FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?

  • 36 Replies
  • 7282 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« on: October 11, 2018, 05:26:17 AM »
In a recent thread I asked what evidence the FES has that the earth is flat and was told to look in the FAQ, OK:

The FAQ at FAQ:: The Flat Earth Society answers it this way:
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society FAQ
What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
There are several readily apparent proofs of the planets flatness. The horizon always rises to meet eye level - which is impossible on a ball earth. The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case. There is no visible curvature to the horizon even from airplanes. We don't even have a full shot of the Earth rotating from space! One almost has to ask - is there any real evidence the Earth is a Globe?

Our Library also has a great selection of books that further detail proof of the planar Earth.
The points claimed are:
  • The horizon always rises to meet eye level - which is impossible on a ball earth.

  • The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case.

  • There is no visible curvature to the horizon even from airplanes.

  • We don't even have a full shot of the Earth rotating from space!
Then adds, "One almost has to ask - is there any real evidence the Earth is a Globe?"

Before I "weigh in" with my tuppence worth would anyone else care to comment on the validity or otherwise of the pieces of evidence.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2018, 07:16:45 AM »
No, just go ahead and launch into your tirade.

Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2018, 08:17:11 AM »
Lack in critical thinking... but i will paraphrase from my experience here:

"Rises to eye level" is an amazingly accurate measurement.

Round earthers have poor imagination for possbility or can not grasp the "simplicity" of FET.
Unrelated, the concept of a huge ball is laughable and inconceivable.
FET is so simple but lacks funding to worked out the math and experimentation.

Airplanes fly pretty high up.
There is no need to ratio the magnitude of pretty high vs diameter of supposed sphere earth.

Nasa is a conspiracy.
No proof required.

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2018, 08:23:18 AM »
Lets see you debunk #2.
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2018, 11:05:17 AM »
Lets see you debunk #2.

Not so much of a debunk, more of a clarification. Mostly with the second sentence:

"2. The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case."

Why? If the earth is a spinning globe and obeys the laws of gravity, then most everything is held in place, water as well. Not a mystery and quite well explained by the RE model.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2018, 02:53:09 PM »
1 - No it doesn't. The only time it is at eye level or above is when it is from mountains or land that is above you (or if it is from waves while your head is at water level).
All other times it is below eye level, although quite often that difference is not able to be detected without instruments of some sort.

2 - That is exactly what you would expect on a globe, for water to be level, following the curvature of Earth.
I assume they mean flat, but objects being obscured by water, even though both the observer and the object are above water show that is not the case and that water does curve.

3 - The horizon is curved even from ground level. It is a circle all around. All this argument effectively is is repeating the false claim that the horizon is at eye level.

4 - No, but we have quite close to one. It is impossible to view all of Earth at once. As it is a sphere at most you get roughly 50%, which we have from EPIC.
Meanwhile no photos of the entire Flat Earth, even though that should be quite easy.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2018, 03:40:25 PM »
No, just go ahead and launch into your tirade.
I said "my tuppence worth" but I fail to see any evidence from you.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2018, 03:51:06 PM »
Lets see you debunk #2.
Something is certainly hiding that farther ship:
         
Might it be "curved water"?

The power pylons (apart from one or two taller ones) are all the same height above the water, yet they curve down in the distance across Lake Pontchartrain.
You can really see the curve on the surface of the water.

Power Lines across Lake Pontchartrain

<< I linked the picture to Soundly's video so you can see the whole video >>

The horizon is about 12 km (the 7.7 miles), the tall pylon about 26 km (the 15.9 miles) and the nearest pylon at 2.9 km (1.8 miles) from the camera.

Might that show "curved water"?

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2018, 09:22:18 PM »
Lets see you debunk #2.

Not so much of a debunk, more of a clarification. Mostly with the second sentence:

"2. The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case."

Why? If the earth is a spinning globe and obeys the laws of gravity, then most everything is held in place, water as well. Not a mystery and quite well explained by the RE model.
The worthless lying sacks of shit try to equate level with flat.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 09:24:22 PM by Mikey T. »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2018, 01:35:08 AM »
OK, Mr Bullwinkle
No, just go ahead and launch into your tirade.
You twisted my arm.

In a recent thread I asked what evidence the FES has that the earth is flat and was told to look in the FAQ, OK:

The FAQ at FAQ:: The Flat Earth Society answers it this way:
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society FAQ
What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
There are several readily apparent proofs of the planets flatness. The horizon always rises to meet eye level - which is impossible on a ball earth. The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case. There is no visible curvature to the horizon even from airplanes. We don't even have a full shot of the Earth rotating from space! One almost has to ask - is there any real evidence the Earth is a Globe?

Our Library also has a great selection of books that further detail proof of the planar Earth.
The points claimed are:
1) The horizon always rises to meet eye level - which is impossible on a ball earth.
There is plenty of evidence that the horizon falls below "eye-level" (meaning the local horizontal) as the altitude of the observer increases.
Here are some from aircraft. First is a video taken from 45,000 ft, with a shadow cast by the sun at an upward angle:
And these show the sun and moon well below eye-level:

Flat Earth vs Globe - Sunset and Full Moon Rise
both below eye level at 45,000 ft.
        Wolfie6020
         
The Moon is below eye level when at 49,000 ft.
Wolfie6020
         
Flat Earth vs Globe; Another Ocean Sunrise
 - more evidence of Horizon Drop
   Wolfie6020
Here more evidence that the horizon falls below "eye-level":

Flat Earth? Mountains rising to meet eye-level. Andrew Eddie

Andrew Eddie found that, from Flaxton Gardens (418 m above sea-level), Mount Coolum (208 m above sea-level) lines up with the horizon.
This makes it certain that the horizon is below the local horizontal.

I presented that one because it is only about 111 km from where I live and I have been to Flaxton gardens and have seen Mt Coolum many times.
There are numerous more videos in like vein, though many are far less polite to flat-earthers!

Quote
2) The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case.
This statement shows a lack of understanding of the meaning of "level" nevertheless the linked post,
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have? « Reply #7 on: Today at 08:51:06 AM », has a couple of examples that clearly shows "curved water".
 
Quote
3) There is no visible curvature to the horizon even from airplanes.
The earth is so large that even at 40,000 ft there is little curve to the horizon and from that altitude the horizon is quite blurred.
But this video shows a slight curve and the horizon well below horizontal from 37,000 ft. See esp from 0:38:

THE CURVE! Two Flat Earth Claims Easily Shot down by GreaterSapien - needs to be full-screen.


THE CURVE! Two Flat Earth Claims Easily Shot down - Ground Level
        
THE CURVE! Two Flat Earth Claims Easily Shot down
- Horizon Drop and Slight Curve  at almost 37,000 ft

Quote
4) We don't even have a full shot of the Earth rotating from space!
That might have been true when that FAQ was written, though even then there were many full hemisphere photos, with the most well-known being:

The Blue Marble — Taken by Astronauts aboard Apollo 17 in 1972
Now, of course, there are such photos but with the earth rotating so slowly a time lapse is the only practical way to show it.

Moon and Earth from EPIC on DSCOVR

Quote
Then adds, "One almost has to ask - is there any real evidence the Earth is a Globe?"
Yes, there is plenty of "real evidence the Earth is a Globe" and unless photos from space are all "part of the conspiracy ::)" there is direct photographic evidence of the Globe rotation.

Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2018, 03:37:07 AM »
Quote
"One almost has to ask - is there any real evidence the Earth is a Globe?"

Almost?

Haha.  This a probably a question to ask before writing a wiki claiming it isn’t.

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2018, 04:06:36 PM »
I didn't read the whole thread yet, but I can say that I've seen the horizon break with a land bridge connecting to a "higher" up horizon with an apparent mirror (the lower horizon) separating the two. Short answer, i'm personnaly not convinced, but i believe the mainstream answer comes across as accepteable in the right circumstances.
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2018, 12:19:41 AM »
I didn't read the whole thread yet, but I can say that I've seen the horizon break with a land bridge connecting to a "higher" up horizon with an apparent mirror (the lower horizon) separating the two. Short answer, i'm personnaly not convinced, but i believe the mainstream answer comes across as acceptable in the right circumstances.
Weird things can hapen near the horizon, especially but not always over water, can be caused by air temperature variations near the surface.
Here are some mirages and one that might be a superior mirage of just a fog bank:
There is unlimited evidence of "ships disappearing" but there are many complicating factors from viewing height and waves to refraction, looming (more extreme refraction), mirages (reflection often with inversion) and Fata Morgana (multiple reflections) etc.

Refraction, looming, mirages and Fata Morgana all are real and all do occur from time to time.

Red Ship with Mirage
     

Boats disappear over horizon proof of curvature - DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED
     

And how do you like a :o "flying boat"?  :o
On the left two the "reflection line" is marked and I'm not at all sure where the "true horizon" might be.

One real problem is that people tend to photograph unusual events, like the above mirages and ignore the mundane.

Though numerous people have seen and photographed similar things, often with a telescopic lens.

Flat Earth or Globe - Time-lapse of a ship departing Perth Australia
Wolfie6020
       

the Earth is round Mila Zinkova
And try this for a weird sunrise:

The amazing effects of atmospheric distortions in our Sun just after sunrise. Yes, it's a real photo :)
From Buenos Aires, Argentina

?

thereisnogravity

  • 6
  • Flat Earth Researcher
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2018, 06:24:49 AM »
Globular fools! Deceived FE researchers! Do not be misled! Gravity is real! Samuel Rowbotham himself has attested to that reality. Have none of ye read Zetetic Astronomy? Page 64, beneath Figure 22. He explicitly references "the force of gravity[!!!]" in one of his many proofs of the flatness of the Earth. If Rowbotham could figure this out in 1865, then how is it that we still argue the point today? How dare ye contradict the father of our movement himself‽ Denpressure is a strawman invented by NASA to make Flat Earth look like a joke. But we are not a joke, and we understand how gravity truly works. Just read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe! for yerselves. Honestly, if more people did, we wouldn't all be here. I pray that Dr. Tyson doesn't catch on and burn it.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2018, 11:13:04 PM »
Globular fools! Deceived FE researchers! Do not be misled! Gravity is real! Samuel Rowbotham himself has attested to that reality. Have none of ye read Zetetic Astronomy? Page 64, beneath Figure 22. He explicitly references "the force of gravity[!!!]" in one of his many proofs of the flatness of the Earth. If Rowbotham could figure this out in 1865, then how is it that we still argue the point today? How dare ye contradict the father of our movement himself‽ Denpressure is a strawman invented by NASA to make Flat Earth look like a joke. But we are not a joke, and we understand how gravity truly works. Just read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe! for yerselves. Honestly, if more people did, we wouldn't all be here. I pray that Dr. Tyson doesn't catch on and burn it.

That's great and all, but gravity and flat earth don't jive. 

Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

?

thereisnogravity

  • 6
  • Flat Earth Researcher
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2018, 05:06:55 PM »
Ow contrere, my spherical friend. That's just what NASA wants us to think. A Flat Earth and the Universal Law of Gravitation are in fact fully compatible for the fields we observe. If we approximate the Earth as an infinite slab of rock, then taking the density of rock as about 2.5×103 kg⋅m-3 and the Gravitational Constant as 6.67×10-11 kg-1⋅m3⋅s-2, a quick application of Gauss's Law for gravity shows that g = 2πGρ/D = 1.0×10-6 s-2. Plug in 9.81 m⋅s-2 and you'll find that a slab 107 m or 10 000 km (half the radius of the known world) describes observations quite nicely, with some variations here or there probably due to imperfections in the density of the slab, not dissimilar to the deviations from precise expectations of the gravitational field of an ellipsoid in Round Earth Theory.

The logical question, then, is what happens at the edges. It's impossible to say; the edges could be held in equilibrium by some supermassive rotating ring, they could go on forever, they could be crumbling as we speak, tearing toward our world at an unknown pace, or physics could just be different near the edge. Our observations of the area in which we live, though, hold up quite nicely, as long as we assume that there is a sufficient amount of rock beyond The Great Ice Wall.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2018, 05:32:07 PM »
Ow contrere, my spherical friend. That's just what NASA wants us to think. A Flat Earth and the Universal Law of Gravitation are in fact fully compatible for the fields we observe. If we approximate the Earth as an infinite slab of rock, then taking the density of rock as about 2.5×103 kg⋅m-3 and the Gravitational Constant as 6.67×10-11 kg-1⋅m3⋅s-2, a quick application of Gauss's Law for gravity shows that g = 2πGρ/D = 1.0×10-6 s-2. Plug in 9.81 m⋅s-2 and you'll find that a slab 107 m or 10 000 km (half the radius of the known world) describes observations quite nicely, with some variations here or there probably due to imperfections in the density of the slab, not dissimilar to the deviations from precise expectations of the gravitational field of an ellipsoid in Round Earth Theory.

The logical question, then, is what happens at the edges. It's impossible to say; the edges could be held in equilibrium by some supermassive rotating ring, they could go on forever, they could be crumbling as we speak, tearing toward our world at an unknown pace, or physics could just be different near the edge. Our observations of the area in which we live, though, hold up quite nicely, as long as we assume that there is a sufficient amount of rock beyond The Great Ice Wall.

Cool, gravity. I'm on board with it too. I'm not sure what NASA has to do with gravity, nor do I know what they want me to think. I do know that there are a lot of other folks in other countries around the world that do what NASA does. So I presume all of them as well are telling me what they want me to think.

As to the logical question of what happens at the edges, I suppose no one knows. However, humanity's observations have shown that there is no "edge". Now if you have evidence that there is an edge, I'm willing to be wrong. But in the mean time all evidence/observations to date show no edge. Quite simply, I can fly, as many people do on a daily basis, due west from LA to Hong Kong and never encounter an edge. Just one example.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2018, 06:00:38 PM »
Ow contrere, my spherical friend. That's just what NASA wants us to think. A Flat Earth and the Universal Law of Gravitation are in fact fully compatible for the fields we observe. If we approximate the Earth as an infinite slab of rock, then taking the density of rock as about 2.5×103 kg⋅m-3 and the Gravitational Constant as 6.67×10-11 kg-1⋅m3⋅s-2, a quick application of Gauss's Law for gravity shows that g = 2πGρ/D = 1.0×10-6 s-2. Plug in 9.81 m⋅s-2 and you'll find that a slab 107 m or 10 000 km (half the radius of the known world) describes observations quite nicely, with some variations here or there probably due to imperfections in the density of the slab, not dissimilar to the deviations from precise expectations of the gravitational field of an ellipsoid in Round Earth Theory.
Au contraire, mon bon ami plat!
The strength of the gravitational field does not vary with altitude above you infinite plane earth.
You do, however, presumably postulate that the the sun, moon, planets and stars all circle above the earth.
What holds them up there in this gravitational field? Why would the sun not crash down onto the earth in a few minutes?

Quote from: thereisnogravity
The logical question, then, is what happens at the edges. It's impossible to say; the edges could be held in equilibrium by some supermassive rotating ring, they could go on forever, they could be crumbling as we speak, tearing toward our world at an unknown pace, or physics could just be different near the edge. Our observations of the area in which we live, though, hold up quite nicely, as long as we assume that there is a sufficient amount of rock beyond The Great Ice Wall.
What "Great Ice Wall"?
The one that isn't in the photos in: Flat Earth Debate / Re: My complaints about the ice wall « Message by rabinoz on October 17, 2018, 03:12:21 PM ».

Maybe you could show just where this "Great Ice Wall" is on this image of Antarctica created from radar data?

A composite image from the RadarSat satellite.
I got this large image file from the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks

?

thereisnogravity

  • 6
  • Flat Earth Researcher
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2018, 06:46:42 PM »
Au contraire, mon bon ami plat!
The strength of the gravitational field does not vary with altitude above you infinite plane earth.
You do, however, presumably postulate that the the sun, moon, planets and stars all circle above the earth.
What holds them up there in this gravitational field? Why would the sun not crash down onto the earth in a few minutes?

Indeed, it does not! It does on a spherical Earth, but such variations are far too slight and distant to be observed directly by most, and those who claim to have been so high are few and wealthy enough that anything they say is suspect.

As to the sun, moon, planets and stars, obviously we can't say for certain, but they're probably fixed on a solid object, such as the oft-postulated Dome. They must have some mechanical connection to each other in order to drive the careful precision with which the seasons run. I have the beginnings of a plausible gear configuration, but considering the bad practice of publishing theories before the maths are worked out, I'll spare you the grisly details. There are other possibilities, of course, such as buoyancy, masslessness, or strings.

What "Great Ice Wall"?
The one that isn't in the photos in: Flat Earth Debate / Re: My complaints about the ice wall « Message by rabinoz on October 17, 2018, 03:12:21 PM ».

Maybe you could show just where this "Great Ice Wall" is on this image of Antarctica created from radar data?
Mayhaps "Ice Wall" is pedantically incorrect. Few doubt the existence of the landmass commonly known as Antarctica, which is certainly above sea level—high enough to keep the oceans in. It's merely a question of whether it is concave or convex, and on the same note, how big it is. Few claim to have successfully crossed it, and a great many have died in the crossing. Whether this is due to Government interference or mere environmental hazards is near impossible to say. Those who have successfully crossed it likely either were mistaken in their navigation, were paid off by the World Government, or were captured transported and mind-wiped. In any case, no one has ever claimed to have found anything beyond Antarctica, nor any edge that has not turned out to be North-facing.

?

thereisnogravity

  • 6
  • Flat Earth Researcher
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2018, 06:52:05 PM »
As to the logical question of what happens at the edges, I suppose no one knows. However, humanity's observations have shown that there is no "edge". Now if you have evidence that there is an edge, I'm willing to be wrong. But in the mean time all evidence/observations to date show no edge. Quite simply, I can fly, as many people do on a daily basis, due west from LA to Hong Kong and never encounter an edge. Just one example.

To be clear, the edge I speak of is that beyond Antarctica, assuming the Earth is a disk. I do not claim the existence of any edge between LA and Hong Kong. As I said, the edge may well not exist—the plane might be infinite. I was merely responding to the presumed counterargument that the edges would crumble were the Earth a flat disk.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2018, 08:18:47 PM »
Au contraire, mon bon ami plat!
The strength of the gravitational field does not vary with altitude above you infinite plane earth.
You do, however, presumably postulate that the the sun, moon, planets and stars all circle above the earth.
What holds them up there in this gravitational field? Why would the sun not crash down onto the earth in a few minutes?

Indeed, it does not! It does on a spherical Earth, but such variations are far too slight and distant to be observed directly by most, and those who claim to have been so high are few and wealthy enough that anything they say is suspect.

As to the sun, moon, planets and stars, obviously we can't say for certain, but they're probably fixed on a solid object, such as the oft-postulated Dome. They must have some mechanical connection to each other in order to drive the careful precision with which the seasons run. I have the beginnings of a plausible gear configuration, but considering the bad practice of publishing theories before the maths are worked out, I'll spare you the grisly details.
That's never stopped you flat-Earthers in the past.
It didn't even stop Rowbotham's assumption that the the earth is a disc centred on the North Pole when he had only the vaguest idea about anything outside England, let alone the Southern Hemisphere.

If you want a blatant example of this read his MOTION OF STARS NORTH AND SOUTH.. I know first hand that his basic premise is totally incorrect.
Not only that but his ideas about circumpolar stars is simply wrong.
Quote from: thereisnogravity

What "Great Ice Wall"?
The one that isn't in the photos in: Flat Earth Debate / Re: My complaints about the ice wall « Message by rabinoz on October 17, 2018, 03:12:21 PM ».

Maybe you could show just where this "Great Ice Wall" is on this image of Antarctica created from radar data?
Mayhaps "Ice Wall" is pedantically incorrect. Few doubt the existence of the landmass commonly known as Antarctica, which is certainly above sea level—high enough to keep the oceans in. It's merely a question of whether it is concave or convex, and on the same note, how big it is. Few claim to have successfully crossed it, and a great many have died in the crossing.
Surely your not seriously claiming that when there are so many "adventurers", many amateurs, that have crossed Antarctica from coast to coast by land (well ice and snow) in vehicles and even with dog-sled and by air.

I won't bother with the evidence here  but plenty has been given, some in the thread Is Antarctica a ring around the earth or an island continent?

Quote from: thereisnogravity
Whether this is due to Government interference or mere environmental hazards is near impossible to say. Those who have successfully crossed it likely either were mistaken in their navigation, were paid off by the World Government, or were captured transported and mind-wiped. In any case, no one has ever claimed to have found anything beyond Antarctica, nor any edge that has not turned out to be North-facing.
Stop claiming pure conjecture as evidence! I though that you objected to publishing hypotheses before you had evidence but here you go posting pure unsupported imagination.

Next you'll be claiming that Admiral Richard Byrd's seeing all this land "past the South Pole" as evidence.

Quite a number of flat earthers, including, at least, Tom Bishop and Sandokhan on this site recognise Antarctica as an island continent.
They realise that there is abundant evidence for a South Pole as a single point and for a South Celestial Pole about which the stars appear to rotate clockwise. I can see that by looking due south on any clear night.
And an erstwhile member, JRoweskeptic, saw the earth as laid out as two planes:


FE Bipolar Map
Promoted by Tom Bishop
   

DET Map Northern Hemiplane
Promoted by
   

DET Map Southern Hemiplane
JRoweskeptic
   

Sandokhan's "True" Flat Earth Map

So many of you Northern-Hemisphericans are so totally ignorant of things things south f the equator.  Go back to school!

?

thereisnogravity

  • 6
  • Flat Earth Researcher
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2018, 08:54:35 PM »
That's never stopped you flat-Earthers in the past.
It didn't even stop Rowbotham's assumption that the the earth is a disc centred on the North Pole when he had only the vaguest idea about anything outside England, let alone the Southern Hemisphere.

If you want a blatant example of this read his MOTION OF STARS NORTH AND SOUTH.. I know first hand that his basic premise is totally incorrect.
Not only that but his ideas about circumpolar stars is simply wrong.

AHA!!! "First hand!" Do you even realise the gross crime of which you've just acquitted yourself! You're ONE OF THEM!

Surely your not seriously claiming that when there are so many "adventurers", many amateurs, that have crossed Antarctica from coast to coast by land (well ice and snow) in vehicles and even with dog-sled and by air.

I won't bother with the evidence here  but plenty has been given, some in the thread Is Antarctica a ring around the earth or an island continent?

Stop claiming pure conjecture as evidence! I though that you objected to publishing hypotheses before you had evidence but here you go posting pure unsupported imagination.

Next you'll be claiming that Admiral Richard Byrd's seeing all this land "past the South Pole" as evidence.

Quite a number of flat earthers, including, at least, Tom Bishop and Sandokhan on this site recognise Antarctica as an island continent.
They realise that there is abundant evidence for a South Pole as a single point and for a South Celestial Pole about which the stars appear to rotate clockwise. I can see that by looking due south on any clear night.
And an erstwhile member, JRoweskeptic, saw the earth as laid out as two planes:
You don't understand it yet, do you? Those so-called Flat Earthers are all agents of the Reptilluminati, paid or coerced into spouting such nonsense. There is no question about it. Antarctica is concave. And it's HUGE!

So many of you Northern-Hemisphericans are so totally ignorant of things things south f the equator.  Go back to school!

I'll have you know, sir, that I am currently in school. In the Southern Annulus. I'm studying design at the Universidad de Belgrano in Buenos Aires as we speak. I've seen this so-called Celestial South Pole of which you speak. A hologram, plain and simple. You roundies are far too gullible. I expect nothing less from you extraterrestrial noncorporeal shapeshifting vampiric reptillian-human hybrids.[/td][/tr][/table]

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2018, 10:02:12 PM »
:) You should take writing fantasy stories. You might do better than Sir Terence David John Pratchett OBE ;).
You don't understand it yet, do you? Those so-called Flat Earthers are all agents of the Reptilluminati, paid or coerced into spouting such nonsense. There is no question about it. Antarctica is concave. And it's HUGE!
Incorrect there are plenty of questions about you ;D concave Antarctica ;D and absulutely no evidence for it.

Quote from: thereisnogravity
So many of you Northern-Hemisphericans are so totally ignorant of things things south of the equator.  Go back to school!

I'll have you know, sir, that I am currently in school. In the Southern Annulus. I'm studying design at the Universidad de Belgrano in Buenos Aires as we speak.
Well you know better then!
Maybe head over and study physics at the University of Buenos Aires.
There you might learn that there is no possibility of such holograms that would have to show a consistent image over more than half of the earth.

Quote from: thereisnogravity
I've seen this so-called Celestial South Pole of which you speak. A hologram, plain and simple. You roundies are far too gullible. I expect nothing less from you extraterrestrial noncorporeal shapeshifting vampiric reptillian-human hybrids.
You mean these things?
I know one thing...this is most certainly as real as those really bad....and i mean really bad globe pics rabinoz posts time and time again.....
Dutchy demonstrating his juggling prowess!

But thought that you didn't present hypotheses before you had evidence? Now, once again, you post sheer conjecture.

Where your evidence that "this so-called Celestial South Pole of which you speak" is a "hologram, plain and simple"?
Are all these holograms?

Those Southern Stars have been observed for centuries. Did NASA have massive holo-projectors way back there?

Take a look at these real photos on the real earth:
Northern view.
The Northern pole is the center of the circles made by the stars
due to the Earth rotation and is located on the horizon.

     Western view.
On the Equator line, the stars set vertically to the West
(and rise vertically to the East)

     Southern view,
Southern pole is the center of the circles made by the stars
due to the Earth rotation and is located on the horizon.
A bright meteor left its "footprint" on the picture near the Southern pole.
All from Star Trail from the Equator (Ecuador). "From Southern Pole to Northern Pole", © Stéphane Guisard, Los Cielos de América

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2018, 11:07:54 PM »
You don't understand it yet, do you?

Oh, but we do. Your ruse is a wafer thin veneer. A commendable effort at trolling, but we’ve seen way better around these parts. By my count, here’s what you’ve racked up so far:

- Flat Earth
- Ice Walls
- Nasa Conspiracy
- Infinite plane or not, slab calculations notwithstanding

So far pretty vanilla, common. But let’s continue:

- Unknown physics
- Rotating rings
- The wealthy few are always suspect
- Celestial bodies probably attached to something
- Grisly gears and maths involved, the revelation of mechanics forth coming, not yet ready for public consumption
- Antartica’s size is unknown
- Explorers have tried, many died, maybe governments killed them, maybe not, hard to say
- Those who didn’t die, captured and mind-wiped
- Holograms explain everything
- Flat Earth shills abound, are agents of the Reptilluminati (My personal favorite)
- Extraterrestrial noncorporeal shapeshifting vampiric reptillian-human hybrids (Wait, I take that back, this is my personal favorite)

You pretty much ticked off the boxes of every main conspiracy & psuedo-scientific notion out there. Did I leave anything out of this potpourri you decided to conjure up whilst bored between classes in Buenos Aires? And we all know Reptilluminati is pretty much a catchall for anything from JFK to 9/11, so I think you’re covered there.

Nice try. Stay in school.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #24 on: October 19, 2018, 12:58:03 AM »
A Flat Earth and the Universal Law of Gravitation are in fact fully compatible for the fields we observe.
If that was true at best you get to the point of this one aspect working, assuming FE is infinite.
That is not evidence for a FE nor does it refute all the evidence for a RE.

But even that doesn't hold. As others have pointed out, variation with altitude doesn't match.
You dismissing these observations as in on a conspiracy doesn't magically change that.

It also doesn't match the stars and satellites staying up above Earth. With an infinite plane, they would fall and crash into Earth.
There is also no reason to assume the stars are magically suspended on some solid object. You are just adding in so many needless complexities all to try and force Earth to be flat.
If the stars are magically suspended, what is holding them up?
You have a plane which is 40 000 km in diameter with no connection to Earth over that 40 000 km which is strong enough to hold itself up. That is insanity. No material is strong enough.

As for buoyancy keeping it up, that would necessitate it being a gas or some other magical material which doesn't exist.

So that all still counts as evidence for a RE. It relies upon pure fantasy.

As for a gear system that works, let me help you out, it is impossible for a FE.
You need to have 2 points, which are always 180 degrees apart, regardless of where you are on Earth, while being able to circle these points.
i.e. your gear system needs to have 2 straight lines intersect after some finite distance, in both directions. That is literally impossible.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2018, 07:27:25 AM »
In a recent thread I asked what evidence the FES has that the earth is flat ...

See, that was your mistake right there. FET is not about evidence. It's about faith. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. Some theologians even argue that evidence diminishes the quality of faith, because if you have evidence then belief is not faith and is therefore of little or no value. And by the same reasoning, faith is of a higher quality when there is contrary evidence.

Members of the FES are the most spiritually advanced of all of humanity precisely because faith in the flatness of the Earth is contradicted by all the available evidence. The more irrational the belief, the more pure is the faith.

If you truly want to convince people here that the Earth is round, you need to offer proofs that it is flat so that belief in a round Earth becomes the irrational position and therefore the more spiritual choice for those who value faith.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2018, 02:32:18 PM »
Note: NSFFEers ;)

Just as a way of closing this part of the thread,
before there were any replies to thereisnogravity's OP I sent this PM in the belief, with no evidence ;) that it was all a spoof.

I was going to post this but thought it might be more entertaining to see if there is any response from the flatardians ;).

So, I'll send you the (unproofread) material I was going to post.

From someone else who finds the ignorance of Saint Samuel of Rowbotham quite entertaining.

PS All it needs to prove the Heliocentric Globe is Newton's Laws and a simple observation of day-and-night.


The post:
Globular fools! Deceived FE researchers! Do not be misled! Gravity is real! Samuel Rowbotham himself has attested to that reality. Have none of ye read Zetetic Astronomy? Page 64, beneath Figure 22. He explicitly references "the force of gravity[!!!]" in one of his many proofs of the flatness of the Earth.
I have to assume your post is a spoof. Samuel Rowbotham might have "explicitly references 'the force of gravity[!!!]' " but he obviously never had the slightest understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion or of Universal Gravitation.
The figure number I have is
Look at his diagram!
Quote
IF a ball is allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship at rest, it will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment is tried with a ship in motion, the same result will follow; because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion; and the other, the force of gravity, the direction of which is at right angles to that of the momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together, will not go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 46.

FIG. 46.
p. 63

The ball passing from A to C, by the force of gravity, and having, at the moment of its liberation, received a momentum from the moving ship in the direction A, B, will, by the conjoint action of the two forces A, B, and A, C, take the direction A, D, falling at D, just as it would have fallen at C, had the vessel remained at rest.
His explanation is wishy-washy but not far off but his claiming that the ball "will take a diagonal course" is quite wrong!

Then on p. 64:
Quote
Now let the experiment shown in fig. 46 be modified in the following way:--

Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. . . . . . .  Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but

fig. 47
because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, H; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; but during its fall towards H, the ship will have passed on to the position S, leaving the ball at H, a given distance behind it.

And here Rowbotham shows his total ignorance in the "Laws of Motion" by saying "the two forces will have been expended".
No forces have "been expended ::)".
Sure, gravity has reduced the vertical component to zero but the horizontal component is essentially unchanged and the ball would follow a parabolic path and land back at the bottom of the just as it would were the ship stationary.
Air resistance would affect the result very slightly.

Quote from: thereisnogravity
If Rowbotham could figure this out in 1865, then how is it that we still argue the point today?
Possibly because Rowbotham here and in many other places proves his total ignorance in such matters.

Quote from: thereisnogravity
How dare ye contradict the father of our movement himself‽
Probably because few flat-earthers have any idea of what their great prophet wrote.

Quote from: thereisnogravity
Denpressure is a strawman invented by NASA to make Flat Earth look like a joke.
No, Denpressure is a ridiculous substitute for gravity a lots of other things invented by Sceptimatic, on our more infamous members. See:
Denpressure...this is my new word to describe happenings from your so called INERTIA.

What is it?
It's a name to describe what happens to any dense object in an atmospheric pressured environment.
Ok, over to you. Pick holes in it.
I don't know understand how he connects gravity and INERTIA but nobody understands how Sceppy's mind works :D.

Quote from: thereisnogravity
But we are not a joke ;D, and we understand how gravity truly works. Just read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe! for yerselves. Honestly, if more people did, we wouldn't all be here. I pray that Dr. Tyson doesn't catch on and burn it.
I think if Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe! he'd ROFL ;D!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2018, 02:56:50 PM »
Note: NSFFEers ;)

Just as a way of closing this part of the thread,
before there were any replies to thereisnogravity's OP I sent this PM in the belief, with no evidence ;) that it was all a spoof.

I made it all the way to "Reptilluminati" before I figured it out.

Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #28 on: October 20, 2018, 08:41:28 AM »
Note: NSFFEers ;)

Just as a way of closing this part of the thread,
before there were any replies to thereisnogravity's OP I sent this PM in the belief, with no evidence ;) that it was all a spoof.

I made it all the way to "Reptilluminati" before I figured it out.

His "how dare YE.." in his first post. The "ye"ing and "father of our movement". Damn too obvious. Funny AF too.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« Reply #29 on: October 20, 2018, 01:44:23 PM »
I made it all the way to "Reptilluminati" before I figured it out.

His "how dare YE.." in his first post. The "ye"ing and "father of our movement". Damn too obvious. Funny AF too.
But my question is: Who is or was thereisnogravity, Flat Earth Researcher?

Any suggestions? John Davis, JRoa, AKA Son of Osporu or a couple of others I could suggest.