Some reasons I believe FET (prev. "check my FET")

I think the depalma experiment of course would be some suppressed info.

I think the depalma experiment is, of course, bullshit.

There, I’ve put equal effort into the discussion you’ve started.

Moving on. Next issue.

Jack you said in one of your responses something "people dont like reality so they believe in their own fiction"... I just don't see how you could ever convince me of this - it sounds concede to begin with. What i know is thiss - i have seemingly tried harder than a lot of people i know to be a nice person and do the right thing throughout my life. The religions say you can't see and are decieved and if you are really good you can understand and see better...not a direct quote.
 
edit - though maybe not that simple and cant be pursued

So now you are telling me that that doesn't work, I think. But with something as base as the flat earth which i can see - you are telling me it is an illusion but this hasn't held water in the psat....I've probably already said too much. Look, take this with a train of salt but it looks like a working idea to me.

Although i acknowledge it is possible that most people try pretty haed to do the right thing...not sure.

Light bending of path of apparent sun could be like a rainbow, i heard tesla say the size of the earth is two times the wavelength of water molecule not sure just rememeber wavelength 2 times water. i know that is ambiguous but it might be useful info for the right person to hear.

Not an answer to any of the questions.

But with something as base as the flat earth which i can see

I want you for just a moment consider what something the size of a microbe if it had eyes would see if on the surface of a marble, or orange or anything that to your human eyes is obviously a sphere

Would that microbe see curves? Could it, standing on the surface with no other visual clues have all the information to judge what shape it's standing on?


Just consider the possibility. You know how tiny you are. You know how large the earth is....

Oh I'll give an example of sicentific supression just to show it happens. Virginia Steen Macentyre lost her job and the findings supressed of her archaelogical discovery at Huaetlaco Mexico. See the movie "Mans Mysterious Origins" with Charelton Heston. She found artifacts which the newest dating procedures ofmthhe time stated to be over 100 thousand yrs old, although the mainstreasm timeline says people were not in that region more then i think 15 yrs ago...

That would be 15 000, not 15.
But this has been discussed. What makes you think the findings were suppressed?
She was even able to publish a paper with it.
It wasn't even her discovery. The site was discovered 4 years before she joined the team as a grad student.
As for losing her job, was that just her finishing her degree?
A grad student is not a permanent job.

That and cold fusion as I have brought up before

Which cannot be substantiated, and attempts to do so often have contradictory results.

Light bending of path of apparent sun could be like a rainbow

Care to provide an explanation of what is causing it? Because rainbows are quite well understood.

i heard tesla say the size of the earth is two times the wavelength of water molecule not sure just rememeber wavelength 2 times water. i know that is ambiguous but it might be useful info for the right person to hear.

Or, it might just be nonsense.

I think the depalma experiment of course would be some suppressed info.

Again, it isn't suppressed. You can easily find information on it. What you actually have is a very poorly controlled experiment.

Jack you said in one of your responses something "people dont like reality so they believe in their own fiction"... I just don't see how you could ever convince me of this

Try looking in the mirror.
Look at how much you cling to things which could benefit humanity or be good.

Would you be doing the same if instead of providing a benefit it would provide massive devistation?
Like if someone suggested cold fusion wouldn't solve power, but instead would wipe out all life within 1000 km?
Would you still eagerly try to defend cold fusion being real?

The religions say you can't see and are decieved

Of course they would say crap like that, to try to explain why reality doesn't match their claims.

But with something as base as the flat earth which i can see

You don't.
What you see is Earth. There are plenty of examples of where/how you can see curvature.
What you are appealing to is where you cannot tell if Earth is flat or round.
You dishonestly present that as seeing Earth as flat.
In reality it is no more you seeing Earth as flat as it is you seeing Earth as round.

You ASSUME it is flat, and because the observations match, you then stick with it, and ignore cases where it doesn't or look for excuses.

No illusions are required if Earth is round.

Go find the largest ball you can, and then look at it with your eye as close as possible and see if it looks as round from up close as from far away.

Another point to add to my theory is that the horizon is possibly a function of the angle from the observer, there could be a blur like a mirage think where the horizon refelcting the sky and perhaps bending the light as well. i Aske d for evidence once befrore - if any one knew of any actual test which confirmed the expected laws of refraction that i could look at. Over water would be other test results id like to see.

At this point I really feel like science of our society is a hierarchy that everyone is not priveledged to view the data.

I would actually guess that their are a lot of different phenomenon that happen at the horizon - but who has studied them for themselves.

Quote from: faded mike on October 06, 2021, 07:43:27 PM

First thing  - can i ever see earths curvature from the ground and how.

Yup.  Go to Long Beach, California.  Watch out for tarballs.  Turn west and look at Catalina Island.  Avalon is a port on the east side of the island, facing Long Beach.  Tell me if you see it.  If you can, the Earth is definitely flat.  If you can't, guess what?  You are looking at the curvature of the planet obscure your line of sight.  If you want to take it a step further, head over to Balboa Island and hop on the Catalina Flyer.  It runs daily and you can sit on the bow and watch Avalon come into view as you approach it.  It is literally coming over the curve of the planet.

Do you know the distances involved? how close are they to the described curvature?

Quote from: Thunderwolf on October 06, 2021, 08:05:36 PM

Quote from: faded mike on October 06, 2021, 07:43:27 PM

First thing  - can i ever see earths curvature from the ground and how.

Yes, you can. You can go to the Bedford Canal and watch someone in a kayak paddle away over the horizon. If you cannot make it personally, then you could watch the video of such an event made by the UK Flat Earth Group.

Or, you could watch any boat travel over the horizon on any large body of water that may be convenient to you.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=89043.0



The people who made that video drew a conclusion (flat earth) that was exactly opposite to what their own video showed (earth curvature). It is easy to get around their flawed commentary, though, by using your own brain to analyze what they present.

"Here's an experiment that has been conducted many times and has always concluded a flat earth, but I'm going to baselessly say it concludes a round earth."

I wouldn't put much weight into the trolls that come here each day, day in and day out to try to attack the flat earth ideology. They clearly have no life and an unnatural and unhealthy obsession with others beliefs. They wouldn't admit the flat earth if it hit them on the head.

Thanks for saying!

maybe faded can stop with the pleading and answer simple questions

when the cars go over the peak of the bridge, does the viewer at ground level see a distinct edge?
are the cars disappearing bottom-top or top-bottom or just getting smaller?
why are the cars disappearing?
can you see the curvature of the bridge from this angle?

pause at 1:04 and once again pause at 1:13

Cool hypothetical.

Another point to add to my theory is that the horizon is possibly a function of the angle from the observer, there could be a blur like a mirage think where the horizon refelcting the sky and perhaps bending the light as well. i Aske d for evidence once befrore - if any one knew of any actual test which confirmed the expected laws of refraction that i could look at. Over water would be other test results id like to see.

At this point I really feel like science of our society is a hierarchy that everyone is not priveledged to view the data.

It really isn't, and getting to a position like this and wanting all the data, isn't going to help you. If you have already decided all the scientists are lying, them giving you data wont help. You need to go get it yourself.

If Earth was flat, there shouldn't be a horizon.

I wouldn't put much weight into the trolls that come here each day, day in and day out to try to attack the flat earth ideology. They clearly have no life and an unnatural and unhealthy obsession with others beliefs. They wouldn't admit the flat earth if it hit them on the head.

It's a shame that John regards anyone who doesn't share his same views as a 'troll' rather than people who simply hold different views for their own reasons and enjoy a healthy and civilised debate. You couldn't have a debate if everyone held the same opinions.

Anyway, so long people from either side. Its been a pleasure taking part and I hope one day you flat Earth people realise your dreams of being able to change the whole foundations of science based on what you think the Earth looks like.  I won't be holding my breath though.

Another point to add to my theory is that the horizon is possibly a function of the angle from the observer, there could be a blur like a mirage think where the horizon refelcting the sky and perhaps bending the light as well. i Aske d for evidence once befrore - if any one knew of any actual test which confirmed the expected laws of refraction that i could look at. Over water would be other test results id like to see.

At this point I really feel like science of our society is a hierarchy that everyone is not priveledged to view the data.

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 07, 2021, 08:59:06 AM

maybe faded can stop with the pleading and answer simple questions

when the cars go over the peak of the bridge, does the viewer at ground level see a distinct edge?
are the cars disappearing bottom-top or top-bottom or just getting smaller?
why are the cars disappearing?
can you see the curvature of the bridge from this angle?

pause at 1:04 and once again pause at 1:13

Cool hypothetical.

Cool hypothetical?
So bridges arent real?
Keep being garbage with repsonses like this.

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 07, 2021, 08:59:06 AM

maybe faded can stop with the pleading and answer simple questions

when the cars go over the peak of the bridge, does the viewer at ground level see a distinct edge?

Read: Earth, Not A Globe.

Quote

are the cars disappearing bottom-top or top-bottom or just getting smaller?

Read: Earth, Not A Globe.

Quote

why are the cars disappearing?

Read: Earth, Not A Globe.

Quote

can you see the curvature of the bridge from this angle?

Read: Earth, Not A Globe.

Gee John, you provided that non-answer to all those points, but didn't even provide a non-answer to my question. Here it is again:

If the earth were flat, why would the view over open water on a clear quiet day show an obvious, well defined horizon just a few miles away?

What's the problem?  Too hard for you?

Quote from: Gumwars on October 07, 2021, 06:51:34 AM

Quote from: faded mike on October 06, 2021, 07:43:27 PM

First thing  - can i ever see earths curvature from the ground and how.

Yup.  Go to Long Beach, California.  Watch out for tarballs.  Turn west and look at Catalina Island.  Avalon is a port on the east side of the island, facing Long Beach.  Tell me if you see it.  If you can, the Earth is definitely flat.  If you can't, guess what?  You are looking at the curvature of the planet obscure your line of sight.  If you want to take it a step further, head over to Balboa Island and hop on the Catalina Flyer.  It runs daily and you can sit on the bow and watch Avalon come into view as you approach it.  It is literally coming over the curve of the planet.

Do you know the distances involved? how close are they to the described curvature?

Do you know how to use a map? Even easier, google maps?

Another point to add to my theory is that the horizon is possibly a function of the angle from the observer, there could be a blur like a mirage think where the horizon refelcting the sky and perhaps bending the light as well. i Aske d for evidence once befrore - if any one knew of any actual test which confirmed the expected laws of refraction that i could look at. Over water would be other test results id like to see.

Or could it be as simple as the horizon is the borderline created between the sky and the furthest point on the surface that you can see directly before the curvature makes the surface curve away out of direct line of sight? Why try to make something more complicated than it needs to be simply to try and satisfy a particular belief? Just let the evidence do the thinking.

How could there be a sharply defined horizon like we see when looking out to sea if the Earth was flat?

Quote from: JackBlack on October 06, 2021, 03:34:40 PM

Quote from: faded mike on October 06, 2021, 06:10:36 AM

i think i have seen the evidence nasa being deceptive (though i acknowledge this may not be the case)

Where?

These videos ask good questions about what NASA presents as fact. There are many, many things that just do not add up about the feasibility of the Apollo missions and about the photographic record of those missions.





Just because they lied about the Apollo missions (as shown in this documentary), it would be foolhardy to believe that they lie about everything. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwaater. "Round Earth" still needs to be considered on its own merits, and the photographic evidence for that seems sound.

Hahahaha!

Only a couple of minutes in, and already we have Bill Kaysing as expert testimony.  Of course he was the one generally credited with starting the whole moon landing conspiracy business with his book that was the origin of most of the talking points.  He's the Samuel Rowbotham of the moon landing conspiracy theorists, if you like.

One slight problem is that he's changed his story just a tad over the years.  In early editions he claimed that Apollo 11 astronauts never left earth.  When they were supposed to be in space they were allegedly living it up in Vegas, gambling, hanging out with strippers and getting into a punch up.  He went into really quite specific detail about all this, although I'm not sure how he was supposed to know about it.  Later on he changed his story to say they did go to space, but just orbited the earth for a bit, clearly realizing that his early version was too bat shit crazy even for the most gullible readers. 

Sorry, but if your documentary starts out with trying to give any credibility to someone so obviously and demonstrably full of shit as Kaysing, then everything that follows can be assumed to be total bollocks as default, unless they provide hard verifiable evidence to back it up.  My hopes aren't high.

Quote from: faded mike on October 06, 2021, 07:50:23 PM

Quote from: boydster on October 06, 2021, 05:48:23 PM

You make a lot of vague comments about "things" that "might be" a "certain way" or "maybe not" and it's really hard to have a real conversation in that manner.

How many people are reporting one particular thing of interest to you that conventional science doesn't address, and what specifically is that thing? If you want to have a discussion, let's get specific so we can actually have that discussion.

I'll think about what you are saying and see what i can come up with. For me there is just so much anomalous...info? a lot of which i think fits into alternative theories that have been developed into working ... principles by people.

Mostly at this point i am putting forward that i think it is possible that the curvature phenomenon all happens above our heads. I am curious what are the obvious csientific reasons this can not be (considerring some of what i said).

This is super vague. You say "so much anomalous...info" but don't say what exactly the information is that you find to be anomalous. "A lot" of it fits into "alternative theories" you say, but how much and which alternative theories? What "working ... principles" are you talking about, by which "people"?

Your closing, to me, sounds like "I'm curious why the world might give us every clue and indication that it is round, even though it isn't." It's possible I'm misreading it, or misinterpreting. But it would sure be helpful if you would say specifically what is on your mind, instead of making really vague allusions to...things?

So Boydster you believe that all of thephotos that seem to show missing curvature are....not showing missing curvature? i wanted to have a discussion on the basis that we have already found their commonly to be missing curvature. and then on to my alternative theory. So pls tell me -are youable to dismiss the missing curvature because you would say it is not commonly observed to be missing? Could you say it is more common to see something like flat or something like the officially described curve?

edit - sorry if i was rude.

Quote from: faded mike on October 06, 2021, 05:12:07 PM

Explain alternative facts.

"alternative facts" are fictions used to replace facts because you don't like what the facts are and would prefer it to be those fictions, either because you directly prefer those fictions, or you can use those fictions to try to get something else that you want.

"alternative science" can follow the same kind of emotional response, where you discard real science and replace it with something else. On the minor end this would be simply starting with a conclusion you want to be true and trying to find excuses for why it could be true; and on the more extreme end, just blatantly lying about what the results of certain experiments are.

Quote from: faded mike on October 06, 2021, 05:43:13 PM

What wrong with conventinal science is that their are a lot of people reporting things that science says can't be true, but if true could be very beneficial and freeing.

See, this is an example.
People don't like reality, so they try providing a fiction which they prefer.

It would be great if we could have a machine magically produce energy from nothing such that everyone could have unlimited free power, but it simply can't happen.

Likewise, it would be great if diseases didn't exist, but they clearly do and are clearly quite damaging (at least some are).

If instead of trying to claim diseases aren't real, or claiming magic cures; people accepted that they were real and attempted to find real cures the world would be better off. Even if those people just didn't try to falsely claim the disease isn't real or try to sell their snake oil, the world would be better off as people would be more inclined to either seek treatment or protect others.

Likewise, it would be great if Earth was flat, such that there was only a single time zone. Gone would be the issues of trying to have a chat or meeting with someone in a different timezone, or even further having to change your sleep schedule to try to match a different timezone. It would also make it much easy to travel without issues caused by timezones.
But something being good doesn't mean it is true. The facts simply do not support it.

Something being beneficial and freeing if true doesn't make it true.
Science doesn't care if something discovered is good or bad, it cares if it is true.

Quote from: faded mike on October 06, 2021, 07:43:27 PM

First thing  - can i ever see earths curvature from the ground and how.

There are several options. Here are some examples.
1 - Watch the sun set, being obscured by Earth - Technically this could work for a FE, if the sun set for everyone, rather than always being above some point on Earth.
2 - Watch a large object set over the horizon.
3 - Go and find a tall mountain and measure the angle of dip to the horizon from various altitudes up the mountain.
4 - Find a series of objects in a straight line at the same elevation and observe how they appear to curve downwards.
5 - Requires travel and is less direct, observe the position of celestial objects and how they vary over time and location.

CAn you tell me - is the curvature more commonly seen or are long distance views normally closer to flat?

If you don't know for sure that is ok.

Quote from: Thunderwolf on October 06, 2021, 08:25:06 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 06, 2021, 03:34:40 PM

Quote from: faded mike on October 06, 2021, 06:10:36 AM

i think i have seen the evidence nasa being deceptive (though i acknowledge this may not be the case)

Where?

These videos ask good questions about what NASA presents as fact. There are many, many things that just do not add up about the feasibility of the Apollo missions and about the photographic record of those missions.





Just because they lied about the Apollo missions (as shown in this documentary), it would be foolhardy to believe that they lie about everything. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwaater. "Round Earth" still needs to be considered on its own merits, and the photographic evidence for that seems sound.

Hahahaha!

Only a couple of minutes in, and already we have Bill Kaysing as expert testimony.  Of course he was the one generally credited with starting the whole moon landing conspiracy business with his book that was the origin of most of the talking points.  He's the Samuel Rowbotham of the moon landing conspiracy theorists, if you like.

One slight problem is that he's changed his story just a tad over the years.  In early editions he claimed that Apollo 11 astronauts never left earth.  When they were supposed to be in space they were allegedly living it up in Vegas, gambling, hanging out with strippers and getting into a punch up.  He went into really quite specific detail about all this, although I'm not sure how he was supposed to know about it.  Later on he changed his story to say they did go to space, but just orbited the earth for a bit, clearly realizing that his early version was too bat shit crazy even for the most gullible readers. 

Sorry, but if your documentary starts out with trying to give any credibility to someone so obviously and demonstrably full of shit as Kaysing, then everything that follows can be assumed to be total bollocks as default, unless they provide hard verifiable evidence to back it up.  My hopes aren't high.

Why couldnt his story change as more information is gathered?

Sorry to anyone who was trying to contribute but I'm having trouble getting things in perspective and not sure I want to continue this right now.  I havent read all the responses yet but will do that.

So Boydster you believe that all of thephotos that seem to show missing curvature are....not showing missing curvature?

For the most part, no.
The vast majority of them are just flat out incorrect, such as falsely calculating the curvature missing, or just lying about what is seen or where it is from.
Or just a simpler claim of not seeing any curvature without showing what is missing.

The next set is simply not considering refraction, where you can see more than you would without refraction.
Or not considering mirages, where the actual horizon is hidden by a mirage, yet they pretend that the mirage is still the object being visible.

Could you say it is more common to see something like flat or something like the officially described curve?

Yes. It is more common to see something which would fit either, which wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

CAn you tell me - is the curvature more commonly seen or are long distance views normally closer to flat?

This depends entirely on what is there.
For the most part, for long distance views you see that there is a horizon (indicating curvature), and that's it.
To get the more distinctive visual of curvature you need something large enough and close enough such that you can clearly make it out, while still being far enough away that the base is obscured.
Or you need to get high enough, and have a tool with you which can measure the angle of dip to the horizon.

Why couldnt his story change as more information is gathered?

The question is what information was he using originally to make up his story?
It seems like he was just making up whatever he wanted to pretend it is fake, showing he doesn't care about the truth.

Sorry to anyone who was trying to contribute but I'm having trouble getting things in perspective and not sure I want to continue this right now.  I havent read all the responses yet but will do that.

Hey, listen, take a deep breath. Think about what you want to convey and then parse it out. Start small, bit by bit. Don't go wandering into a lazy minefield of "I think the depalma experiments are cool, do you?" then, "I think horizons are weird, do you?" and so on and so on.

Pick something you find intriguing and focus on that. You're literally just barfing out your random chaotic rambling thoughts into a forum. Can you just stop with the stream of consciousness, pick a topic, explain specifically what it is about it that you have questions (not, "I read a book one time and I think it said this..."). Be succinct, pointed, back it up with some actual real references, not just what's rolling around in your head.

Do you want to discuss or are you just trolling about spewing whatever comes to mind? Think about it.

Sorry to anyone who was trying to contribute but I'm having trouble getting things in perspective and not sure I want to continue this right now.  I havent read all the responses yet but will do that.

Fair call. Must be hard to imagine a microbes FOV on an orange. Here's a tip though


Look out your window lol

Sorry to anyone who was trying to contribute but I'm having trouble getting things in perspective and not sure I want to continue this right now.  I havent read all the responses yet but will do that.

So sad...
And garbage.

Why couldnt his story change as more information is gathered?

The bonkers/tragic/uplifting (depending on your outlook) tale of Bill Kaysing:

https://gen.medium.com/the-moon-landing-hoax-theory-started-as-a-joke-5a8e66e15d56

Moon landing conspiracy sites of course simply cite him as a credible source from Rocketdyne.  See the problem now?

Quote from: boydster on October 06, 2021, 08:11:08 PM

Quote from: faded mike on October 06, 2021, 07:50:23 PM

Quote from: boydster on October 06, 2021, 05:48:23 PM

You make a lot of vague comments about "things" that "might be" a "certain way" or "maybe not" and it's really hard to have a real conversation in that manner.

How many people are reporting one particular thing of interest to you that conventional science doesn't address, and what specifically is that thing? If you want to have a discussion, let's get specific so we can actually have that discussion.

I'll think about what you are saying and see what i can come up with. For me there is just so much anomalous...info? a lot of which i think fits into alternative theories that have been developed into working ... principles by people.

Mostly at this point i am putting forward that i think it is possible that the curvature phenomenon all happens above our heads. I am curious what are the obvious csientific reasons this can not be (considerring some of what i said).

This is super vague. You say "so much anomalous...info" but don't say what exactly the information is that you find to be anomalous. "A lot" of it fits into "alternative theories" you say, but how much and which alternative theories? What "working ... principles" are you talking about, by which "people"?

Your closing, to me, sounds like "I'm curious why the world might give us every clue and indication that it is round, even though it isn't." It's possible I'm misreading it, or misinterpreting. But it would sure be helpful if you would say specifically what is on your mind, instead of making really vague allusions to...things?

So Boydster you believe that all of thephotos that seem to show missing curvature are....not showing missing curvature? i wanted to have a discussion on the basis that we have already found their commonly to be missing curvature. and then on to my alternative theory. So pls tell me -are youable to dismiss the missing curvature because you would say it is not commonly observed to be missing? Could you say it is more common to see something like flat or something like the officially described curve?

edit - sorry if i was rude.

What photos are you talking about here? Give me an example. Say something specific.

There is no credible source but your own eyes. Take this - it's dangerous to go out alone: the flat earth society.