Whats beyond the confined dome/ice wall?

You cannot prove it with pictures

You cannot prove Earth is flat, at all, there is no evidence for it, at all.

You have to see it with your only eyes . So my answer is : Ultimate proof is to go there and see it with your own eyes.

So somewhat akin to telling you to go to space to see Earth clearly as a round object.

Would you accept that? I doubt it.

Regardless, I didn't ask for proof, I asked for evidence.
There is loads of evidence for Earth being round, none for Earth being flat.

And believe and proof are two different and seperate things.

I know. If they were the same no one would believe Earth is flat as there is no proof it is.

 evidence and proof is same thing.
Definition of EVIDENCE is that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
 And definition of PROOF is  evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
I clearly can tell you dont know what your talking about.. And  proof for FLAT EARTH exist but it is very small at the moment its more based on one personal believe and intuition, and logical thinking . And proof for round Earth is fake. Those so called NASA pictures and alike  are clearly fake.
Like i say... nothing faker then a friendly hater.

evidence and proof is same thing.
Definition of EVIDENCE is that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
 And definition of PROOF is  evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
I clearly can tell you dont know what your talking about.. And  proof for FLAT EARTH exist but it is very small at the moment its more based on one personal believe and intuition, and logical thinking . And proof for round Earth is fake. Those so called NASA pictures and alike  are clearly fake.
Like i say... nothing faker then a friendly hater.

No they aren't, and your definitions show that:
Evidence merely lends weight to the claim.
Proof establishes it as true.

If you wish to claim proof for a flat Earth exists, PROVIDE IT! If you can't, don't claim it exists.
If it is based upon personal belief, then it isn't proof.

Logical thinking (along with simple observations almost anyone can make) firmly establishes that Earth is round.

And thanks for proving my point, dismissing NASA pictures as fake, doing what you claimed the REers will do.

Most people here would argue with it but i wont go FULLY in argue conversation , reason is simple. No need for it.
You cannot provide round Earth either , you would say .... and ...... ....... etc... and i would answer from flat earth theory question.... and ..... and ....etc and bum  we waisted each other couple of hours. So for not wasting my own time i wont go complete  in argue-conversation with you. And you cannot prove round earth either. All NASA pictures and alike are fakes. If you had knowledge of photoshop and alike as i do . You would clearly see that NASA pictures are fake.!

I really don't need to actually engage with someone who doesn't understand what does and doesn't qualify as evidence toward meeting a burden of proof.  There is no point in dignifying something that isn't actually evidence with a real refutation.  If they're unable to conduct a real debate, they're probably not going to understand the refutation or they'll dismiss it out of hand anyway.  I'm not here to necessarily engage with people like Th3rm, scepti, totallackey and other people who are either trolls or beyond help.  I'm here to talk with people who can actually understand reason, and who are open to learning how to better communicate their ideas.  I'm here so that people who are dangerously close to being misguided about the nature of the world and just need to see something coherent to confirm that the crazy flat earth stuff they saw is, in fact, ridiculous, and can hopefully avoid falling into this trap where rational thought goes to die.

I have zero interest in making people who revel in their ignorance believe that their inane ramblings have some measure of validity because someone took the time to address it seriously with an actual refutation. 

Get off your high horse and decide: you can either leave the site or engage with FEers. It's that simple.
They make arguments, and evidently those arguments were enough to convince them, and so more than likely could convince others. It doesn't matter whether or not you feel it's beneath you, if you want to refute FET you have to refute arguments that you personally find ridiculous. Welcome to FET. I'm pretty sure you'd find 90% of what they believe in ridiculous on principle.
if you don't want to talk with them great, that's your choice. There are a couple of people I don't engage with. That doesn't mean you get to just act like they don't exist and completely ignore them when making your blanket statements. Instead of pretending FEers don't use evidence, just point out it's evidence and arguments you disagree with, it's that simple. It's not that they don't make arguments, it's that you're constantly refusing to acknowledge their existence, which is just silly.

No need for it.

If you want to assert Earth is flat and have any hope of convincing any rational person, you need to provide evidence for it.
You need to provide explanations for common, everyday observations which a RE can explain.

You cannot provide round Earth either

Yes I can.
The horizon alone is evidence of a round Earth.
If Earth was flat there would be 2 options, either you would have the atmosphere obscure distant objects with the ground/water fading to a blur with no clear edge, or you would see right to the edge of the FE and only ever see that as the horizon.
But neither of these happen, instead you often have a clear horizon, with the distance to it varying depending upon your height above the ground,exactly as you expect for a round Earth.

Other evidence requires you to accept a few commonly known facts about the world (which you can verify for yourself with long distance travel).
The first involves the sun. For a FE, the sun would either never set, always remaining above Earth, or it would set for all of Earth at once (ignoring slight issues due to mountains).
Instead, we have it always above some point on Earth with it "rising" and "setting" and different times for different locations.
Tying back into the first one, you can watch it set, get higher and watch it set again.
Once again, this makes sense on a RE.

On a similar note you have the direction to the sun.
There are numerous issues with this alone.
By measuring the angle of elevation and azimuth of the sun from multiple locations on Earth you should be able to make a rudimentary map, and in fact you can. For a RE it works fine. For a FE, you get numerous contradictory maps.

A simple example is the equinox, where at 6 am solar time (sunrise) the sun is due east, even though the common FE model indicates it should be NE at the equator, getting closer to due east as you go north and closer to north as you go south.

Assuming an error of roughly 1 degree, then just going to 60 degrees south (and also considering those on the other side at sunset) you have the sun needing to be 382 000 km away from the north pole, while being directly overhead a location only 10 000 km away.
Simply tracing the path of the sun over the equator on the equinox shows that the equator is a circle in the same plane as the sun's apparent path, and thus Earth must be round, at least a cylinder.
Once again, all this is consistent with a RE, not a FE.

There is also the angle of elevation, which also works well with things like Polaris.
Simple trig should allow you to measure the height of the sun, which is where the FEers come up with the sun and Polaris being 5000 km (or 3000 miles) high. This is the distance between 45 degrees north and the equator, and between 45 degrees north and Polaris.
As such you have a right angle triangle with an angle of 45 degrees, giving the height using simple trig. But using different locations, you get completely different heights.
In general, for each degree you move away from Polaris (or the sun, noting you need to move directly away, if the sun is overhead a location east or west of you and you move 1 degree due north you are not moving 1 degree away from the sun) Polaris or the sun appears to drop 1 degree.
Again, this is completely inconsistent with a FE, yet is exactly what you would expect for a round Earth with a very distant Polaris/sun.

Then you have the celestial poles, where the north celestial pole is always due north and the south celestial pole is always due south, always 180 degrees apart.
In order to have this on a FE you need to have 2 lines which are non-colinear, intersect twice after some finite distance which is completely impossible.
But again, this is exactly what you would expect on a round Earth, with the north and south pole merely being Earth's axis of rotation.

Then there are things like the fact that water remains level, yet if you observe an object well above the water quite some distance away (best if it is moving away from you or you are moving away from it), the bottom gets obscured first, indicating the water is not following a straight line between you and the object and is instead curving up from that straight line (with the straight line being below level).

You then have the phases of the moon, which is best explained as the sun lighting up a portion of the moon and us seeing that portion, with a lunar eclipse being Earth getting in the way and thus the dark region being Earth's shadow.

You have the sun and moon remaining pretty much the same size and travelling at the same speed over the course of a day, indicating they need to remain a similar distance from you and thus "circle" a point near you (or a point on an axis passing through you, circling in a plane perpendicular to that axis), with it applying to everyone on Earth indicating they must be far away, and thus everyone on Earth should be seeing them the same if Earth was flat, including the same direction.

So no, there is mountains of evidence for a RE. There is not a single shred for a FE.

i would answer from flat earth theory question

Except FE garbage doesn't have any actual answer, just pathetic attempts to skirt the issue.

and bum  we waisted each other couple of hours.

You would be the one wasting people's time, not me.
I would be providing rational arguments and evidence, while you provide crap and baseless claims.

If you had knowledge of photoshop and alike as i do . You would clearly see that NASA pictures are fake.!

No you wouldn't. The best you could do is show that they could be fake, not that they are fake.
If you wish to claim they are fake (or that one would clearly see that they are fake) you would need to provide evidence that they are actually fake, not just that they could be faked.

They make arguments, and evidently those arguments were enough to convince them

No. There is no evidence for that.
There are a variety of reasons people would go to FE. One is trolling, one is paranoia.

Neither of them require people to be convinced by arguments.
More likely than not, with those that believe, these arguments are not to convince them but so they can pretend their delusional belief is justified.

Instead of pretending FEers don't use evidence, just point out it's evidence and arguments you disagree with

They don't use evidence. They use pure garbage and non-arguments.
It isn't a case of us simply not agreeing. It is a case of it objectively not being evidence of their claims.

Quote from: Canadabear on October 24, 2017, 02:02:28 PM

why can I not ask that?

You can ask it, just don't expect people to bother when you completely ignore every single time the answer and explanation's given.

Quote

in you mind its logic, because as you can not prove there is a dome, your idea that the earth could be flat is not anymore true.
therefor you refuse to be questioned of the dome.

I'm not a FEer, I just point out bad logic. You're just not acknowledging any answers and repeating the same answered questions constantly. It's a complete waste of time.

now you come again with you backing up that you are not a FEIB.
That means you are not believe that the earth is flat.

you should point out the really bad logic of the FEIB.
they claim (at least a lot of them) that there is a dome above a flat earth
you also say that you think it is possible (at least you write that way)
we explained to you that there is no evidence that supports that believe (no physical and no theoretical)
we even explained that space travel proves that a dome does not exist.
FEIB (and you) claim that all evidence and proves for space travel are fake
but not one FEIB was ever able to show any prove for that claim.

now think about who is more logic? science with testable evidence or FEIB with no evidence at all.

evidence and proof is same thing.
Definition of EVIDENCE is that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
 And definition of PROOF is  evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
I clearly can tell you dont know what your talking about.. And  proof for FLAT EARTH exist but it is very small at the moment its more based on one personal believe and intuition, and logical thinking . And proof for round Earth is fake. Those so called NASA pictures and alike  are clearly fake.
Like i say... nothing faker then a friendly hater.

I'm not in this discussing but want to show a point: Evidence and proof is not same. We examined it about this problem about a year ago. We are using the evidence as strong sign, and proof instead of solid and exact evidences. If something is a proof, it is the end point, no more than it.

For example, pictures and videos are evidences but not proof. If you go out of Antarctica and see the continents by your own eyes, it is a proof for yourself, and an evidence for us.

Quote from: JamesTheSearcherForTruth on October 25, 2017, 03:20:41 AM

evidence and proof is same thing.
Definition of EVIDENCE is that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
 And definition of PROOF is  evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
I clearly can tell you dont know what your talking about.. And  proof for FLAT EARTH exist but it is very small at the moment its more based on one personal believe and intuition, and logical thinking . And proof for round Earth is fake. Those so called NASA pictures and alike  are clearly fake.
Like i say... nothing faker then a friendly hater.

I'm not in this discussing but want to show a point: Evidence and proof is not same. We examined it about this problem about a year ago. We are using the evidence as strong sing, and proof is solid. If something is a proof, it is the end point, no more than it.

For example, pictures and videos are evidences but not proof. If you go out of Antarctica and show the continents by your own eyes, it is a proof for yourself, and an evidence for us.

you are correct.

and before all that are the claims, they are outspoken ideas.

the FEIB are only at the state of the claims.
we did not see even one evidence that would support their claims.
and they are far of to show any prove.

as you said there are a lot of people that were at the Antarctica and can confirm that there is no ice wall.
also there were a lot of people that were in outer space and they all can confirm that the earth is a globe

Hello all im new to this forum but im not new to Flat Earth theory... . I believe in Flat Earth and i believe in antartica wall. I believe as well that behind antartica wall is more  huge-unexplored land. I came to this conclusion from study and research that i have performed in past .

However those who dont believe , they ask for proof. Proof like  i quote " go there  and take couple of pictures and video-tape all of it , with very good camera". 

Problem with this proof is that even if you went there ,  and took dozens of pictures and video-tape it all with good camera , they would still say you faked it.  They would most likely say something like i quote " Look how pictures are good , this cannot be real he must faked it or using some kind of super program to fake it." And one more problem is that let say someone go there and see its ALL TRUE , FLAT EARTH theory is true. If let say there really is unexplored land there, why the hell would he risk going back ?? Like i said and explained earlier even if  he video-tape it all and took dozens of pictures , and they still would call him liar and crazy person... And most likely brainwashed people of todays world  would try to use  excuses like for example: " fake pictures, he used program to faked it... that picture is to good to be true"  And after some time he would most likely die out of heart attack or would be thrown out of window by so called "ghosts"....

Sadly some humans are more developed than others . Some can hear of truth but deny it and believe in lie. So i dont find it weird that they cannot understand and see the TRUTH for themselves.

Perhaps you could share examples of the study and research that led such a highly developed human as yourself to accept this TRUTH.  I would love to read whatever you read and see whatever you saw that you found so convincing.  If your study and research is so strong, it should be compelling enough to change more minds than just your own. 

As for calling photos fakes, why don't we start with the photos and go from there.  I would insist that anyone claiming ice wall photos are fake to prove it, just as I insist that people claiming space photos are fake to prove it. 

Your "argument" as it stands however, is no different than me claiming I have a unicorn in my backyard.  I'm not going to show you pictures because you'll just tell me they are fake, so I'll just leave you to accept my testimony.  If you don't accept that what I'm telling you is true, I'll make comments implying that you aren't developed enough to accept the TRUTH even though I haven't bothered to provide any evidence beyond my claim itself.

BTW, some humans are developed enough to recognize when someone is conning them, and not pass the con on to others, either intentionally or because you've been duped so badly.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 24, 2017, 07:23:27 PM

I really don't need to actually engage with someone who doesn't understand what does and doesn't qualify as evidence toward meeting a burden of proof.  There is no point in dignifying something that isn't actually evidence with a real refutation.  If they're unable to conduct a real debate, they're probably not going to understand the refutation or they'll dismiss it out of hand anyway.  I'm not here to necessarily engage with people like Th3rm, scepti, totallackey and other people who are either trolls or beyond help.  I'm here to talk with people who can actually understand reason, and who are open to learning how to better communicate their ideas.  I'm here so that people who are dangerously close to being misguided about the nature of the world and just need to see something coherent to confirm that the crazy flat earth stuff they saw is, in fact, ridiculous, and can hopefully avoid falling into this trap where rational thought goes to die.

I have zero interest in making people who revel in their ignorance believe that their inane ramblings have some measure of validity because someone took the time to address it seriously with an actual refutation. 

Get off your high horse and decide: you can either leave the site or engage with FEers. It's that simple.

Get off your high horse and stop pretending you have any authority over whether I stay or go and with whom I decide to engage or not.  I have as much right to be here as anyone else, and I have the sole authority to decide for myself who can handle an adult conversation and who can't.  It's that simple.

They make arguments, and evidently those arguments were enough to convince them, and so more than likely could convince others.

One person being convinced by insufficient or badly supported arguments in no way makes it "more likely" that those arguments could convince others.

It doesn't matter whether or not you feel it's beneath you, if you want to refute FET you have to refute arguments that you personally find ridiculous. Welcome to FET. I'm pretty sure you'd find 90% of what they believe in ridiculous on principle.

I don't want to refute FET.  There is no FET.  To even refer to the fantasy of a flat earth as a theory gives it validation that is completely unwarranted given the overwhelming lack of evidence to support the idea.  If you accept the change from FET to FEF, or FEI, even then, I don't need to refute it because it has been successfully refuted over and over again on this site, let alone in the world at large.  90% of what they believe in IS ridiculous on principle.

if you don't want to talk with them great, that's your choice. There are a couple of people I don't engage with. That doesn't mean you get to just act like they don't exist and completely ignore them when making your blanket statements.

If someone isn't capable of having an actual debate, whether it's because they are intellectually or emotionally damaged, or because they just enjoy messing with people, ignoring them is exactly the correct way to deal with them.  I'm not going to bang my head against the wall of a troll giggling behind his keyboard at how thoroughly he's manipulating me.  I'm going to not waste my time with him and instead try to converse with people that are potentially capable of learning from their errors.

Instead of pretending FEers don't use evidence, just point out it's evidence and arguments you disagree with, it's that simple. It's not that they don't make arguments, it's that you're constantly refusing to acknowledge their existence, which is just silly.

They don't use evidence.  I'm not pretending.  And I am one of the people here who WILL actually acknowledge when someone tries to make a point with evidence, no matter how pathetic it is, and address what is wrong with the claim and the evidence to support it.  I may not do it as eloquently or as thoroughly as some of the other realists here, but I do it, so I don't know why you're coming at me so hard with guns blazing.  Oh wait, I do.  It's because I called you on your bullshit and you're grinding an axe now. 

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 24, 2017, 04:49:47 PM

One can't "believe they have met the burden of proof".  They either have or they haven't.

You are conflating 2 claims.
One claim is that they have met the burden of proof. I will call this claim X.
The other is that they believe X.
Notice the difference.

In regards to X, they either have or they haven't.
In regards to believing X, they either do or they don't.

It is quite possible for people to believe pure bullshit, such as beleiving they have provided evidence when they haven't, or believing they have met the burden of proof when they haven't.

So yes, one can believe they have met the burden of proof, even if they haven't.

You are correct.  My sentence means something different than I had intended.  Here is my second attempt at saying what I actually meant:

One can't meet the burden of proof by believing they have.  They either have or they haven't, their belief is irrelevant.

Moving from there, if someone is unwilling to acknowledge that the burden of proof hasn't been met when their error has been shown to them, then they don't belong in a debate. 

An example is this very post.  I made a statement.  Jack pointed out that there was an error in either the premise of the conclusion.  I acknowledged the fault, identified which of the errors I had committed and attempted a correction.

I didn't double down, call him a shill, claim that he's part of a conspiracy making me look bad and insist that I was right the whole time in the face of undeniable evidence. 

you should point out the really bad logic of the FEIB.

Why? Plenty of people are doing that. I don't need to.

FEIB (and you) claim that all evidence and proves for space travel are fake
but not one FEIB was ever able to show any prove for that claim.

This is what I mean by bad logic. Your argument is based entirely on ignoring what FEers say. So what's the point in talking to you? The proofs have been explained to you multiple times so far, you've not even bothered acknowledging it.

Get off your high horse and stop pretending you have any authority over whether I stay or go and with whom I decide to engage or not.  I have as much right to be here as anyone else, and I have the sole authority to decide for myself who can handle an adult conversation and who can't.  It's that simple.

Why is it so hard for you to respond to what I actually say rather than some made up version that only exists in your head?

I don't want to refute FET.  There is no FET.  To even refer to the fantasy of a flat earth as a theory gives it validation that is completely unwarranted given the overwhelming lack of evidence to support the idea.  If you accept the change from FET to FEF, or FEI, even then, I don't need to refute it because it has been successfully refuted over and over again on this site, let alone in the world at large.  90% of what they believe in IS ridiculous on principle.

Great. Then why are you on a site made to debate it?

They don't use evidence.  I'm not pretending.  And I am one of the people here who WILL actually acknowledge when someone tries to make a point with evidence, no matter how pathetic it is, and address what is wrong with the claim and the evidence to support it.  I may not do it as eloquently or as thoroughly as some of the other realists here, but I do it, so I don't know why you're coming at me so hard with guns blazing.  Oh wait, I do.  It's because I called you on your bullshit and you're grinding an axe now. 

Guns blazing? What? I'm pointing out that you're saying something demonstrably false. That's not guns blazing, that's how forums work. Then again you're on a debate forum and don't want to debate, so I guess some confusion's to be expected.
You're clearly pretending. It's incredibly easy to find accounts of FEers performing experiments, giving supposed proofs... I've given several instances of supposed evidence already in this thread, I note you're just ignoring them too.

Quote from: Canadabear on October 25, 2017, 04:26:21 AM

you should point out the really bad logic of the FEIB.

Why? Plenty of people are doing that. I don't need to.

Quote

FEIB (and you) claim that all evidence and proves for space travel are fake
but not one FEIB was ever able to show any prove for that claim.

This is what I mean by bad logic. Your argument is based entirely on ignoring what FEers say. So what's the point in talking to you? The proofs have been explained to you multiple times so far, you've not even bothered acknowledging it.

I do not ignore the claims of FEIB.
there is no proofs explained because there is no proofs, only claims

Quote from: Jane on October 25, 2017, 09:28:39 AM

Quote from: Canadabear on October 25, 2017, 04:26:21 AM

you should point out the really bad logic of the FEIB.

Why? Plenty of people are doing that. I don't need to.

Quote

FEIB (and you) claim that all evidence and proves for space travel are fake
but not one FEIB was ever able to show any prove for that claim.

This is what I mean by bad logic. Your argument is based entirely on ignoring what FEers say. So what's the point in talking to you? The proofs have been explained to you multiple times so far, you've not even bothered acknowledging it.

I do not ignore the claims of FEIB.
there is no proofs explained because there is no proofs, only claims

I don't think most "RE's" ignore the claims of FEIB.
Quite the contrary.
It is the FEIB's who are the ones  that are doing the ignoring or denying of the truth of the facts, evidence, etc.
But the RE's might not make any comments on the claims of FEIB because they are so outlandish they don't deserve any comments on them because they make no sense.
That might be interpreted as ignoring them

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 25, 2017, 05:50:26 AM

Get off your high horse and stop pretending you have any authority over whether I stay or go and with whom I decide to engage or not.  I have as much right to be here as anyone else, and I have the sole authority to decide for myself who can handle an adult conversation and who can't.  It's that simple.

Why is it so hard for you to respond to what I actually say rather than some made up version that only exists in your head?

What you actually said was:

Get off your high horse and decide: you can either leave the site or engage with FEers. It's that simple.

How is what you quoted above not directly relevant to what you actually said and not some "made up version that only exists in my head"?  I literally answered you almost word for word.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 25, 2017, 05:50:26 AM

I don't want to refute FET.  There is no FET.  To even refer to the fantasy of a flat earth as a theory gives it validation that is completely unwarranted given the overwhelming lack of evidence to support the idea.  If you accept the change from FET to FEF, or FEI, even then, I don't need to refute it because it has been successfully refuted over and over again on this site, let alone in the world at large.  90% of what they believe in IS ridiculous on principle.

Great. Then why are you on a site made to debate it?

I've already addressed this, but I'll say it again.  I'm here to help people who don't understand how to communicate learn to communicate more effectively by building strong arguments supported by actual objective evidence, and I'm here to attempt to deter gullible, but otherwise reasonable people from falling for this absurd con job.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 25, 2017, 05:50:26 AM

They don't use evidence.  I'm not pretending.  And I am one of the people here who WILL actually acknowledge when someone tries to make a point with evidence, no matter how pathetic it is, and address what is wrong with the claim and the evidence to support it.  I may not do it as eloquently or as thoroughly as some of the other realists here, but I do it, so I don't know why you're coming at me so hard with guns blazing.  Oh wait, I do.  It's because I called you on your bullshit and you're grinding an axe now. 

Guns blazing? What? I'm pointing out that you're saying something demonstrably false. That's not guns blazing, that's how forums work. Then again you're on a debate forum and don't want to debate, so I guess some confusion's to be expected.
You're clearly pretending. It's incredibly easy to find accounts of FEers performing experiments, giving supposed proofs... I've given several instances of supposed evidence already in this thread, I note you're just ignoring them too.

I've already acknowledged the one thing I've said in this thread that I didn't communicate accurately.  Nothing else I've said is "demonstrably false".  Nothing. 

I would love to debate, but I'm not going to waste intellectual resources on people that don't understand how.  I have seen some of these alleged experiments and proofs, but I have never seen anything that is remotely grounded in reality.  I have engaged with some of the claims people have made here, and attempted to demonstrate where their evidence or conclusions break down.  Many of them, however, don't understand that they haven't made a point just because they say they have.

You, for example, say that you've given evidence several times in this thread, but I just reread the whole thing, and of your 17 posts so far, the single piece of evidence you've provided was a picture of some ice.  Pretty weak, but in context, I'm pretty sure you knew that already.  Nothing else in any of your other posts is evidence.  You recited a few claims that people have made, but nothing with any substantiation.  Four times, you made reference to giving evidence in this thread, despite the fact that you never did. 

So you want to debate, let's debate.  We'll start with something easy.  You claim that you've given evidence in this thread.  I challenge that claim on the basis that nothing I've read shows any evidence (barring the one ice photo) in any of your posts.  Please either link the post, or quote the post that you believe contains the alleged evidence. 

Here is a simple way to prove or disprove the ice wall.

We do know that the earth is really a globe and that  Antarctica is a continent that has been measured, surveyed, mapped and photographed from space and the ice wall does not exist.

But let's forget about that from a reality viewpoint  and look at this from the fantasy flat earth viewpoint.

This would probably take a fleet of ships.

Sail around Antarctica, keeping the coast line in view from start and back to the starting point.
If the ships log a total distance of about 11,000 miles that proves that Antarctica is a Continent and is not the ice wall.

Do the same for the ice wall.
If the flat earth is about  25,000 miles in diameter and the ships log a total distance of about 78,000 miles that proves that Antarctica is the ice wall and is not a Continent.
And we can take the word  of Rowbotham's as previously quoted in reply #5 to "What is beyond the ice wall"  on the  "Flat Earth Q&A" Section of the Forum as Truth of the Gospel According To  Saint Samuel !

Here is a simple way to prove or disprove the ice wall.

We do know that the earth is really a globe and that  Antarctica is a continent that has been measured, surveyed, mapped and photographed from space and the ice wall does not exist.

But let's forget about that from a reality viewpoint  and look at this from the fantasy flat earth viewpoint.

This would probably take a fleet of ships.

Sail around Antarctica, keeping the coast line in view from start and back to the starting point.
If the ships log a total distance of about 11,000 miles that proves that Antarctica is a Continent and is not the ice wall.

Do the same for the ice wall.
If the flat earth is about  25,000 miles in diameter and the ships log a total distance of about 78,000 miles that proves that Antarctica is the ice wall and is not a Continent.

maybe every FEIB should contact Lisa Blair to get information directly from the person who sailed around the Antarctica.

Quote from: Googleotomy on October 25, 2017, 10:54:53 AM

Here is a simple way to prove or disprove the ice wall.

We do know that the earth is really a globe and that  Antarctica is a continent that has been measured, surveyed, mapped and photographed from space and the ice wall does not exist.

But let's forget about that from a reality viewpoint  and look at this from the fantasy flat earth viewpoint.

This would probably take a fleet of ships.

Sail around Antarctica, keeping the coast line in view from start and back to the starting point.
If the ships log a total distance of about 11,000 miles that proves that Antarctica is a Continent and is not the ice wall.

Do the same for the ice wall.
If the flat earth is about  25,000 miles in diameter and the ships log a total distance of about 78,000 miles that proves that Antarctica is the ice wall and is not a Continent.

maybe every FEIB should contact Lisa Blair to get information directly from the person who sailed around the Antarctica.

I have been looking at this problem of surveying and proving the existence of the ice wall from the viewpoint of both the landlubber that I am and from my Naval service (admittedly from the Navy Veteran that never claimed to be a real sailor.)

If you look at all the problems and details necessary for the survey , it becomes a logistical nightmare !
No wonder the FES has never done nor most likely never will do the survey and most likely never will provide any real evidence of the ice wall.
Once again, I guess we'll just have to  take Rowbotham's information at face value ?

This is what I mean by bad logic. Your argument is based entirely on ignoring what FEers say. So what's the point in talking to you? The proofs have been explained to you multiple times so far, you've not even bothered acknowledging it.

No. You are the one ignoring what people are saying.
He is not saying that no FEer has ever claimed that there was proof. He is claiming none have been able to provide proof.

Baseless claims of proof are not proof.
The claims have been explained and refuted. They are not proofs. So no, NO PROOF HAS BEEN PROVIDED OR EXPLAINED!!

Why is it so hard for you to respond to what I actually say rather than some made up version that only exists in your head?

Perhaps you should stop being such a hypocrite and start following your own advice?
You repeatedly ignore what people say and pretend they say something completely different.

Saying FEers haven't provided proof is not saying they are simply ignoring FEers. It is saying the FEers can't provide proof and instead only provide crap.

There was a time though jroa was adhocing about the gases of the atmolayers somehow freezing/liquifying beyond a certain treshold and then being sucked in again into flat earth. Or something similar BS.
Those were the times obviously... 

I do not ignore the claims of FEIB.
there is no proofs explained because there is no proofs, only claims

...do you feel like you'll ever be capable of engaging in a discussion or are you just going to keep making barely relevant statements and completely ignoring what I'm saying?
FEers. Give. Evidence. You disagree with it, great, respond to it rather than just pretending it doesn't exist. I am seriously getting sick of repeating that. And if you're going to say "What evidence!" and make me repeat myself yet again I'm pretty sure I'm going to scream.

How is what you quoted above not directly relevant to what you actually said and not some "made up version that only exists in my head"?  I literally answered you almost word for word.

How? I never claimed to have authority, I just pointed out how nonsensical it is to be on this site and to refuse to engage with FEers.

So you want to debate, let's debate.  We'll start with something easy.  You claim that you've given evidence in this thread.  I challenge that claim on the basis that nothing I've read shows any evidence (barring the one ice photo) in any of your posts.  Please either link the post, or quote the post that you believe contains the alleged evidence.

Then you pretty clearly haven't been paying attention. This thread is about canadabear complaining FEers don't give evidence for the ice wall; I pointed out that things like that can be believed as a consequence of FET so what matters isn't a photo of the wall, but rather whether there is justification of FET. Then, for instances of how people argue for FET I've listed a few of the arguments several times now (there's a zigzag argument I never understood, one about water seeking to be level, multiple instances where they claim curvature ought to be visible and isn't, and in a few cases just straightforward comparison of models and claiming RET works less). As I said before I didn't go into detail on them because it's pretty pointless, if you're that interested in FE arguments there's a search function, but they're things that FEers use as evidence. thus, people like Canadabear who insist FEers provide nothing are just wrong.
And as a result, when people like you say "Oh, I don't need to refute it!" you're just wasting everybody's time being here. Sure, you don't need to refute it in the world at large, but you chose to come to this site, you chose to argue for RET, you need to actually address the arguments that FEers make rather than bragging about how superior you are.

Quote from: Canadabear on October 25, 2017, 09:58:43 AM

I do not ignore the claims of FEIB.
there is no proofs explained because there is no proofs, only claims

...do you feel like you'll ever be capable of engaging in a discussion or are you just going to keep making barely relevant statements and completely ignoring what I'm saying?
FEers. Give. Evidence. You disagree with it, great, respond to it rather than just pretending it doesn't exist. I am seriously getting sick of repeating that. And if you're going to say "What evidence!" and make me repeat myself yet again I'm pretty sure I'm going to scream.

....

You are proving again that you ignore completely what I an JackBlack say about your "evidence" :
You did not present any evidence, all you present is claims.
How shall we discuss evidence if you do only present claims.
You claim that a dome could exist.
I say it is impossible because space travel showed that there is no dome.
I can present you evidence for the space travel.
What is you evidence that a dome could exist?

Quote

So you want to debate, let's debate.  We'll start with something easy.  You claim that you've given evidence in this thread.  I challenge that claim on the basis that nothing I've read shows any evidence (barring the one ice photo) in any of your posts.  Please either link the post, or quote the post that you believe contains the alleged evidence.

Then you pretty clearly haven't been paying attention. This thread is about canadabear complaining FEers don't give evidence for the ice wall; I pointed out that things like that can be believed as a consequence of FET so what matters isn't a photo of the wall, but rather whether there is justification of FET. Then, for instances of how people argue for FET I've listed a few of the arguments several times now (there's a zigzag argument I never understood, one about water seeking to be level, multiple instances where they claim curvature ought to be visible and isn't, and in a few cases just straightforward comparison of models and claiming RET works less). As I said before I didn't go into detail on them because it's pretty pointless, if you're that interested in FE arguments there's a search function, but they're things that FEers use as evidence. thus, people like Canadabear who insist FEers provide nothing are just wrong.
And as a result, when people like you say "Oh, I don't need to refute it!" you're just wasting everybody's time being here. Sure, you don't need to refute it in the world at large, but you chose to come to this site, you chose to argue for RET, you need to actually address the arguments that FEers make rather than bragging about how superior you are.

Okay, so your homework is to learn the difference between assertions and the evidence that is used to support them.  Once you're able to recognize that saying something is a certain way is not the same as providing evidence that something is that way, you'll be ready to have an actual debate. 

It should be pretty easy to research this on your own, but if you need some help or guidance I'd be happy to point you in the right direction.  Once you know the difference between claims and evidence, let me know and I'd be happy to continue talking with you.

...do you feel like you'll ever be capable of engaging in a discussion or are you just going to keep making barely relevant statements and completely ignoring what I'm saying?

That's a good question. FOR YOURSELF!!!
You are the one repeatedly ignoring what people say.

FEers. Give. Evidence. You disagree with it, great, respond to it rather than just pretending it doesn't exist.

]
NO! THEY! DON'T!
They provide garbage claiming it is evidence.

Baseless crap is not evidence.

Start responding to that fact rather than pretending they are giving evidence.

I am seriously getting sick of repeating that.

They start reading what people say and responding to it, rather than continually pretending they are saying something else.

And if you're going to say "What evidence!" and make me repeat myself yet again I'm pretty sure I'm going to scream.

If you actually gave evidence, you wouldn't be repeating yourself.

they're things that FEers use as evidence. thus, people like Canadabear who insist FEers provide nothing are just wrong.

People using garbage as evidence doesn't make it evidence, it is still garbage.
Where did Canada Bear say FEers provide nothing?
He said they do not provide evidence or proof.

Get off your high horse and responding to what people are actually saying rather than blatantly lying about them.
You are continually setting up a strawman and still lying to try and refute it.

And as a result, when people like you say "Oh, I don't need to refute it!" you're just wasting everybody's time being here. Sure, you don't need to refute it in the world at large, but you chose to come to this site, you chose to argue for RET, you need to actually address the arguments that FEers make rather than bragging about how superior you are.

And why are you here when you just completely ignore people?
Grow up and start following your own advice.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 24, 2017, 04:49:47 PM

One can't "believe they have met the burden of proof".  They either have or they haven't.

You are conflating 2 claims.
One claim is that they have met the burden of proof. I will call this claim X.
The other is that they believe X.
Notice the difference.

In regards to X, they either have or they haven't.
In regards to believing X, they either do or they don't.

It is quite possible for people to believe pure bullshit, such as beleiving they have provided evidence when they haven't, or believing they have met the burden of proof when they haven't.

So yes, one can believe they have met the burden of proof, even if they haven't.

The problem is that different people have different ideas of what "burden of proof" actually means. No argument on this forum has ever been solved by citing it and it's generally considered to be a sign that your argument is floundering if you attempt to use the phrase.

evidence and proof is same thing.

Bollocks.
If I was found standing over a dead body holding a murder weapon, it's evidence that I killed the person, but it's not proof, because there is an alternative explanation for how the situation could arise (i.e. I came in and found the body, then picked up the weapon).

Please, post a link to the thread in question.
 

I can't be bothered. There's no point since you don't deny making the post and neither do I. It took me a long time to find it last time I looked.

rom my recollection, the post was made by me some time between when I left Georgia and when I started my new job, which would have been around the first few months of 2015.  If I am wrong, then I apologise, but that seems to be the time frame that I recall.  I do remember the post, and I said something like, "Many people have been as far south as they could go."  I then said something along the lines of, "They described encountering a wall of ice."  You then demanded this and that, and I believe I agreed to provide evidence of people going south and describing the ice.  Was this not the conversation?  I can't remember the topic, I only remember you crying months later claiming that I did not give into your every wants and demands.

I might not be verbatim here, but if I'm wrong I'm only a couple of words out: it was "The explorers who have ventured furthest south have reported seeing a wall of ice".
You then OFFERED to provide quotes from me, making some excuse that you couldn't do it right away for some computer access reason, which would fit with it being when you had just moved. You offering is not me making demands, is it?

Anyway, do you think that people never go south and encounter walls of ice?

That's a completely different question, lamemly phrased to try and catch me out. Pathetic, even a new poster here would see through it. I don't think people go further south than the area commonly accepted as being The South Pole, because I think it's impossible for topological reasons, whereas you think it's impossible due to physical barriers, and I dispute the existence of such physical barriers as you describe at that location.
The coast of Antarctica is nothing to do with this.

You are proving again that you ignore completely what I an JackBlack say about your "evidence" :

I don't see jackblack's posts, he's a lot like you're being only with a hefty dose more self-righteousness.

I can present you evidence for the space travel.

Then. Do. It. Congratulations that is an actual argument.

What is you evidence that a dome could exist?

Check the post you're quoting, read the bits addressed to Itsround. I cannot break this down any simpler.
Meanwhile I'm just going to go scream.

Okay, so your homework is to learn the difference between assertions and the evidence that is used to support them.  Once you're able to recognize that saying something is a certain way is not the same as providing evidence that something is that way, you'll be ready to have an actual debate. 

And yours should be to learn the difference between "An assertion," and "Inferences I disagree with."
Dino Neil put it pretty clearly; evidence and proof are not the same thing. 'Evidence used to support something,' does not make that something right.