Are all flat earthers also Genesis believers?

I will use the data you identified.

I too count 20 some odd flights. You said 10,000. A couple of dozen flights is a meaningless statistical amount.

So, essentially you lied about 9,976+ flights. Just like your 4 year old Ukraine "war" map, and Qantas murdering homeless passengers, you're lying about this too. Your lies are piling up. Sad.

Considering that these data are updated repeatedly with other data, it will not be an exaggeration to think that the total is 10,000.

Where is dishonesty here other than but yours?

The dishonesty is you cherry picking which parts of my comment to focus on, and which parts to ignore.

Getting to the number of flights in a bit, you entirely ignored the fact that you were rejecting the estimated speed as wrong, but use that in your argument now.
And you ignore how you reject so many distances all over the place to try and have it fit because you have no uncertainty for your values.

Yes, if you did use 24 flights for each, you would get more than 10 000.
But you didn't.

You started out strong, and then appear to have started to drop, going down to 16 for the latter data points and you don't have all the data there.
Like I said, each set appears to be mmostly 7 different distances, yet youhave 15 in your table.
Did you actually get 15 different distances, or did you extrapolate/interpolate?

But if you want more, there is also your prior claim that the list of over 100 flights you provided was for a single value in the table, even though it was quite obvious it was not.

We can also see how in your table, some rows look suspiciously similar, for example, A318, A319, A320 and A321.
Did you actually obtain the data for these separately, and by coincidence end up with the same numbers, or did you just duplicate those rows, thus making the number of flghts per value required to reach your 10 000 even higher?
In fact, if I look at it, we see that your 29 rows are only actually 14 different values.

So even if I was being generous and think you did use an average of 16 per value (which I still don't believe), there are a total of 210 different rows in the table, giving 3360 flights. Quite short of the more than 10 000 you claim.

And if you knew statistics well, you wouldn't be trying to use a single journey with lots of repeated flights to try to determine speed.
Instead, you would be using different journeys, i.e. journeys between different locations.

The dishonesty is you cherry picking which parts of my comment to focus on, and which parts to ignore.

It's not dishonesty to ignore every BS claim you make because you need to understand that it wasn't fraudulent. It's also about your worth.

If you look at the quote above, the total number of flights used for the A318: 24+ 15+23+17+22 = 101 flights used. And the value obtained is 557km/h. If we look at the table, this value is even below the lowest value. Because the lowest speed of the A318 is 569km/h. This means that this value has been corrected. According to this calculation, the sum of the data in only the first column becomes 101x29 = 2929 flights. This is just the first line. This has also been corrected and applied for different distances. There are already flight numbers, you can find the whole number by adding them. Or you can take what I said to be true, because it seems so. But trying to find fault with the calculations instead is just the dishonest attitude that suits you.

It's obvious that I'm right. Grow up and cut throw the mud!

It's not dishonesty to ignore every BS claim you make because you need to understand that it wasn't fraudulent.

That is an entirely irrelavent point.
You weren't ignoring BS claims I made.
You were ignoring explanations of why your claims were dishonest.

You have cherry picked which parts you think you can address, while dishonestly ignoring the parts you can't, because you know that they expose your dishonesty.

And now you just double down with that dishonesty.

If you look at the quote above, the total number of flights used for the A318: 24+ 15+23+17+22 = 101 flights used.

Or, we can be more honest and look at what you have actually said:

There is one of the value in the chart and it requires 100 flight to determine. Count how many values on the chart? More than 100, right?
100x100 = 10.000

It is clear with this that you are appealing to the individual cells, not just each row or column.

But what does your quote actually contain:

A318
Average of times:1:44
Average speed: 880kms/1:44=505 kmh.
Number of considered flights: 24

Average of times:0:44
Average speed: 402kms/0:44=548kmh. *corrected
Number of considered flights:15

Average of times: 02:31
Average speed: 1454kms/02:31= 575 kmh.
Number of considered flights:23

Average of times: 01:51
Average speed: 1006kms/01:51= 543kms.
Number of considered flights: 17

Average of times: 03:26
Average speed: 2108kms/03:26=613 kmh.
Number of considered flights:22

Notice, the distance involved varies quite significantly.
From 402 km to 2108 km.

Look at your table, it has different speeds listed for different distances.

That should mean each set corresponds to a different number in the table.

If you want it to be per plane, then you have 14 different rows, giving you roughly 1400 flights, nothing like the 10 000+ you claim.

But more supprising, none of these values appear in your table.
So just where did the numbers in your table come from?
Did you gather data on loads of flights, and just reject it because it doesn't fit your fantasy?

According to this calculation, the sum of the data in only the first column becomes 101x29 = 2929 flights.

Only if you wish to continue with this dishonest BS.
Your table has 14 distinct rows. Don't pretend they are 29 distinct rows. That would be dishonest.

This has also been corrected and applied for different distances.

You mean you have discarded the actual data and replaced it with your fantasy?

Or you can take what I said to be true

Why would I, when you resort to such dishonesty?
There is no reason at all to trust what you say.
What you say is quite obviously false.
You provide a table with rows duplicated, so you have 29 rows, but only 14 unique ones, but then you try and pretend that you did it for 29 different cases, each using over 100 flights.
You have 15 different distances, yet you provide 5 or 7 different distances when you are looking at the flights.
The numbers in your "working" don't match the numbers in your table.

You have provided no reason to trust any of it.

But more supprising, none of these values appear in your table.

I told you this data was made by examining more than 10,000 flights. When you look at it, you see that it makes sense. Even if you only accept one account per plane, that's 3,000. If you think 15 column has this work, it makes 45.000 in total.

As I said before, the corrected data was on my computer and after fetö formatted my computer, it was all gone.

While I'm doing all this work, you're doing nothing but sticking your hand in your pocket and spitting dishonestly.

I told you this data was made by examining more than 10,000 flights.

And as I have shown, there is absolutely no reason to believe that.
What you present instead throws that into serious question.

Even if you only accept one account per plane, that's 3,000.

Just where are you pulling that number from?
Again, I don't accept that you have done it for 29 different planes given that there are only 14 unique rows.
Instead, treating it as 14 planes, that is 1400. Nothing like the 10 000 you claim.

If you think 15 column has this work, it makes 45.000 in total.

But as shown above, it is not 100 per cell. Each cell is made of 20 or less (if any at all).
That still leaves you with vastly less than 10 000.

As I said before, the corrected data was on my computer and after fetö formatted my computer, it was all gone.

And as I said before, there is absolutely no reason to believe that either.

Why weren't there any backups? Why didn't you use Google sheets?

Or you can take what I said to be true, because it seems so.

No one can take what you say to be true because you have a tendency to either fabricate evidence or straight up lie.
- 4 year old map claimed to be from this year.
- Qantas killing millions of passengers.
- One member here who posted twice, never posted again and you claimed he was dead for no reason.
- FETO wiping your harddrive
- 10,000 flights reviewed
- Istanbul on the same latitude as London

The list goes on and on. There is no trusting you.

wise just makes shit up he goes. Before (years ago), I could have credited him with being true to his flat earth beliefs. Didn't have to agree but hey, each to their own.

Now, its clear he's just another character troll. He has no meaning in the shit he says. There is no logic, no matter how twisted in how he arrives at the bullshit he says. He's just word playing nonsense. His debate rebuttals are no more than just posting the opposite of what someone says to him - no evidence, no reasoning, no logic, no explanations.

He's just stirring shit to rile you up. Best advice is stick him on the ignore list and that would clean the threads up quite nicely. He honestly is not worth your time. Inside, he knows he's spouting bullshit. He doesn't believe what he is telling people. He's just a lonely wanker that gets his rocks off stirring people up because that is how sad and pathetic his real life is.

Ask yourself: Is wise even worth the time of day? The obvious answer is no. So dont bother replying to him anymore with such purpose. People like him are just a net negative to those around them

Quote from: JackBlack on November 24, 2022, 12:12:12 PM

The dishonesty is you cherry picking which parts of my comment to focus on, and which parts to ignore.

It's not dishonesty to ignore every BS claim you make because you need to understand that it wasn't fraudulent. It's also about your worth.

If you look at the quote above, the total number of flights used for the A318: 24+ 15+23+17+22 = 101 flights used. And the value obtained is 557km/h. If we look at the table, this value is even below the lowest value. Because the lowest speed of the A318 is 569km/h. This means that this value has been corrected. According to this calculation, the sum of the data in only the first column becomes 101x29 = 2929 flights. This is just the first line. This has also been corrected and applied for different distances. There are already flight numbers, you can find the whole number by adding them. Or you can take what I said to be true, because it seems so. But trying to find fault with the calculations instead is just the dishonest attitude that suits you.

It's obvious that I'm right. Grow up and cut throw the mud!

Is this relevant to flat earthers being Genesis believers, Wise? How is it even relevant to flat Earth? What's your agenda with all this flight data?

Quote from: wise on November 24, 2022, 10:10:30 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 24, 2022, 12:12:12 PM

The dishonesty is you cherry picking which parts of my comment to focus on, and which parts to ignore.

It's not dishonesty to ignore every BS claim you make because you need to understand that it wasn't fraudulent. It's also about your worth.

If you look at the quote above, the total number of flights used for the A318: 24+ 15+23+17+22 = 101 flights used. And the value obtained is 557km/h. If we look at the table, this value is even below the lowest value. Because the lowest speed of the A318 is 569km/h. This means that this value has been corrected. According to this calculation, the sum of the data in only the first column becomes 101x29 = 2929 flights. This is just the first line. This has also been corrected and applied for different distances. There are already flight numbers, you can find the whole number by adding them. Or you can take what I said to be true, because it seems so. But trying to find fault with the calculations instead is just the dishonest attitude that suits you.

It's obvious that I'm right. Grow up and cut throw the mud!

Is this relevant to flat earthers being Genesis believers, Wise? How is it even relevant to flat Earth? What's your agenda with all this flight data?

Started before this:

Quote from: wise on November 21, 2022, 11:30:23 PM

Nope. The world is clearly expanding from the inside out, and your ridiculous, fanciful, fantasy BS south America Australia flight is not compatible with them.

You have zero evidence for anything you claim. That is clear to see. The flights exist. No one is murdering homeless passengers. Unless of course, the Turks are murdering LA bound passengers from Istanbul.

After all, I did not fabricate these data or when I said that I examined ten thousand flights, it is obvious that I have documents. But since the topic is stuck here, since the data is out there even though they deny it, I no longer need to pay attention to the subject because every impartial observer will see that these two are pathetic, two-faced dishonest persons, and now that I do not need to write on the subject. They need an apparatus to encourage me to write once again, and then you ask me why I explain this, but you do not do to other two.

And even though the shifter doesn't contribute anything to the issue, just insults me, you don't ask him why he did this and how it has to do with genesis. And with this attitude you are not honest at all.

After all, I did not fabricate these data

For someone who allegedly doesn't speak english, it sure is suspicous that you know that data is plural as most people treat it as singular.

But you are yet to show you haven't fabricated the numbers, nor that you have examined 10 000 + flights to get these numbers.

it is obvious that I have documents.

Really? I thought you said you didn't, that it was erased?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 25, 2022, 01:10:01 AM

Quote from: wise on November 24, 2022, 10:10:30 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 24, 2022, 12:12:12 PM

The dishonesty is you cherry picking which parts of my comment to focus on, and which parts to ignore.

It's not dishonesty to ignore every BS claim you make because you need to understand that it wasn't fraudulent. It's also about your worth.

If you look at the quote above, the total number of flights used for the A318: 24+ 15+23+17+22 = 101 flights used. And the value obtained is 557km/h. If we look at the table, this value is even below the lowest value. Because the lowest speed of the A318 is 569km/h. This means that this value has been corrected. According to this calculation, the sum of the data in only the first column becomes 101x29 = 2929 flights. This is just the first line. This has also been corrected and applied for different distances. There are already flight numbers, you can find the whole number by adding them. Or you can take what I said to be true, because it seems so. But trying to find fault with the calculations instead is just the dishonest attitude that suits you.

It's obvious that I'm right. Grow up and cut throw the mud!

Is this relevant to flat earthers being Genesis believers, Wise? How is it even relevant to flat Earth? What's your agenda with all this flight data?

Started before this:

Quote from: Stash on November 22, 2022, 12:27:50 AM

Quote from: wise on November 21, 2022, 11:30:23 PM

Nope. The world is clearly expanding from the inside out, and your ridiculous, fanciful, fantasy BS south America Australia flight is not compatible with them.

You have zero evidence for anything you claim. That is clear to see. The flights exist. No one is murdering homeless passengers. Unless of course, the Turks are murdering LA bound passengers from Istanbul.

After all, I did not fabricate these data or when I said that I examined ten thousand flights, it is obvious that I have documents. But since the topic is stuck here, since the data is out there even though they deny it, I no longer need to pay attention to the subject because every impartial observer will see that these two are pathetic, two-faced dishonest persons, and now that I do not need to write on the subject. They need an apparatus to encourage me to write once again, and then you ask me why I explain this, but you do not do to other two.

And even though the shifter doesn't contribute anything to the issue, just insults me, you don't ask him why he did this and how it has to do with genesis. And with this attitude you are not honest at all.

Wise, I've had a chop at Wolvaccine in recent times about straying off topic, too. He's an insulter. If he isn't insulting you, he's insulting me or someone else. Who gives a shit? I dunno, the mods just let people like Stash get away with so much here!

There are so many hours in a day, Wise.

Don't take my question out of context and automatically assume I'm being dishonest. I haven't read all your other threads about air flights. You have flight data. So is that flight data erroneous, or does it support your Flat Earth hypothesis? Either way, how? Keep it simple, man.

A lost thread, on nothing at all....

Quote from: disputeone on October 28, 2022, 05:45:30 PM

Yeah nah, you'd be surprised.

I really would be.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 29, 2022, 06:15:52 AM

Some flat earthers may well believe in Genesis but the common denominator is not belief in any particular religion. The common denominator for all flat earth believers is belief in quite possibly the biggest and most elaborate conspiracy of all time.

Gullibility comes from somewhere.  That's why I was guessing it was religious fundamentalism.

You're assuming that we're the gullible ones.

When determining a scam, always ask the question "Cui bono?" Latin I think, basically it means, "Who benefits?"

When there doesn't seem to be anyone benefiting, while it is still possible that it could be a scam, probability goes down from about 90% to about 25%. That is, if we have a know beneficiary, a possible scam becomes a probable scam. Or to put it in simpler terms, if someone makes money from it, you ought to trust your gut.

NASA makes money from RE. So do many climate groups that depend on a certain worldview of Earth.

I do believe in Genesis and much of the Bible. But I'm not a fundamentalist. I went to several schools that taught that science and religion can reconcile. I was never taught the theory that the two are adversaries, only learning about that nonsense after college when I realized a great many people think this way.

More important to me than the Bible is understanding the idea of logic. And logic tells me that if certains about a theory don't add up

and there is a clear group that is making money from gullibility about space, and another that is losing money, I'm pretty sure I can't trust such things.

NASA makes money from RE. So do many climate groups that depend on a certain worldview of Earth.

Who was benefitting monetarily from RE prior to 1958, going back, say 500-2000+ years?

You're assuming that we're the gullible ones.

No, it isn't an assumption.
Give the delusional nonsense you spout, and how you flee from all the issues with the nonsense you claim; it is quite clear that you are the gullible ones.
You have fallen for a FE con, and now are trying to prop it up.

NASA makes money from RE. So do many climate groups that depend on a certain worldview of Earth.

No, they don't.
NASA would be wasting so much money faking it all, and if your nonsense was true, everything allegedly from space would still work with a flat Earth, and they could get so much more money for it. They would be able to justify fuel for the entire time a satellite is up there, instead of just the fuel needed to put it into orbit.

The climate groups don't give a damn what the shape of Earth is. Climate change is happening regardless of the shape of Earth.

When you spout such utter garbage, it is clear who the gullible one is.
You were conned into thinking the RE was a scam, and conned into thinking it makes loads of money.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 01, 2023, 10:31:30 PM

NASA makes money from RE. So do many climate groups that depend on a certain worldview of Earth.

Who was benefitting monetarily from RE prior to 1958, going back, say 500-2000+ years?

Well, let's see. Contrary to the conflict thesis of the 19th century (which uses the martyrdom story of ppl like Copernicus or Galileo), the church supported scientific endeavors. Monetarily.

So if you were a good scientist, you could expect to be funded by the church. In fact, Copernicus and Galileo were not condemned by the church for their heliocentric notions. They were paid to do it (despite the fact that the Bible states otherwise, the church supported such scientists).


So yeah. Copernicus was still benefiting. But surely Galileo... Nope!

https://aleteia.org/2021/09/24/the-truth-about-galileo-and-the-catholic-church/

Catholic church mostly didn't care!

Quote from: Stash on January 01, 2023, 11:04:32 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 01, 2023, 10:31:30 PM

NASA makes money from RE. So do many climate groups that depend on a certain worldview of Earth.

Who was benefitting monetarily from RE prior to 1958, going back, say 500-2000+ years?

Well, let's see. Contrary to the conflict thesis of the 19th century (which uses the martyrdom story of ppl like Copernicus or Galileo), the church supported scientific endeavors. Monetarily.

So if you were a good scientist, you could expect to be funded by the church. In fact, Copernicus and Galileo were not condemned by the church for their heliocentric notions. They were paid to do it (despite the fact that the Bible states otherwise, the church supported such scientists).


So yeah. Copernicus was still benefiting. But surely Galileo... Nope!

https://aleteia.org/2021/09/24/the-truth-about-galileo-and-the-catholic-church/

Catholic church mostly didn't care!

Kinda benefitting, kinda not. And the church "supported", "benefitted" geocentrists like Christopher Clavius & Tycho Brahe.

Unlike Galileo and other controversial astronomers, however, Copernicus had a good relationship with the Catholic Church. It may come as a surprise, considering the Church banned Copernicus' "Des revolutionibus" for more than 200 years.

The astronomer published “De revolutionibus” in March 1543, after more than a decade of revisions. The book included a letter to Pope Paul III arguing the legitimacy of the heliocentric theory. He died two months later.

“De revolutionibus” initially met no resistance from the Catholic Church. It was not until 1616 that the church banned the book. The ban continued until 1835.

While the Catholic Church initially accepted heliocentricity, Catholics eventually joined the wave of Protestant opposition and banned the book in 1616. The Protestant churches accepted Copernicus’ findings after more evidence emerged to support it. The Catholic Church, however, remained ground in its anti-Copernican beliefs until the 19th century. The ban on Copernicus's views was lifted in 1822, and the ban on his book until 1835.

So no, there was no mass monetary benefit to Copernicus or Galileo. 200 years of suppression of ideas shows this. In any case, even if the church had supported these two, they supported others with contrary beliefs/findings. Ergo, no, there really was no monetary benefit to heliocentrism for a gazillion years. And there is no real benefit to NASA perpetuating a globe earth. They could have just as easily "discovered" a flat earth and built all of their stuff accordingly. And there was plenty of pre-NASA rocketeering going on, they too could have just gone with an FE centric way of things. But actual evidence has, over 100's of years, shown otherwise.

Well, let's see. Contrary to the conflict thesis of the 19th century (which uses the martyrdom story of ppl like Copernicus or Galileo), the church supported scientific endeavors. Monetarily.

Only to the extent it didn't conflict with Church doctrine, which will vary based upon the church's opinion and can sometimes be swayed by the public.

But supporting scientific endeavours doesn't mean thy are getting a financial benefit by pretending Earth is round.
The real question is how does claiming Earth is round get them money?
If they just said it was flat, would they get the same money?

NASA makes money from RE.

If the earth was flat, why wouldn’t they still be funded?  So, NASA in your delusion somehow makes money by experimenting with what would work on your imaginary flat earth, then provides services, but in you delusion makes money by adding the extra cost of faking a round earth.

If they earth was flat, why try to hide it?  Why?

If the earth is flat, in the context of “profiting”, what navy has a tactical advantage, can bring ships on station faster with less fuel, and has more accurate and better targeting solutions because they treat the earth as flat??

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 03, 2023, 06:39:49 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 01, 2023, 11:04:32 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 01, 2023, 10:31:30 PM

NASA makes money from RE. So do many climate groups that depend on a certain worldview of Earth.

Who was benefitting monetarily from RE prior to 1958, going back, say 500-2000+ years?

Well, let's see. Contrary to the conflict thesis of the 19th century (which uses the martyrdom story of ppl like Copernicus or Galileo), the church supported scientific endeavors. Monetarily.

So if you were a good scientist, you could expect to be funded by the church. In fact, Copernicus and Galileo were not condemned by the church for their heliocentric notions. They were paid to do it (despite the fact that the Bible states otherwise, the church supported such scientists).


So yeah. Copernicus was still benefiting. But surely Galileo... Nope!

https://aleteia.org/2021/09/24/the-truth-about-galileo-and-the-catholic-church/

Catholic church mostly didn't care!

Kinda benefitting, kinda not. And the church "supported", "benefitted" geocentrists like Christopher Clavius & Tycho Brahe.

Unlike Galileo and other controversial astronomers, however, Copernicus had a good relationship with the Catholic Church. It may come as a surprise, considering the Church banned Copernicus' "Des revolutionibus" for more than 200 years.

The astronomer published “De revolutionibus” in March 1543, after more than a decade of revisions. The book included a letter to Pope Paul III arguing the legitimacy of the heliocentric theory. He died two months later.

“De revolutionibus” initially met no resistance from the Catholic Church. It was not until 1616 that the church banned the book. The ban continued until 1835.

While the Catholic Church initially accepted heliocentricity, Catholics eventually joined the wave of Protestant opposition and banned the book in 1616. The Protestant churches accepted Copernicus’ findings after more evidence emerged to support it. The Catholic Church, however, remained ground in its anti-Copernican beliefs until the 19th century. The ban on Copernicus's views was lifted in 1822, and the ban on his book until 1835.

So no, there was no mass monetary benefit to Copernicus or Galileo. 200 years of suppression of ideas shows this. In any case, even if the church had supported these two, they supported others with contrary beliefs/findings. Ergo, no, there really was no monetary benefit to heliocentrism for a gazillion years. And there is no real benefit to NASA perpetuating a globe earth. They could have just as easily "discovered" a flat earth and built all of their stuff accordingly. And there was plenty of pre-NASA rocketeering going on, they too could have just gone with an FE centric way of things. But actual evidence has, over 100's of years, shown otherwise.

So? The church benefited all scientists. But as heliocentric models started dominating the conversation, and geocentrism was driven into the fringes, that cut hot to be less and less. I do not know the names of most geocentrists. As in, they benefited during their lifespan,but they lost the war. Today, I don't stand to make a dime from geocentrism, even if I convince everyone the Earth is flat. I suppose if you learn that by buying my books, this is one thing. But my books are mostly novels where flat earth theory is incidental, and the main book is about weird characters. Today, there is no Catholic church funding science because Scholasticism went by the wayside, and the Protestant Reformation made it no longer the only game in town. Even if I were to convince everyone that RE was nonsense, nobody would pay me.

So my only benefit from this is seeing NASA stop making money. If you're supporting them, you either get a cut, or you're a useful idiot who fawns over them without getting any benefit. Worse than people who benefit are those who buy what the cult leader says yet never get any benefit.

So my only benefit from this is seeing NASA stop making money.

Stop changing the subject…

If the earth was flat, why wouldn’t they still be funded?  So, NASA in your delusion somehow makes money by experimenting with what would work on your imaginary flat earth, then provides services, but in you delusion makes money by adding the extra cost of faking a round earth.

If they earth was flat, why try to hide it?  Why?

If the earth is flat, in the context of “profiting”, what navy has a tactical advantage, can bring ships on station faster with less fuel, and has more accurate and better targeting solutions because they treat the earth as flat??

Quote from: Stash on January 03, 2023, 10:29:53 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 03, 2023, 06:39:49 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 01, 2023, 11:04:32 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 01, 2023, 10:31:30 PM

NASA makes money from RE. So do many climate groups that depend on a certain worldview of Earth.

Who was benefitting monetarily from RE prior to 1958, going back, say 500-2000+ years?

Well, let's see. Contrary to the conflict thesis of the 19th century (which uses the martyrdom story of ppl like Copernicus or Galileo), the church supported scientific endeavors. Monetarily.

So if you were a good scientist, you could expect to be funded by the church. In fact, Copernicus and Galileo were not condemned by the church for their heliocentric notions. They were paid to do it (despite the fact that the Bible states otherwise, the church supported such scientists).


So yeah. Copernicus was still benefiting. But surely Galileo... Nope!

https://aleteia.org/2021/09/24/the-truth-about-galileo-and-the-catholic-church/

Catholic church mostly didn't care!

Kinda benefitting, kinda not. And the church "supported", "benefitted" geocentrists like Christopher Clavius & Tycho Brahe.

Unlike Galileo and other controversial astronomers, however, Copernicus had a good relationship with the Catholic Church. It may come as a surprise, considering the Church banned Copernicus' "Des revolutionibus" for more than 200 years.

The astronomer published “De revolutionibus” in March 1543, after more than a decade of revisions. The book included a letter to Pope Paul III arguing the legitimacy of the heliocentric theory. He died two months later.

“De revolutionibus” initially met no resistance from the Catholic Church. It was not until 1616 that the church banned the book. The ban continued until 1835.

While the Catholic Church initially accepted heliocentricity, Catholics eventually joined the wave of Protestant opposition and banned the book in 1616. The Protestant churches accepted Copernicus’ findings after more evidence emerged to support it. The Catholic Church, however, remained ground in its anti-Copernican beliefs until the 19th century. The ban on Copernicus's views was lifted in 1822, and the ban on his book until 1835.

So no, there was no mass monetary benefit to Copernicus or Galileo. 200 years of suppression of ideas shows this. In any case, even if the church had supported these two, they supported others with contrary beliefs/findings. Ergo, no, there really was no monetary benefit to heliocentrism for a gazillion years. And there is no real benefit to NASA perpetuating a globe earth. They could have just as easily "discovered" a flat earth and built all of their stuff accordingly. And there was plenty of pre-NASA rocketeering going on, they too could have just gone with an FE centric way of things. But actual evidence has, over 100's of years, shown otherwise.

So? The church benefited all scientists. But as heliocentric models started dominating the conversation, and geocentrism was driven into the fringes, that cut hot to be less and less. I do not know the names of most geocentrists. As in, they benefited during their lifespan,but they lost the war. Today, I don't stand to make a dime from geocentrism, even if I convince everyone the Earth is flat. I suppose if you learn that by buying my books, this is one thing. But my books are mostly novels where flat earth theory is incidental, and the main book is about weird characters. Today, there is no Catholic church funding science because Scholasticism went by the wayside, and the Protestant Reformation made it no longer the only game in town. Even if I were to convince everyone that RE was nonsense, nobody would pay me.

So my only benefit from this is seeing NASA stop making money. If you're supporting them, you either get a cut, or you're a useful idiot who fawns over them without getting any benefit. Worse than people who benefit are those who buy what the cult leader says yet never get any benefit.

I, like you, don't make any money based upon the shape of the earth. 

Here's what I've never understood about FE. Maybe you can help.

Is the whole NASA (And all space agencies/corporations around the world) thing simply that all engineering & evidence shows the necessity for the tech involved to be predicated on a globe earth and all output (media) showing a globe earth and since the earth is actually flat, it's all lies and conspiracy?

Or is just that FE doesn't believe in space to begin with?

I mean, I don't see why FE couldn't have rockets and such. If NASA and all of the other space agencies/corporations around the world used tech predicated on a flat earth and resulting media showed a flat disk, would ya'll be cool with that?

I mean, I don't see why FE couldn't have rockets and such.

Or at least follow where comets travel?  Among and between the planets, and around the sun. 

Well, let's see. Contrary to the conflict thesis of the 19th century (which uses the martyrdom story of ppl like Copernicus or Galileo), the church supported scientific endeavors. Monetarily.

So if you were a good scientist, you could expect to be funded by the church. In fact, Copernicus and Galileo were not condemned by the church for their heliocentric notions. They were paid to do it (despite the fact that the Bible states otherwise, the church supported such scientists).
 
So yeah. Copernicus was still benefiting. But surely Galileo... Nope!

 

Back to the OP:  Are all flat earthers also Genesis believers?  You, specifically.  Do you believe Genesis as well as FE?

So? The church benefited all scientists.

So there would be no benefit in claiming Earth is round.

But as heliocentric models started dominating the conversation, and geocentrism was driven into the fringes

Which only happened because of the evidence and the explanatory power of the HC model.
The question is what point is there in initially promoting a HC model, if it doesn't have greater explanatory power, or produce better predictions, if you would get funded for a GC model, and not be as likely to be exposed as a fraud?
It simple makes no sense.
There is no motive.

It is only once HC has been firmly established due to the plentiful evidence that there would possibly be a motive.

So my only benefit from this is seeing NASA stop making money. If you're supporting them, you either get a cut, or you're a useful idiot who fawns over them without getting any benefit. Worse than people who benefit are those who buy what the cult leader says yet never get any benefit.

Or we see through your delusional BS and see the benefits NASA has given to mankind.
For example, GPS and small cameras.

You are the one buying what the cult leader says, but not getting any benefit from it.

You're assuming that we're the gullible ones.

When determining a scam, always ask the question "Cui bono?" Latin I think, basically it means, "Who benefits?"


When there doesn't seem to be anyone benefiting, while it is still possible that it could be a scam, probability goes down from about 90% to about 25%. That is, if we have a know beneficiary, a possible scam becomes a probable scam. Or to put it in simpler terms, if someone makes money from it, you ought to trust your gut.

OK, who makes money from RE?  Map makers, sailors, airline pilots, satellite manufacturers, cell phone makers, cell phone users (including you), computer users (including you), etc. 

Who makes money from FE?  People like William Carpenter, Claudio Nocelli, Eric DuBay and David Wardlaw Scott who write books that they sell to the gullible FE sheep.  Also the people who organize the seminars and sell T-shirts.

I do believe in Genesis and much of the Bible. But I'm not a fundamentalist. I went to several schools that taught that science and religion can reconcile. I was never taught the theory that the two are adversaries, only learning about that nonsense after college when I realized a great many people think this way.

If you believe in Genesis and much of the Bible, you are a fundamentalist.  That's what a Fundamentalist is.

More important to me than the Bible is understanding the idea of logic. And logic tells me that if certains about a theory don't add up

and there is a clear group that is making money from gullibility about space, and another that is losing money, I'm pretty sure I can't trust such things.

A rational person cannot believe in Genesis and logic.  There are far too many illogical things in Genesis.  You can't have it both ways.  If you believe spots on lambs come from wooden railings, you believe in Genesis, not in logic.

It is also illogical to believe that 90% of people are in on some great conspiracy and that only a relative handful of people understand the Truth.

It is also illogical to dismiss the evidence for a RE that you, yourself can produce.  You can see the ISS with your naked eye.  How do your FEers account for this?

It is also illogical to accept a theory where the proponents cannot draw a map of the earth nor specify the size and shape of the sun and the moon nor their distances from the earth nor the cause of their seemingly circular paths over head.



ETA:
I just skimmed the video you posted.  Are you in acceptance of and agreement with the anti-Semitism expressed by the narrators?

Just in relation to the title I would say they are not all genesis believers.

Just in relation to the title I would say they are not all genesis believers.

I've already posted that I probably should have titled it:
Are all flat earthers also religious fundamentalists?

The answer seems to be YES (even if the "religion" is some far-out personal nonsense).  If any FE responders would care to correct me, please do so.

OK, who makes money from RE?  Map makers, sailors, airline pilots, satellite manufacturers, cell phone makers, cell phone users (including you), computer users (including you), etc. 

Who makes money from FE?  People like William Carpenter, Claudio Nocelli, Eric DuBay and David Wardlaw Scott who write books that they sell to the gullible FE sheep.  Also the people who organize the seminars and sell T-shirts.

It's much more lucrative to flog about 'aliens', or 'swamp monsters', or 'bigfoot', or whatever, if it was for money, because those I've just mentioned, have ALREADY made many people VERY rich, with nothing but crap, why do you think there's endless crap about aliens? It makes lots of people money, some are RICH because of it, make a MOVIE from it, or a TV special, or get on one about it. Not that it always does happen, but there's always a CHANCE of it, just because it's about 'aliens'.

I suppose 'aliens' or 'bigfoot' or 'inter-dimensional phantoms', have nothing to do with making money, or just to make money? While they often DO make some of them millions, that's not why they do it, or most of them, right? Sure, if you say so!

Then we get to these poor, honest, little to benefit people who claimed, from the first people, up to those today - that the Earth is a ball, speeding through endless 'space' all around it....

The only benefit it is to our map makers, sailors and pilots, is if they're paid to shut their mouths about it all, or more likely, threatened to shut their mouths about it all, or else.

Much like 'astronauts' are, but they are seen as 'great heroic figures', and DO make money from being liars, unlike pilots or sailors. 

At least you're right about satellite manufacturers making money from it, they certainly DO make lots of money from it.

How about NASA? How much money have they been given, and still get every year, from it?
Billions and billions in money, and it's ALL from 'it'.

Astronomers were the very FIRST people to benefit from it, and still are today, in fact.

Anyone who operates a business within those fields, or given a contract by one, to manufacture something, or bids for contracts, and gets one, or more, is also benefitting from it.


Not much of a benefit, right?