread that its one of the reasons folks are driven to our cause. My 'duty' to the society, or society in large, is not to arbitrate what is 'true'; not to dictate what is not and discern for others what views are given their time and which are not - quite the opposite. I feel it is the duty of each of us to realize this basic tenet: there will always be data unexplained by any theory no matter how base, simple, or inherent to our reality it may seem. Not only are facts and theories in constant juxtaposition, they are never as distinct as they are seen. From this we see the use of all these facts, evidences, and frameworks to the greater good of us all - and more than this that the intolerance of them as a hinderance to the cause of truth.

My goal is not to replace one set of facts by another; it is to convince folks that all sets, even the most ridiculous, have their limits and areas of application. As such, I am not presenting falsehoods - for such a thing is not possible. All I am presenting are the evidences given towards various frameworks, each which have their own merits and pitfalls. In this way, I stand with Fort, Popper, and Feyerabend and with a society that is open and against tyranny of thought and belief.

Most scientists are concerned only with coherence with academia and current tradition - adding another paper to the inundation of useless prose we have. Like the Christian scientist their first defense against evidences outside their framework, which will always exist, is to ignore them, claim them false, and damn them to the outside. This list stands as a testament to the damned facts.

When the round earther stands so closely to his beliefs he is intolerant to those that are outside, he is unwittingly playing the exact part which he supposedly despises. He is a tyrant bigot fundamentalist; the least he could do is recognize this. The least we can do is be prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant.

John, this sounds nice and inspirational, but I think you rather missed the point.

We are not objecting to your list because it contains "facts" that contradict various models. If the "fact" is true and relevant, then by all means present it regardless of which model it supports. However, we DO care if the "fact" is trustworthy or not. If you are touting lies as evidence, then there is a problem. This "no such thing as falsehoods" thing is a load of bullcrap.

For example, let's say I have a list of evidence against the flat earth. One of the pieces of "evidence" is this:

Evidence that the earth isn't flat #41: ...
Evidence that the earth isn't flat #42: Cars don't exist, therefore the earth is not flat.
Evidence that the earth isn't flat #43: ...

Is this a falsehood? Does this statement have an "area of application"? What would you think of such a list? What would you think of the person who added this to the list?

You are destroying your own credibility.

I think Karl Popper will be spinning his grave if he knew Davis was using his name to support the bullshit he propogates.

I've seen this line of argument a lot lately. Mr. X would be spinning in his grave if he knew Mr. Y was using his name to support the bullshit he propogates - as if such a thing matters. Experience enlightens me to the fact that this line of argument is not used when it is in actuality true, but when its purporter has no idea what Mr. X in actuality said. To him it is enough to assume that everybody thinks like himself, and thus an intelligent man like Mr. X must agree.

The views I lean on from Popper are in actuality those that have little to do with his methodological falsification. This should be obvious as Feyerabend is a critic of Popper. Karl Popper has written volumes on other topics, and in particular I'm weighing in on his views concerning intolerance of ideas. While Popper may disagree that the Earth is flat, I do not have to guess if he would be turning in his grave given my views on tolerance towards such a view. I have asked him in way of his literature, and he has been more than clear on the subject.

It should be noted that while I was not weighing on his method or falsification - as Poppers method has several issues that can't be rectified. If you'd like to look at the flat view of things from a Popperian sense its not hard;  others have looked at the Flat Earth in a Popperian sense which may serve as a jumping board for you. Here is an interesting treatment on the Flat Earth through a Popper lens done by a clever person at Northwestern. It also, when read backwards, shows us the flaw in the dogmatic roundist positivist view.
http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory/flatearth.html

Always when I think I've seen and heard it all, mr. Davis appears to show me wrong:

Quote

My goal is not to replace one set of facts by another; it is to convince folks that all sets, even the most ridiculous, have their limits and areas of application. As such, I am not presenting falsehoods - for such a thing is not possible

This sure is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard.

In general, I would not think you've seen or heard it all in any case. This is the definition of ignorance - not lack of knowledge but instead lack of want for knowledge. By definition - it is your statements that exemplify the 'dumbest statements' that any of us have ever heard as they by their very nature reject knowledge.

I believe the Earth is flat, and do so with every ounce of my being. On the other hand, I can see the areas of applicability for the round earth model - that myth has served us well over the years. I am also prepared to be wrong, either on the point of the flat earth or on the point of any particular model within its framework. This is a necessity when you are the foremost flat earth theorist in the world.

More than this, to partake in reasoned discussion one must share the single view of the possibility of being wrong. It is my intention that very few round earthers that come here are actually interested in the reasoned discussion they purportedly desire; they are ruled out from this at the get go as they are simply not prepared to be incorrect.

I have simply described the view of relativism. You may disagree with it, but you have done little to defend such disagreement. If you need help, you can look to Against Relativism which provides a good enough walk through the garden of defending method..

Quote from: John Davis on September 09, 2016, 01:04:36 AM

My goal is not to replace one set of facts by another; it is to convince folks that all sets, even the most ridiculous, have their limits and areas of application. As such, I am not presenting falsehoods - for such a thing is not possible. All I am presenting are the evidences given towards various frameworks, each which have their own merits and pitfalls. In this way, I stand with Fort, Popper, and Feyerabend and with a society that is open and against tyranny of thought and belief.

In short you are saying that anyone can call you (not personally you) liar, child abuser or whatever he/she wants and this is not falsehood. Because someone saw you glance in some direction it can be presented as evidence.  Because you said some word and even when its taken totally out of context it still can be presented as evidence for something else. There are no facts, everything is evidence for everything and personal experience trumps every other observation.
 I really don't get the point for evidence at all. Because like you present it it is always only evidence for specific situation in specific conditions. Its like the story with blind people and elephant. Every person touches different part and refuses to touch any other part for additional information. And as someone lets go and moment passes there is no evidence at all any more. So in conclusion there is no evidence at all for anything else but for the current moment where you are. Because if anything changes then there is evidence for a new thing but old evidence has lost its value and you can't call it evidence anymore.

Such a false statement (that one is a liar, child abuser, or other miscreant) has its limits and areas of applicability. Its limits and areas of applicability are likely much smaller than this if it doesn't fit with evidence, reality, and a coherent framework. The point of evidence is to give the rough architectural constraints by which we build our frameworks. I say rough, as no framework will ever encompass all evidence - this can be clear in a practical sense by the work of Fort or in a theoretical sense by looking at Godel or Turings work with Cantor's slash.

Such a man, if he presumably is saying this as a lie, instead relies on his personal views and faith rather than having a worldview that is not built upon eggshells.  It is a matter of fact that a person can call me a liar, and that said false knowledge can also lead him to more legitimate knowledge than this.

A lie claiming I am guilty of some crime I am not has no framework aside from that created to serve its own end to frame me. These purposeful mistruths are not what I'm talking about. Yet, it is true that the line between theory and evidences is a blurry one. Another man might take one of these mistruths though, and be able to use it to much end. It might even be impossible to discern the two using knowledge about how we know anything. The above are not 'purposeful' lies, and each evidence fits within their framework coherently enough and have been verified by independent observers. This is evidenced by the fact that you can find the majority of these within and across the available literature concerning each of their respective frameworks.

Now, to address the elephant in the room - yes some statements are so ridiculous that finding a framework that would make them take on trueness would also be finding a framework with an area of applicability that approaches none. You are examining what is known as an edge case. Is it possible to create useless evidences with frameworks that have no applicability? Perhaps - but that is not what is happening here.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 09, 2016, 05:26:06 AM

I think Karl Popper will be spinning his grave if he knew Davis was using his name to support the bullshit he propogates.

I've seen this line of argument a lot lately. Mr. X would be spinning in his grave if he knew Mr. Y was using his name to support the bullshit he propogates - as if such a thing matters. Experience enlightens me to the fact that this line of argument is not used when it is in actuality true, but when its purporter has no idea what Mr. X in actuality said. To him it is enough to assume that everybody thinks like himself, and thus an intelligent man like Mr. X must agree.

The views I lean on from Popper are in actuality those that have little to do with his methodological falsification. This should be obvious as Feyerabend is a critic of Popper. Karl Popper has written volumes on other topics, and in particular I'm weighing in on his views concerning intolerance of ideas. While Popper may disagree that the Earth is flat, I do not have to guess if he would be turning in his grave given my views on tolerance towards such a view. I have asked him in way of his literature, and he has been more than clear on the subject.

It should be noted that while I was not weighing on his method or falsification - as Poppers method has several issues that can't be rectified. If you'd like to look at the flat view of things from a Popperian sense its not hard;  others have looked at the Flat Earth in a Popperian sense which may serve as a jumping board for you. Here is an interesting treatment on the Flat Earth through a Popper lens done by a clever person at Northwestern. It also, when read backwards, shows us the flaw in the dogmatic roundist positivist view.
http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory/flatearth.html

Quote from: User324 on September 09, 2016, 04:00:17 AM

Always when I think I've seen and heard it all, mr. Davis appears to show me wrong:

Quote

My goal is not to replace one set of facts by another; it is to convince folks that all sets, even the most ridiculous, have their limits and areas of application. As such, I am not presenting falsehoods - for such a thing is not possible

This sure is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard.

In general, I would not think you've seen or heard it all in any case. This is the definition of ignorance - not lack of knowledge but instead lack of want for knowledge. By definition - it is your statements that exemplify the 'dumbest statements' that any of us have ever heard as they by their very nature reject knowledge.

I believe the Earth is flat, and do so with every ounce of my being. On the other hand, I can see the areas of applicability for the round earth model - that myth has served us well over the years. I am also prepared to be wrong, either on the point of the flat earth or on the point of any particular model within its framework. This is a necessity when you are the foremost flat earth theorist in the world.

More than this, to partake in reasoned discussion one must share the single view of the possibility of being wrong. It is my intention that very few round earthers that come here are actually interested in the reasoned discussion they purportedly desire; they are ruled out from this at the get go as they are simply not prepared to be incorrect.

I have simply described the view of relativism. You may disagree with it, but you have done little to defend such disagreement. If you need help, you can look to Against Relativism which provides a good enough walk through the garden of defending method..

Quote from: zork on September 09, 2016, 03:03:41 AM

Quote from: John Davis on September 09, 2016, 01:04:36 AM

My goal is not to replace one set of facts by another; it is to convince folks that all sets, even the most ridiculous, have their limits and areas of application. As such, I am not presenting falsehoods - for such a thing is not possible. All I am presenting are the evidences given towards various frameworks, each which have their own merits and pitfalls. In this way, I stand with Fort, Popper, and Feyerabend and with a society that is open and against tyranny of thought and belief.

In short you are saying that anyone can call you (not personally you) liar, child abuser or whatever he/she wants and this is not falsehood. Because someone saw you glance in some direction it can be presented as evidence.  Because you said some word and even when its taken totally out of context it still can be presented as evidence for something else. There are no facts, everything is evidence for everything and personal experience trumps every other observation.
 I really don't get the point for evidence at all. Because like you present it it is always only evidence for specific situation in specific conditions. Its like the story with blind people and elephant. Every person touches different part and refuses to touch any other part for additional information. And as someone lets go and moment passes there is no evidence at all any more. So in conclusion there is no evidence at all for anything else but for the current moment where you are. Because if anything changes then there is evidence for a new thing but old evidence has lost its value and you can't call it evidence anymore.

Such a false statement (that one is a liar, child abuser, or other miscreant) has its limits and areas of applicability. Its limits and areas of applicability are likely much smaller than this if it doesn't fit with evidence, reality, and a coherent framework. The point of evidence is to give the rough architectural constraints by which we build our frameworks. I say rough, as no framework will ever encompass all evidence - this can be clear in a practical sense by the work of Fort or in a theoretical sense by looking at Godel or Turings work with Cantor's slash.

Such a man, if he presumably is saying this as a lie, instead relies on his personal views and faith rather than having a worldview that is not built upon eggshells.  It is a matter of fact that a person can call me a liar, and that said false knowledge can also lead him to more legitimate knowledge than this.

A lie claiming I am guilty of some crime I am not has no framework aside from that created to serve its own end to frame me. These purposeful mistruths are not what I'm talking about. Yet, it is true that the line between theory and evidences is a blurry one. Another man might take one of these mistruths though, and be able to use it to much end. It might even be impossible to discern the two using knowledge about how we know anything. The above are not 'purposeful' lies, and each evidence fits within their framework coherently enough and have been verified by independent observers. This is evidenced by the fact that you can find the majority of these within and across the available literature concerning each of their respective frameworks.

Now, to address the elephant in the room - yes some statements are so ridiculous that finding a framework that would make them take on trueness would also be finding a framework with an area of applicability that approaches none. You are examining what is known as an edge case. Is it possible to create useless evidences with frameworks that have no applicability? Perhaps - but that is not what is happening here.

I do not understand why there is so much emphasis here on frameworks.

>>yes some statements are so ridiculous that finding a framework that would make them take on trueness would also be finding a framework with an area of applicability that approaches none.

If we find our latitude on this world using the North star as seen by the human eye,   what framework is being used?

Now, to address the elephant in the room - yes some statements are so ridiculous that finding a framework that would make them take on trueness would also be finding a framework with an area of applicability that approaches none. You are examining what is known as an edge case. Is it possible to create useless evidences with frameworks that have no applicability? Perhaps - but that is not what is happening here.

I don't see any applicability in your list. Therefore in my case its exactly what is happening here. You created useless evidence. And quite many may be even purposeful mistruths. Especially religious ones. You have no way to make sure that they are not.
 And all this talk about frameworks... its only useful to fit something to some framework if you want to understand this specific framework from where the claim came. But it has no use to the framework where one wants to determine shape of the earth. You can verify literature quotes and you can try to understand what is behind them but they don't tell you in any way what is the shape of the earth. And they don't provide any evidence for that.

The fact is I'm embarrassed with the riches of evidence that the Earth is not a Planet.

THE MYTHICAL CURVE

• Find the curve! You can't. Every experience we have says it's flat

The curve is not mythical if we have been able to measure it on the surface of the earth for the last 240 years.

There is no legitimate framework to allow what you are saying.

Now, to address the elephant in the room - yes some statements are so ridiculous that finding a framework that would make them take on trueness would also be finding a framework with an area of applicability that approaches none. You are examining what is known as an edge case. Is it possible to create useless evidences with frameworks that have no applicability? Perhaps - but that is not what is happening here.[/list]

I am not surprised in the slightest amount that the secretary of the Flat Earth society has no integrity whatsoever.   It is just what we expect from flat earthers who are proven to be liars and cheaters.

Well to be fair the people really believing the Earth is flat are also lying to themselves.  So they do not think they are lying. 

It is why the Bishop experiment is allowed as experimental evidence.  Even if the distances stated are wrong.  The distance from the observer and what he was seeing was 10 miles off.  The distance of the telescope above the water was about 2-3 feet off.

They need to be dishonest with themselves to protect their belief.

I do not understand why there is so much emphasis here on frameworks.

>>yes some statements are so ridiculous that finding a framework that would make them take on trueness would also be finding a framework with an area of applicability that approaches none.

If we find our latitude on this world using the North star as seen by the human eye,   what framework is being used?

The reason there is such an emphasis on frameworks is because a set of data can only be shown to be true or false given a context - a framework. Likewise a framework is only as valid as the data it describes, though no framework can every hope to explain all evidences towards or against it. To use an admittedly contrived example,  I could say x = 5, but this means very little. Now, given a context - say 1 + x = 6 or another 2 + x = 6 we then have a means to discern whether the fact is indeed against the theory or vice versa.

We can find latitude on this world using the North star using a multitude of frameworks - in fact an infinite amount of them. This is what I call the principle of additional solutions, though others have called it by different names.

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2016, 10:54:06 AM

Now, to address the elephant in the room - yes some statements are so ridiculous that finding a framework that would make them take on trueness would also be finding a framework with an area of applicability that approaches none. You are examining what is known as an edge case. Is it possible to create useless evidences with frameworks that have no applicability? Perhaps - but that is not what is happening here.

I don't see any applicability in your list. Therefore in my case its exactly what is happening here. You created useless evidence. And quite many may be even purposeful mistruths. Especially religious ones. You have no way to make sure that they are not.
 And all this talk about frameworks... its only useful to fit something to some framework if you want to understand this specific framework from where the claim came. But it has no use to the framework where one wants to determine shape of the earth. You can verify literature quotes and you can try to understand what is behind them but they don't tell you in any way what is the shape of the earth. And they don't provide any evidence for that.

They are being applied in the theories in question, which clearly have worth at least to those who hold it. Additionally, we cannot know what other worth they may have the same as we might not know where a path leads until we traverse it. Many are instances of facts that are outside of the explanation in round earth theory as well, showing a definitive line where round earth theory cannot cross as it stands today.

Quote from: John Davis on September 03, 2016, 10:09:00 PM

The fact is I'm embarrassed with the riches of evidence that the Earth is not a Planet.

THE MYTHICAL CURVE

• Find the curve! You can't. Every experience we have says it's flat

The curve is not mythical if we have been able to measure it on the surface of the earth for the last 240 years.

There is no legitimate framework to allow what you are saying.

Quote from: John Davis on September 03, 2016, 10:09:00 PM

Now, to address the elephant in the room - yes some statements are so ridiculous that finding a framework that would make them take on trueness would also be finding a framework with an area of applicability that approaches none. You are examining what is known as an edge case. Is it possible to create useless evidences with frameworks that have no applicability? Perhaps - but that is not what is happening here.[/list]

I am not surprised in the slightest amount that the secretary of the Flat Earth society has no integrity whatsoever.   It is just what we expect from flat earthers who are proven to be liars and cheaters.

Ah, yes. Attack the man. Just what I'd expect from a roundist - blind adherence to his religion at the cost of logic in his arguments. However, if this is the game you'd like to play, it is actually the fact that the round scientist is the one that has been 'proven' to be a liar and cheater and more so using his own methodologies and metrics. Take for instance the study "Scientists Behaving Badly" or "Normal Misconduct." Of course, I don't expect you to back up your wild claims with evidence as I have. For some reason, the baller seems content to simply argue against my right to present evidence.

I have provided a legitimate framework to allow what I'm saying, but I have a feeling this will just lead to a search for a certain verifiable Scottish man which I will leave unnamed.

Well to be fair the people really believing the Earth is flat are also lying to themselves.  So they do not think they are lying. 

It is why the Bishop experiment is allowed as experimental evidence.  Even if the distances stated are wrong.  The distance from the observer and what he was seeing was 10 miles off.  The distance of the telescope above the water was about 2-3 feet off.

They need to be dishonest with themselves to protect their belief.

The flatist is not lying to himself and you have done little to nothing to show he is, except wave your hand. At most, the flatist is lying to himself as much as the globist as both hold views that are by nature impossible yet true. I'm not certain of any "Bishop" experiment, perhaps you could clarify? Are you speaking of the often repeated experiment of Rowbotham?

This philosophy seems to be nothing more than an excuse to allow you to be sloppy with the truth.

"Some evidence doesn't support my model? That's ok! It's an edge-case that isn't applicable to my framework!"

"Some evidence supports my model but the person who came up with the evidence was lying about it? That's ok! It's applicable to my framework regardless if it is true or not!"

I am curious about what the other flat earthers think about this philosophy. Let's be honest: if any round earther handled evidence with such sloppiness, the flat earthers would be all over him. "Modern science is corrupt! Globe earthers don't care about truth! They are hiding/ignoring evidence!".

They are being applied in the theories in question, which clearly have worth at least to those who hold it.

And totally irrelevant in case of detecting shape of the earth.

Additionally, we cannot know what other worth they may have the same as we might not know where a path leads until we traverse it.

I can't talk for others but as you really can't verify that any these claims are evidence for flat earth but you can only verify the existance of these claims then they have no worth and there is no path to follow.

Many are instances of facts that are outside of the explanation in round earth theory as well, showing a definitive line where round earth theory cannot cross as it stands today.

If we talk about simple observations that you can observe every day then no, there are no instances of facts that are outside of the explanation on round earth. Or what did you had in mind? Please don't say gravity or dark matter or something similar.

John, this sounds nice and inspirational, but I think you rather missed the point.

We are not objecting to your list because it contains "facts" that contradict various models. If the "fact" is true and relevant, then by all means present it regardless of which model it supports. However, we DO care if the "fact" is trustworthy or not. If you are touting lies as evidence, then there is a problem. This "no such thing as falsehoods" thing is a load of bullcrap.

For example, let's say I have a list of evidence against the flat earth. One of the pieces of "evidence" is this:

Quote

Evidence that the earth isn't flat #41: ...
Evidence that the earth isn't flat #42: Cars don't exist, therefore the earth is not flat.
Evidence that the earth isn't flat #43: ...

Is this a falsehood? Does this statement have an "area of application"? What would you think of such a list? What would you think of the person who added this to the list?

You are destroying your own credibility.

If you have some valid reasons to discount the very strong arguments made for relativism, I'd love to hear them. Nothing on my list, that I know of, fits in the category of "cars don't exist." However, let's go ahead and take your straw man and beat you over the head with it. The simplest applicable framework that comes to mind and deals with the statement "cars don't exist .: the earth is not flat" will be given.

Let's take a look at a view known as solipsism. In this view we see that the self, or ones self, is all that can be known to properly exist. As such, its a very fair statement to say "cars don't exist." From there we must then satisfy our therefore condition. Here we must realize that if cars don't exist, likely the world must also be within this category of non-existance as well, thus making it certainly not flat. Of course, you might find yourself having a difficult time saying the earth is round, but this is definitely not within our scope of examination. I have given you your area of applicability, and shown your 'ridiculous' statement to be of use at least in the field of philosophy.

I am presenting a list of evidences that I have read given by those who believe in a flat earth. More than this, again, I have had to justify my right to do so and having done as much it has been largely ignored and misunderstood. If globalists being intolerant to my intents and evidences is a mark of destruction of credibility, then credibility is not something I value. Intent has been clearly stated:
"This list is intended as an ongoing account of reasons and evidences I've read, heard, or otherwise have been related to me for belief in the Flat Earth. "

If I was compiling a list of commonly given evidences for a round earth, I would not be surprised if I put "toilets flush backwards due to the Coriolis force" on said list. While I personally don't think this is the case as it is in fact against round earth theory, it is still a commonly given evidence for a round earth.


To another point, not directed at yourself:
In this thread my intelligence, my integrity, and my knowledge have all been attacked. This is the behavior of the indoctrinated, and you lot all know it.

Nothing on my list, that I know of, fits in the category of "cars don't exist."

Taken directly from your list:

Air does not feel this acceleration. Winds aren't rushing by us in one direction as gravity would dictate. (Ptolemy)

The premise behind this statement is this: Assuming the earth is round and rotating, we should feel the wind rushing by us in one direction.

Under what possible framework is this statement true/useful!???

Edit: I guess it is useful in the same way that calling an innocent man a murderer is useful for putting him in jail. That doesn't make it true.

This philosophy seems to be nothing more than an excuse to allow you to be sloppy with the truth.

"Some evidence doesn't support my model? That's ok! It's an edge-case that isn't applicable to my framework!"

"Some evidence supports my model but the person who came up with the evidence was lying about it? That's ok! It's applicable to my framework regardless if it is true or not!"

I am curious about what the other flat earthers think about this philosophy. Let's be honest: if any round earther handled evidence with such sloppiness, the flat earthers would be all over him. "Modern science is corrupt! Globe earthers don't care about truth! They are hiding/ignoring evidence!".

I never said these were applicable to *my* framework, but to the set of frameworks containing those theories that hold the earth is flat? Yes. They are most definitely applicable.

I have never seen a flat earther argue against the right to present evidence as I have. They do, however, judge each piece for themselves and at times engage in discussion about any particular point.  The fact modern science is corrupt and the majority of academia has little care towards truth has little to do with the shape of the earth and far more to do with sociological concerns.

I also would find it hard to believe there aren't relativist flatists. Its a view many "truthers" hold yet don't have the background knowledge to recognize it for what it is. At any rate, intolerance to beliefs as is systematic in round earth tyranny and science at large is the greatest danger to both science and an open society since WWII.

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2016, 03:13:23 PM

Nothing on my list, that I know of, fits in the category of "cars don't exist."

Taken directly from your list:

Quote

Air does not feel this acceleration. Winds aren't rushing by us in one direction as gravity would dictate. (Ptolemy)

The premise behind this statement is this: Assuming the earth is round and rotating, we should feel the wind rushing by us in one direction.

Under what possible framework is this statement true/useful!???

Ptolemy's framework sure found it true and useful.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 10, 2016, 02:57:48 PM

This philosophy seems to be nothing more than an excuse to allow you to be sloppy with the truth.

"Some evidence doesn't support my model? That's ok! It's an edge-case that isn't applicable to my framework!"

"Some evidence supports my model but the person who came up with the evidence was lying about it? That's ok! It's applicable to my framework regardless if it is true or not!"

I am curious about what the other flat earthers think about this philosophy. Let's be honest: if any round earther handled evidence with such sloppiness, the flat earthers would be all over him. "Modern science is corrupt! Globe earthers don't care about truth! They are hiding/ignoring evidence!".

I never said these were applicable to *my* framework, but to the set of frameworks containing those theories that hold the earth is flat? Yes. They are most definitely applicable.

I have never seen a flat earther argue against the right to present evidence as I have. They do, however, judge each piece for themselves and at times engage in discussion about any particular point.

That's exactly why we are calling bullcrap to your list. Each piece does not hold up. You, on the other hand, are trying to hide behind the statement "well somebody believes it to be true..."

Remember, you original posted many of the things on this list in a thread asking for evidence that the earth is flat. Posting evidence that you yourself don't believe to be valid is a bit dishonest.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 10, 2016, 03:19:23 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2016, 03:13:23 PM

Nothing on my list, that I know of, fits in the category of "cars don't exist."

Taken directly from your list:

Quote

Air does not feel this acceleration. Winds aren't rushing by us in one direction as gravity would dictate. (Ptolemy)

The premise behind this statement is this: Assuming the earth is round and rotating, we should feel the wind rushing by us in one direction.

Under what possible framework is this statement true/useful!???

Ptolemy's framework sure found it true and useful.

I have no idea what Ptolemy's framework was, nor do I care.

The modern understanding is that the earth has a radius of about 4000 miles and is rotating about once per day. Are you saying this "evidence" is true according to this understanding?

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2016, 02:55:48 PM

They are being applied in the theories in question, which clearly have worth at least to those who hold it.

And totally irrelevant in case of detecting shape of the earth.

Can you justify this?

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2016, 02:55:48 PM

Additionally, we cannot know what other worth they may have the same as we might not know where a path leads until we traverse it.

I can't talk for others but as you really can't verify that any these claims are evidence for flat earth but you can only verify the existance of these claims then they have no worth and there is no path to follow.

You can verify these claims and are welcome to. As I've said, I myself have verified a number of them. This is the path. Walk it.

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2016, 02:55:48 PM

Many are instances of facts that are outside of the explanation in round earth theory as well, showing a definitive line where round earth theory cannot cross as it stands today.

If we talk about simple observations that you can observe every day then no, there are no instances of facts that are outside of the explanation on round earth. Or what did you had in mind? Please don't say gravity or dark matter or something similar.

Charles Fort spent his life categorizing and collecting facts that are outside of explanation using coherent science. Any of those will do for an example.

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2016, 03:22:32 PM

Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 10, 2016, 02:57:48 PM

This philosophy seems to be nothing more than an excuse to allow you to be sloppy with the truth.

"Some evidence doesn't support my model? That's ok! It's an edge-case that isn't applicable to my framework!"

"Some evidence supports my model but the person who came up with the evidence was lying about it? That's ok! It's applicable to my framework regardless if it is true or not!"

I am curious about what the other flat earthers think about this philosophy. Let's be honest: if any round earther handled evidence with such sloppiness, the flat earthers would be all over him. "Modern science is corrupt! Globe earthers don't care about truth! They are hiding/ignoring evidence!".

I never said these were applicable to *my* framework, but to the set of frameworks containing those theories that hold the earth is flat? Yes. They are most definitely applicable.

I have never seen a flat earther argue against the right to present evidence as I have. They do, however, judge each piece for themselves and at times engage in discussion about any particular point.

That's exactly why we are calling bullcrap to your list. Each piece does not hold up. You, on the other hand, are trying to hide behind the statement "well somebody believes it to be true..."

Remember, you original posted many of the things on this list in a thread asking for evidence that the earth is flat. Posting evidence that you yourself don't believe to be valid is a bit dishonest.

As a matter of fact, the original question in the original thread was asking why people believe the earth is flat with no evidence. He had a hard time understanding that. I provided him with said reasons why people believe the earth is flat. Boy, it sure is hard to get you roundists to even read a post before you jump in to throw me in the water. I assure you, I am no witch.

Why are you presenting false evidence if you are so objected to me supposedly doing so?

Quote

Ptolemy's framework sure found it true and useful.

I have no idea what Ptolemy's framework was, nor do I care.

Ahh, I see. Ask for an example, then dismiss it out of hand. Why did you ask if you don't care? Do you not think my time has worth?

The modern understanding is that the earth has a radius of about 4000 miles and is rotating about once per day. Are you saying this "evidence" is true according to this understanding?

Did you honestly just ask me if I believe the earth to be flat? According to the round earth theory, this evidence doesn't make sense and would appear as false. Unfortunately for the round earth, one can verify any particular piece oneself. You are welcome to do so and see if it fits within your worldview. I think you'll find the area of applicability for round earth theory isn't as universal as you'd like to believe it is.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 10, 2016, 03:52:33 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2016, 03:22:32 PM

Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 10, 2016, 02:57:48 PM

This philosophy seems to be nothing more than an excuse to allow you to be sloppy with the truth.

"Some evidence doesn't support my model? That's ok! It's an edge-case that isn't applicable to my framework!"

"Some evidence supports my model but the person who came up with the evidence was lying about it? That's ok! It's applicable to my framework regardless if it is true or not!"

I am curious about what the other flat earthers think about this philosophy. Let's be honest: if any round earther handled evidence with such sloppiness, the flat earthers would be all over him. "Modern science is corrupt! Globe earthers don't care about truth! They are hiding/ignoring evidence!".

I never said these were applicable to *my* framework, but to the set of frameworks containing those theories that hold the earth is flat? Yes. They are most definitely applicable.

I have never seen a flat earther argue against the right to present evidence as I have. They do, however, judge each piece for themselves and at times engage in discussion about any particular point.

That's exactly why we are calling bullcrap to your list. Each piece does not hold up. You, on the other hand, are trying to hide behind the statement "well somebody believes it to be true..."

Remember, you original posted many of the things on this list in a thread asking for evidence that the earth is flat. Posting evidence that you yourself don't believe to be valid is a bit dishonest.

As a matter of fact, the original question in the original thread was asking why people believe the earth is flat with no evidence. He had a hard time understanding that. I provided him with said reasons why people believe the earth is flat. Boy, it sure is hard to get you roundists to even read a post before you jump in to throw me in the water. I assure you, I am no witch.

Why are you presenting false evidence if you are so objected to me supposedly doing so?

From the thread:

is there ANYONE who has ANY evidence of a flat earth?

I can assure you, he was not asking for evidence that you yourself believe to be invalid. Posting false evidence based on such an interpretation is just being obnoxiously pedantic.

Quote

Quote

Ptolemy's framework sure found it true and useful.

I have no idea what Ptolemy's framework was, nor do I care.

Ahh, I see. Ask for an example, then dismiss it out of hand. Why did you ask if you don't care? Do you not think my time has worth?

What? No. What does Ptolemy's framework have to do with anything? This piece of evidence was presented as an argument against the earth being round. Do you or do you not believe this is a true statement:

"If the earth is round with a radius of about 4000 miles, and is rotating about once per day, we should feel strong gusts of wind in one direction"

Quote

The modern understanding is that the earth has a radius of about 4000 miles and is rotating about once per day. Are you saying this "evidence" is true according to this understanding?

Did you honestly just ask me if I believe the earth to be flat? According to the round earth theory, this evidence doesn't make sense and would appear as false. Unfortunately for the round earth, one can verify any particular piece oneself. You are welcome to do so and see if it fits within your worldview. I think you'll find the area of applicability for round earth theory isn't as universal as you'd like to believe it is.

No, I did not ask you if you believe the earth to be flat. I asked you if believed this was valid evidence that the earth is not round and rotating. Again, do you or do you not believe this is a true statement:

"If the earth is round with a radius of about 4000 miles, and is rotating about once per day, we should feel strong gusts of wind in one direction"

Quote from: zork on September 10, 2016, 03:10:50 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2016, 02:55:48 PM

They are being applied in the theories in question, which clearly have worth at least to those who hold it.

And totally irrelevant in case of detecting shape of the earth.

Can you justify this?

Yes, because they don't offer absolutely no help in detecting the shape of the earth. Its all hearsay.

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2016, 02:55:48 PM

Additionally, we cannot know what other worth they may have the same as we might not know where a path leads until we traverse it.

Quote

I can't talk for others but as you really can't verify that any these claims are evidence for flat earth but you can only verify the existance of these claims then they have no worth and there is no path to follow.

You can verify these claims and are welcome to. As I've said, I myself have verified a number of them. This is the path. Walk it.

As I said, you have verified the existence of these claims, not that they are actually evidence for flat earth. This path does not lead anywhere. Or how do you propose I walk the path with a piece of information that Nile flows 1000 miles with a drop of 1 foot? Its totally irrelevant if I want to know what shape the earth is.

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2016, 02:55:48 PM

Many are instances of facts that are outside of the explanation in round earth theory as well, showing a definitive line where round earth theory cannot cross as it stands today.

Quote

If we talk about simple observations that you can observe every day then no, there are no instances of facts that are outside of the explanation on round earth. Or what did you had in mind? Please don't say gravity or dark matter or something similar.

Charles Fort spent his life categorizing and collecting facts that are outside of explanation using coherent science. Any of those will do for an example.

  He spent his life collecting facts about anomalous phenomena. I don't see how any of his findings relate to the shape of the earth? They just happened. Or can you quote any specific findings of his which can't happen on flat or round earth or which can be explained on flat earth and not in round earth?  You really grasping straws here because I asked what everyday observations are not explained in round earth model. Day and night? Sunset/sunrise? Seasons? Eclipses? Why object won't fall straight down from high place? Name something concrete.

The fact is I'm embarrassed with the riches of evidence that the Earth is not a Planet. This list is intended as an ongoing account of reasons and evidences I've read, heard, or otherwise have been related to me for belief in the Flat Earth.

You claim that you're embarrassed! I'd be embarrassed if I presented a list of ignorant hog-wash like that.

If that's your proof that the earth is flat, then the Globe is quite safe!

THE HEAVENS AND SPACE

• The vacuum of space would rip the gas off our planet

Please explain how "the vacuum of space" could "rip" anything off anything. Ever heard of gravitation, escape velocity and thermal velocity?
Guess not. Learn a bit about physics and see if you can still make a silly claim like that!

• No vacuum has ever been created, yet we are to believe space is a vacuum

That statement is evidence of nothing and no more than a crude appeal to adsurdity - try again!

• The changing heavens and the appearance and disappearance of stars is often cited as evidence for the round earth. It is also evidence towards the idea that "The stars are set in a hemispherical dome so close to the earth that all cannot be seen at the same time" - Voliva.

Do you realise how inconsistent that claim really is?
Then could you please explain how "a hemispherical dome" could possibly be "so close to the earth that all cannot be seen at the same time".
Polaris, at the very top of the "hemisphere", drops to almost right on the horizon at the equator. Try again!

• The North Star has been seen below the equator more than 20 degrees south. (Carpenter) This is only possible on a flat earth.

Totally unsupported rubbish! And how do we know that this nth hand report was even of Polaris - piffle to Carpenter.[/list]

FLIGHT AND SEA TRAVEL

• No pilot, ever, has adjusted for the Coriolis effect in any stage of flight. The Earth spins at 1040 miles per hour.

How utterly ridiculous to even suggest it!
Besides, the only place that "the Earth spins at 1040 miles per hour" is at the Equator - there is no Coriolis effect at the Equator.

In other words the person writing that had no knowledge of the Coriolis effect!

Hey JD,
Are you pretending to care about science again?
You know that science doesn't work well with your core belief.

You can't say on one thread that god can stop the sun in the sky,
And on another thread, discuss the validity of some part of science.

If you believe god can stop the sun,
That's it, the conversation is done as far as you are concerned.

Nothing will change your mind.
So don't pretend science matters.

Hey JD,
Are you pretending to care about science again?
You know that science doesn't work well with your core belief.

You can't say on one thread that god can stop the sun in the sky,
And on another thread, discuss the validity of some part of science.

If you believe god can stop the sun,
That's it, the conversation is done as far as you are concerned.

Nothing will change your mind.
So don't pretend science matters.

Incorrect, as William James points out in Varieties of Religious Experience, it is illogical to tie the worth of a proposition to the supposed worth of its source.

Furthermore, historically, at many times the religious have been the curators of knowledge and science.

Finally, can I take this to assume you will throw out every single scientific advance by a religious man? Because you'd have almost nothing left over.

I am more than open to changing my mind when shown my view is incorrect. I have done so many times in my history here.

Furthermore, historically, at many times the religious have been the curators of knowledge and science.

I agree. The early Greeks were hardly "religious" but after that it would seem that "the religious have been the curators of knowledge and science" for at least 1500 years.

Through the (western) Dark Ages, much of the Greek knowledge went into the "custody" of the early Islamic people.
Many early records were lost and the current source of the material is often limited to Ptolemy's Almagest, even the name Almagest being a combination of Arabic and Greek.

During the middle ages both mathematics and the sciences were greatly advanced by those early Muslims as witnessed by so many of terms used now being of Arabic origin, right down to the characters we use for digits.

During this period, in the Western World, science, in particular astronomy was the province of the monks - I guess because the were the main educated group..

Finally, can I take this to assume you will throw out every single scientific advance by a religious man? Because you'd have almost nothing left over.

That does seem to be the case, with many scientists certainly being religious people, but by the late 1700s this was probably less and less so.

I am more than open to changing my mind when shown my view is incorrect. I have done so many times in my history here.

Has this list of evidence made many to denounce round Earth?

Quote from: ER22 on January 19, 2018, 03:31:59 PM

Hey JD,
Are you pretending to care about science again?
You know that science doesn't work well with your core belief.

You can't say on one thread that god can stop the sun in the sky,
And on another thread, discuss the validity of some part of science.

If you believe god can stop the sun,
That's it, the conversation is done as far as you are concerned.

Nothing will change your mind.
So don't pretend science matters.

Incorrect, as William James points out in Varieties of Religious Experience, it is illogical to tie the worth of a proposition to the supposed worth of its source.

Furthermore, historically, at many times the religious have been the curators of knowledge and science.

Finally, can I take this to assume you will throw out every single scientific advance by a religious man? Because you'd have almost nothing left over.

I am more than open to changing my mind when shown my view is incorrect. I have done so many times in my history here.

Just consider measured distances and the angle of the sun to prove a round earth.  Is timeanddate.com correct for your location?

Where is your evidence the moon is transparent?

Quote from: John Davis on January 19, 2018, 04:45:47 PM

Quote from: ER22 on January 19, 2018, 03:31:59 PM

Hey JD,
Are you pretending to care about science again?
You know that science doesn't work well with your core belief.

You can't say on one thread that god can stop the sun in the sky,
And on another thread, discuss the validity of some part of science.

If you believe god can stop the sun,
That's it, the conversation is done as far as you are concerned.

Nothing will change your mind.
So don't pretend science matters.

Incorrect, as William James points out in Varieties of Religious Experience, it is illogical to tie the worth of a proposition to the supposed worth of its source.

Furthermore, historically, at many times the religious have been the curators of knowledge and science.

Finally, can I take this to assume you will throw out every single scientific advance by a religious man? Because you'd have almost nothing left over.

I am more than open to changing my mind when shown my view is incorrect. I have done so many times in my history here.

Just consider measured distances and the angle of the sun to prove a round earth.  Is timeanddate.com correct for your location?

A site that generates the angle off the sun given globular model would be correct on an non-euclidean flat earth.

Where is your evidence the moon is transparent?

I believe accounts for the moon being transparent are cited in Rowbotham's Earth Not A Globe. IIRC, stars have been accounted as having been seen 'through' the moon.