1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon Landing?

« on: May 27, 2018, 03:36:03 AM »

The fact we haven't been back in 50 years should prove the hoax.

I went to the Bahama's 30 years ago and haven't been back. Does that mean the Bahama's don't exist?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Observation of the ISS

« on: May 27, 2018, 03:32:30 AM »

The other night I saw a notification by our local news station that the international space station would be passing overhead and would be visible between 6:56pm and 6:59 pm. It was a bright yellow dot that passed overhead at a very fast speed.

From a flat earth perspective, what else would this be if it's not the ISS?

A balloon of some sort. What makes you think it's a heavier-than-air object?

You signature line says you don't accept things without evidence. So I assume you have evidence of this balloon? Would you please share it?

Is the space station shaped thing that people have photographed with telescopes the actual balloon, or something tethered to the balloon?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun over a flat Earth

« on: March 13, 2018, 03:25:35 PM »

Dude. Did you even read my last paragraph? The one you quoted? It's pretty clear from that I am not a flat earther.
My complaints about the video are a level of straw man argument and the smug, condescending tone.
That doesn't mean that everything in those videos is wrong, a lot is right.

Yes, I read the last paragraph. But must have mistaken your point of view. Thought you were coming from a FE belief standpoint, trying to undermine CHL's arguments.

I used to read and post here quite a bit a few months back, been away for a while and not sure where everyone's coming from. My apologies.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun over a flat Earth

« on: March 12, 2018, 11:51:57 PM »

I don't doubt that FE'ers would take offense at the tone, but he makes many valid points. I'm curious specifically which of his arguments you believe aren't actually FE beliefs.

Just in the first video he says
"The conspiracy dates back to antiquity but is all due to NASA and the UN"
Actually the "conspiracy" is about faking space travel, not the shape of the earth:
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
So NASA aren't trying to fool you into thinking the earth is round, they think it's round too, they're just faking space travel.

He says that FE is all based on God creating a flat earth with a dome and the entire argument boils down to "But meh Holy Book".
But he then goes on to admit there is some debate amonst flat earthers about whether there is an edge. SOME Flat Earthers do indeed believe what they believe because of a certain (wrong, IMO) interpretation of Scripture, but many on this site do not. Honestly, I don't know what their basis is, seems to be wrapped up in other conspiracy theories.

He states that the FE Map is as shown on the UN Logo - actually there is no agreed map although that is admittedly the one commonly shown.

He states that the UN would stop them exploring Antarctica with patrols the southern seas. Some FErs do seem to believe that there is something actively stopping exploration of Antarctica but it is not a universal FE belief. That is not mentioned here and there is a suggestion of a bi-polar model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Antarctica

One of the problems with refuding FE is there isn't a coherent flat earth model. There is so much disagreement within the community about their own model it's quite hard knowing what to refute. But in that video series he does make claims for FE Belief which are either wrong or not universally believed within the FE community.

Ok, so you believe NASA is "A" conspiracy, just not "THE" conspiracy. But clearly, you have to believe in another conspiracy since belief in the sun centered solar system started with Copernicus in the 16th century. In our modern times all of science, popular knowledge, school texts, etc. explain this to be correct. FE'ers would have to belief that there is a conspiracy or that every scientist since Copernicus was honestly just wrong. Yes, your FAQ says "conspiracy" just means NASA faking space, but the posts generally talk about how everyone believing in a spinning globe has been fooled. Sorry, that's conspiracy talk.

He says in the FE community some believe in a fixed disc with a dome, and some believe it is infinite. And I have seen comments here from both opinions. So I don't see the objection there.

If you want to see someone tie the image of the UN flag to the flat Earth map, see your own FAQ page where it states: "The United Nations emblem closely resembles the Flat Earth map."

In regards to the UN fleet guarding Antarctica, open a thread asking why FE believers haven't explored to the edge of the world and I am confident you will get a response using that excuse.

I'm sure he does make claims about things that are not "universally believed within the FE community" since there is virtually nothing that is "universally believed within the FE community". Look at the state of "FE theory". The flat Earth is finite, or infinite. There is one pole, or maybe two. Inconsistent diagrams and explanations of how things work, moon phases, eclipses, sunsets, how light travels. Let's look at the map, or wait, there is no agreed map. Let's talk about the distance a plane flies. Well we can't since we don't have a map.

Let's face it. His videos are well done and present many valid points, and your response is basically a way to find complaint about the video in general so that you have an excuse to dismiss it instead of trying to answer any points factually. Because you can't.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun over a flat Earth

« on: March 12, 2018, 03:29:51 PM »

Maybe now would be a good time to invite any flat earthers here to view these four videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0EKJWyl_g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmXP4Q2ZpI

Maybe everyone else here has already seen them but I just discovered them. They are the best, most well developed refutations of FET I've seen, though they are more than a bit condescending (and somewhat humorous, to boot). They deal with the subject at hand in great depth, as well as related subjects. If a flat earther thinks he can refute the math or the geometry, I would invite them to give it a shot.

I actually find these videos quite annoying. Aside from the condescending tone, a lot of it is straw man stuff.
He's arguing at times against a position that the FES don't actually take, but there are some good points in there.

I don't doubt that FE'ers would take offense at the tone, but he makes many valid points. I'm curious specifically which of his arguments you believe aren't actually FE beliefs.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 11, 2017, 02:06:40 AM »

Yes, and it's hard to take the "show me the evidence" demand seriously from people that claim a mystery shadow object is responsible for eclipses

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I have been all around this planet

« on: December 10, 2017, 08:03:22 PM »

water doesnt bend on the small scale but yet on the big scale its bending 360 degrees.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 10, 2017, 07:56:40 PM »

Thanks again for the thoughtful post. The FE faithful will continue to reject anything that potentially conflicts their core belief. Predictions of sunset/sunrise times from any source will be on that list along with GPS, satellite TV, sat phones, spacecraft, etc.

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: i have some questions

« on: December 10, 2017, 07:34:19 PM »

So are we talking about the US government, because just in case you didn't know, there are other countries and governments outside of the US, including my own that has been around a few centuries more than the US one 

Roger

I find it odd that the US Government generally and NASA specifically get all the blame for the alleged conspiracy when round Earth knowledge predates both. Like most FE belief, they just need a hook to support an idea, even if it can't hold any weight.

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: i have some questions

« on: December 10, 2017, 04:31:39 AM »

If the government can trick the entire world into believing that the world is flat

What? I thought the paranoid conspiracy theory was that they fooled us into thinking the Earth was round. So confused.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 10, 2017, 04:25:20 AM »

I'm not asking for any impossible level of evidence. We don't reject all evidence we have not seen ourselves. Don't you see us quoting links in our discussions?

We just need basic evidence for these claims you say prove your model. What do you have against the need for providing basic evidence for your clains?

Once again, please give an example of what you would accept as evidence that time and date.com is correct? I don't expect any serious answer since you know acknowledging them as correct will never help your FE case, so you want to maintain a case that allows you to ignore their data.

Do you accept sunrise/sunset times provided by TV/newspapers as accurate?

I don't know how many users are on this forum, but I suspect there are many from different parts of the world. Let's collectively do an experiment with timeanddate forecasts vs. predictions made according to your flat Earth model. That should be informative, right?

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 09, 2017, 10:35:37 PM »

Its your responsibility to provide the evidence for your own claims. Please stop trying to weasle out of providing basic evidence for the claims asserted.

So you will invent some excuse to ignore them or you will require some sort of experimental basis that can't be performed.

I guess it was option A.

The OP laid out a very thoughtful case. Your response basically is that the case is invalid since the time of sunrise is unknown, and I guess that to anyone who believes the Earth is flat, that information can not be determined. And you have the nerve use "weasel" to describe someone else's response. That's hilarious.

So let's be hypothetical for a moment. IF those sunrise times were correct, what would your response be?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 09, 2017, 08:13:18 PM »

Tom, it would be helpful in this discussion to have a reference to the sunrise/sunset times for those cities according to flat Earth models. Can you or someone else from the FE side provide this?

I'll need to think through the trig on this, but on the equinox the sun is above the equator, so the spotlight would be centered on the equator, with the extremities of the circle of light at the north pole, south pole/ice wall. I think that would imply the longest daylight at the equator, the shortest daylight at the poles, and a proportionally decreasing amount of daylight based on latitude. Would that be correct?

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 09, 2017, 07:37:28 PM »

In regards to the OP, I commend the poster. That's an excellent observation and a logical layout of the facts.

Tom has to come back and deny that certain facts are known to modern science. Like what time the sun rises. Then he tried to change the subject asking about 12 hour days when the original post didn't say that. It said that the round sun spotlight explanation showed sunset 6 hours after sunrise in a certain city.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 09, 2017, 07:32:39 PM »

I used timeanddate.com to check sunset times every day of my last trip to the beach. Was accurate every time. There you go.

But seriously, how do you envision this evidence? Suppose forum users validate the predicted times against actual times on a given weekday for 6 weeks and found it was correct. Would you then accept that the sites predictions were accurate? If not, please outline an experimental basis on which you would accept it.

Any sort of real evidence for the specific claims in the OP would be nice. As it is we have no evidence.

Your comments about your own supposed observation where timeanddate was accurate or approxinate is irrelevant. We have no idea what kinds of tables or methods are used to come up with those calulations, whether it is using one universal method, multiple methods, or whether it is using any elements that are experience or pattern based. When we emailed timeanddate with a request to show their methods they refused and cited proprietary data.

My "supposed" observation? Are you saying that I lied?

Anyway, I was not referring to the OP. I was asking what experimental evidence you would accept to believe that timeanddate predictions are correct, regardless of how they are calculated. I believe that their calculations are correct and that they can't be correct on a flat Earth. So you will invent some excuse to ignore them or you will require some sort of experimental basis that can't be performed.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 09, 2017, 06:58:23 PM »

I used timeanddate.com, and as no one has ever made the case that times of sunrise/sunset are inaccurate.

I believe I had requested actual evidence. Pointing out that we have no evidence to the true or falseness of a theory is not evidence that it is true.

I used timeanddate.com to check sunset times every day of my last trip to the beach. Was accurate every time. There you go.

But seriously, how do you envision this evidence? Suppose forum users validate the predicted times against actual times on a given weekday for 6 weeks and found it was correct. Would you then accept that the sites predictions were accurate? If not, please outline an experimental basis on which you would accept it.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is the map

« on: December 08, 2017, 04:54:34 AM »

Any such analysis of new engines is comparing to past planes and past cruise speeds as a baseline.

What is your source for that comment Tom?

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Proof??? Why Not!

« on: December 07, 2017, 08:36:15 PM »

Please read the Wiki. We do accept what is seen by amateur high altitude balloonists

Glad to hear that Tom. I created a thread on that subject (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7422.msg130507). What I found interesting was that early in the two hour amateur high altitude balloon video, the full moon can been seen reflecting sunlight when the sun can not be seen. Then at altitude, the sun rises earlier than the expected time for the launch site. Both of these make perfect sense on a round Earth, and I don't see how they would be possible on a flat Earth.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonphases, and other questions

« on: December 06, 2017, 07:04:20 PM »

Is this trying to say the moon's orbit is significantly inclined to that of the sun's orbit (around the pole), or perhaps at a right angle to it?

It is saying that the phases are a result of the changing altitude difference between the sun and the moon.

Please elaborate. I have not seen any reference that the FE altitude of the sun varies, so I think it is fairly constant. Are you saying that moon just goes straight up and down, or that it's polar orbit is inclined relative to the plane of the sun's orbit and the flat Earth's surface? Meaning that half of the orbit is below the sun's altitude and half above.

A diagram would make this much easier.

The full moon appears when the moon is higher, and is farther above the Earth? This would imply that the full moon is much smaller than the new moon. Is this what you observe?

See this article.

I'm not referring to atmospheric refraction/magnification, that's a known effect.  I refer to it's apparent diameter at a similar point in the sky over the course of a month.

During the days around the full moon (say -1 day to +1 day), while it is highest/furthest from the Earth, the sun would would make a few orbits around the North Pole. Therefore we should see a full or near full moon when the sun is both on the same side and the opposite side of the Earth over the course of the day. Is this what you observe?

I don't see what you are trying to say.

Imagine the animation on your wiki. If the moon takes 29 days to orbit, then it will be roughly over the same general area on the flat Earth for a period, (full moon +/- a day). During those days, the sun will orbit multiple times. So that would mean that for part of the time the sun will be on the opposite side of the disc, and on the same side part of the time. Has anyone ever observed a full moon that wasn't on the other side of the sky?

Is there another source for this diagram that I have missed?

The idea seems pretty straight forward to me.

Then once again, can someone provide a simple diagram? If education is your goal, it would make the concept easier for everyone to understand. Personally, I think this description is so far removed from reality that you can't make a diagram that would hold up to the slightest amount of analysis. But that's just my opinion.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Proof??? Why Not!

« on: December 06, 2017, 04:36:46 PM »

Sounds like a great exercise. I think the key would be to have knowledgeable observers from both sides present at launch/retrieval. Not meaning knowledgeable in terms of FE/RE, but in terms of the equipment being used. For example:
Validate that camera memory cards are empty before flight.
Validate memory card contents and preserve multiple copies post flight.
Use a grid to calibrate camera before/after to remove doubt about "fisheye" lens effects.
Complete video of launch/retrieval process.
Etc.
With all of above witnessed by both sides.

Sounds good, but I doubt that it will ever happen.