[Lemmiwinks]

I haven't seen any of this evidence. Rama and inquistive made a claim that there was evidence that GPS worked via satellites. Where is this evidence? Isn't the burden of proof on you to produce this evidence for me? What am I arguing against if you haven't any evidence?

Ridiculous. 

You have to agree that the vastly agreed upon way cell phones work is through radiowaves, satellites and the such. Not saying you agree with it, just that is what the majority of people believe. You are making the claim that they work by sonar, a claim against the greater evidence. You have presented no evidence to this, so we can on the side of the accepted model dismiss your claim without any need of backing evidence.

It's called Hitchens's razor, check it out.

I'm familar with Hitchen's razor and it doesn't apply here.

What you're doing is pulling a argumentum ad populum and then dismissing my claim solely based on that without providing evidence that cellphones work via radio waves/satellites what have you. Your claim is just as ridiculous as mine. Sure, a few people might agree with you, but so what? My mom agrees that I am the best-looking person in the world, but what does that prove? Nothing.

Please provide evidence of your outlandish claims.

So you are saying only a "few" people think that cell phone towers communicate using RF? Do you actually believe that?

I just did a quick google search for how cell phone towers work, and every entry I can open and skim says RF.

When I do a quick google search for "do cell phones use sonar" I get nothing saying that is how they function.

Now the question is, do you now require me to enumerate every person that thinks cell phone towers use RF, or will you just accept that Hitchens's razor does apply here because the vast majority of human beings that know the slightest thing about cell phone towers, believe they function via RF and not via sonar?

If I say they work via RF, and the vast majority of people also think that, and you think its via sonar and very few if any people think that, then the onus of proof is on you. Not us.

[Ghost of V]

You're still dancing around an argumentum ad populum. Make a coherent argument that doesn't involve a fallacy and then we'll talk, until then you have nothing. You cannot even provide proof that cell-towers work via radio waves. Why is that?

Basically you're saying that if the majority jumps off a bridge you have no problem following along. Is that right or am I making an assumption here?

[inquisitive]

You're still dancing around an argumentum ad populum. Make a coherent argument that doesn't involve a fallacy and then we'll talk, until then you have nothing. You cannot even provide proof that cell-towers work via radio waves. Why is that?

Basically you're saying that if the majority jumps off a bridge you have no problem following along. Is that right or am I making an assumption here?

Read the GSM spec.  Do you have engineering qualifications to understand it?

[Ghost of V]

Do you have engineering qualifications to understand it?

Do you? 

[inquisitive]

Do you have engineering qualifications to understand it?

Do you? 

Yes.  And do you?

[Lemmiwinks]

You're still dancing around an argumentum ad populum. Make a coherent argument that doesn't involve a fallacy and then we'll talk, until then you have nothing. You cannot even provide proof that cell-towers work via radio waves. Why is that?

Basically you're saying that if the majority jumps off a bridge you have no problem following along. Is that right or am I making an assumption here?

sigh, and for someone that says they are familiar with Hitchens's razor, you sure are being dense about it.

Sure, thats what I am saying. If the vast majority of scientists and engineers and technicians all tell me that cellphone towers operate via RF, and the only people telling me they don't are the ones saying there is a global conspiracy about the shape of the planet... I'll believe the scientists, engineers and technicians.

If you gave me concrete proof that sonar was used in towers and not RF, then I would be on board, it's that simple.

Until then I will be happily jumping into the water from that bridge, because if you actually knew anything on the subject of import, you would be more than willing to share with me, instead of just say because it might be, it is.

[Ghost of V]

You're still dancing around an argumentum ad populum. Make a coherent argument that doesn't involve a fallacy and then we'll talk, until then you have nothing. You cannot even provide proof that cell-towers work via radio waves. Why is that?

Basically you're saying that if the majority jumps off a bridge you have no problem following along. Is that right or am I making an assumption here?

sigh, and for someone that says they are familiar with Hitchens's razor, you sure are being dense about it.

Sure, thats what I am saying. If the vast majority of scientists and engineers and technicians all tell me that cellphone towers operate via RF, and the only people telling me they don't are the ones saying there is a global conspiracy about the shape of the planet... I'll believe the scientists, engineers and technicians.

If you gave me concrete proof that sonar was used in towers and not RF, then I would be on board, it's that simple.

Until then I will be happily jumping into the water from that bridge, because if you actually knew anything on the subject of import, you would be more than willing to share with me, instead of just say because it might be, it is.

If you choose to discard critical thinking, personal discovery, individuality, freewill, and what-have-you by being spoon fed your information by the majority then more power to you. With this mindset you're not going to get anything out of these discussions.

I don't think we have anything else to discuss here. You might as well change your username to "Lemmingwinks".

[Lemmiwinks]

You're still dancing around an argumentum ad populum. Make a coherent argument that doesn't involve a fallacy and then we'll talk, until then you have nothing. You cannot even provide proof that cell-towers work via radio waves. Why is that?

Basically you're saying that if the majority jumps off a bridge you have no problem following along. Is that right or am I making an assumption here?

sigh, and for someone that says they are familiar with Hitchens's razor, you sure are being dense about it.

Sure, thats what I am saying. If the vast majority of scientists and engineers and technicians all tell me that cellphone towers operate via RF, and the only people telling me they don't are the ones saying there is a global conspiracy about the shape of the planet... I'll believe the scientists, engineers and technicians.

If you gave me concrete proof that sonar was used in towers and not RF, then I would be on board, it's that simple.

Until then I will be happily jumping into the water from that bridge, because if you actually knew anything on the subject of import, you would be more than willing to share with me, instead of just say because it might be, it is.

If you choose to discard critical thinking, personal discovery, individuality, freewill, and what-have-you by being spoon fed your information by the majority then more power to you. With this mindset you're not going to get anything out of these discussions.

I don't think we have anything else to discuss here. You might as well change your username to "Lemmingwinks".

As I said, if you knew anything of import, you'd share, instead you go to personal insults. /shrug

[inquisitive]

Sonar.

Sonar bounces off reflectors on weather balloons. This data is then processed and sent via cell towers. At least, that's my working theory.

We have established you have no idea about this.

[Pete Svarrior]

We have established you have no idea about this.

Please refrain from personal attacks and posts which do not contribute to the subject.

[inquisitive]

We have established you have no idea about this.

Please refrain from personal attacks and posts which do not contribute to the subject.

OK.  Replace with 'We have established that that idea has no merit'.

Merry Christmas!

[Sceptom]

Hello, I was just wondering if there is a theory on how my GPS could work if there are no sattelites to support the technology?

There are satellites, just not at the altitudes most people think they are.  GPS works as advertised thanks to them.

So GPS manufacturers must be FEers, then? If they do work as advertised, and if FET is true, then the programs developped by GPS manufacturers must be based on FET.

[Rushy]

There would be no major location based changes on land since in FET the continents are of the same size. The issues come in when RET oceans are used versus FET oceans. Because RET oceanography is still in wide use, many ships still go missing at sea each year. I'm sure if the rescue team for that lost Malaysian Airlines flight had the right maps, they could have found the lost flight, rather than have it remain lost. RET costs lives.

[Ghost of V]

There would be no major location based changes on land since in FET the continents are of the same size. The issues come in when RET oceans are used versus FET oceans. Because RET oceanography is still in wide use, many ships still go missing at sea each year. I'm sure if the rescue team for that lost Malaysian Airlines flight had the right maps, they could have found the lost flight, rather than have it remain lost. RET costs lives.

It's really very tragic. The leaders of the world are perfectly aware of the shape of the Earth, yet they still let flights go out using faulty maps. Something really needs to be done about this. The body count attributed to RET is enormous and, frankly, it's an outrage.

[Rama Set]

There would be no major location based changes on land since in FET the continents are of the same size. The issues come in when RET oceans are used versus FET oceans. Because RET oceanography is still in wide use, many ships still go missing at sea each year. I'm sure if the rescue team for that lost Malaysian Airlines flight had the right maps, they could have found the lost flight, rather than have it remain lost. RET costs lives.

It's really very tragic. The leaders of the world are perfectly aware of the shape of the Earth, yet they still let flights go out using faulty maps. Something really needs to be done about this. The body count attributed to RET is enormous and, frankly, it's an outrage.

So then why hasnt the FES done more to stop it?  You are either with them or against them.

[markjo]

There would be no major location based changes on land since in FET the continents are of the same size.

Not according to FE "maps".  Or are you saying that Australia really is bigger than North America or South America is bigger than Asia?

[Rushy]

So then why hasnt the FES done more to stop it?  You are either with them or against them.

We constantly engage on this forum, Twitter, Facebook, and have rallies (usually consisting of a single person). The question isn't why we aren't trying to stop it, it's why you're trying to stop us from stopping it.

Not according to FE "maps".  Or are you saying that Australia really is bigger than North America or South America is bigger than Asia?

Do you not know how to read map projections?

[Gulliver]

Not according to FE "maps".  Or are you saying that Australia really is bigger than North America or South America is bigger than Asia?

Do you not know how to read map projections?

Do you not know that a map of a flat earth does not require a projection? If that map is a projection, please do tell us how to "read" it.

[Rushy]

Do you not know that a map of a flat earth does not require a projection? If that map is a projection, please do tell us how to "read" it.

Sounds like you need to go bother some other kind of society.

[Gulliver]

Do you not know that a map of a flat earth does not require a projection? If that map is a projection, please do tell us how to "read" it.

Sounds like you need to go bother some other kind of society.

So you can't tell us how it's a projection. Gotcha. I suspected as much. Thanks.