41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax

« on: February 02, 2024, 11:19:05 AM »

Once again, there seems to be no answer as to why one would feel inclined to accept the "alternative evidence," of supposed "space travel" in lieu of personally gleaned observation. Plenty of swings, but too many whiffs.

Because the personally gleaned observations are not sufficient to determine the reality of the shape of the earth.
Those observations could indicate the earth is flat, but they are also consistent with us living on a very large globe. And there are other possibilities. The only way to determine the truth is "alternative evidence".

This is true of lots of things, our personal observations alone aren't sufficient alone to determine reality, we have to augment those observations with "alternative evidence" - obviously that evidence should be assessed and checked to make sure it is reliable, as best you can.

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax

« on: February 02, 2024, 10:56:48 AM »

Also, those sinking ship observations have been studied and debunked

And your source for that is...your own Wiki page. Come on, dude!

The effect is not consistent and and tends to change constantly.

This is incorrect by the way you define "inconsistent" on that Wiki page. You say:

It has been found that the Sinking Ship effect is inconsistent. At times it occurs and at other times it does not occur.

My emphasis. That part is simply not true. It is true that the level of refraction varies with atmospheric conditions and that does vary the distance to the apparent horizon, but the claim that at times the sinking ship effect does not occur is not true. There is no observation of a ship going away from the observer and never sinking below the horizon.

Bobby Shafto, who came to our forum as a Round Earther (and presumably still is), was interested in this in apparent honesty (more than most people who have come here) and has looked at the material and concluded that the sinking ship effect is not consistently reproducible, and he has also concluded that the sinking doesn't even match the RE curvature.

In the video he's saying the camera height is 45ft and the platform is just under 17 miles away.
A simple earth curve calculator which does not take refraction into account says the target hidden height should be 51ft.

This is some documentation of that oil-rig:

https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/about-boem/BOEM-Regions/Pacific-Region/DPPs/DPP_1_1971-08-Proposed-Installation.pdf

From page 20:

The production deck will be located 37 feet above mean low low water and the drilling deck located 61 feet above the same reference. The drilling .deck will be 80 by 125 feet. The top of the drilling derrick will be at an elevation of 223 feet above the water level

So you should always be able to see the drilling deck and above. Without refraction you wouldn't be able to see the production deck. In some of those photos it appears you can, but as we've noted refraction exists and is variable depending on atmospheric conditions. In some of those photos the legs of the rig are completely hidden. What are they hidden by?

You claim in the Bishop experiment that:

With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore near Lovers Point 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore.

You're claiming that from a much lower viewer height and a further target distance. And you go on to claim that:

Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year."

Why weren't you getting the inconsistencies which you now claim occur?

None of these depict the earth as one might expect if it is a globe with radius of 3959 miles without the optical effects of an atmosphere under varying conditions."

They certainly don't depict a flat earth. In all of the photos some of the rig is hidden. If your Bishop experiment result is accurate you should be able to see all the rig from a viewer height of 20 inches. Can you?

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax

« on: February 01, 2024, 02:28:24 PM »

Wherever I have been, the majority of it was flat, aside from hills/valleys/dales.

I just don't know what you mean by that. For one thing, as you say there are hills and valleys and so on. So it isn't flat. Secondly, the formula the FE community love to quote is 8 inches per mile squared - not completely accurate, but it's close enough for most practical purposes. The point being, even if the earth was a perfect sphere, a point a mile away would only be 8 inches lower than you. How do you think you could discern that?
I don't know what you'd be expecting to see, if we live on a globe, that you're not seeing.

44

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 01, 2024, 01:29:18 PM »

So much winning!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68166050

45

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 31, 2024, 04:59:29 PM »

The case honk lined to was a defamation case, just like the case in the screenshot was a defamation case. Trump also called Stormy names which 'defamed' her character. But alas, in the end it was Stormy who was told to pay Trump and not Trump who was told to pay Stormy.

So she has to pay him $300k, and he has to pay E. Jean Carroll $83 million.
I guess that pretty much evens out.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax

« on: January 31, 2024, 04:23:46 PM »

The size of the earth is a statement you make solely based on the "alternative evidence."

True. Although by "alternative evidence" that isn't just photos from space. I've travelled enough to be confident that the world is pretty big, whatever shape it might be. But here's the point: an observation of a flat horizon, if that's what we are talking about, does not tell you what shape the earth is. It may rule some possibilities out - like us living on a very small sphere - but it doesn't give us enough information to leave only one possibility.

The earth could be flat or a sphere of a certain size and the point is that observation of a flat horizon doesn't distinguish between those two possibilities. Either of them being true would yield the same observation. And there are probably other possibilities which would yield that observation.

Everywhere I have been on this earth, it is personally perceived to be flat. That never changes.

What observation have you made which has led you to that conclusion?

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax

« on: January 31, 2024, 11:25:41 AM »

"If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?"

So I asked him what evidence he's talking about. What observation has he made which leads him to "perceive the Earth to be flat".
I then guessed he might be talking about a flat horizon and explained why that is not evidence for a flat earth, given the earth's size. That observation is not sufficient to determine the shape of the earth. But maybe he's not talking about that in which case I await his response.

I went on to explain how our perceptions are not necessarily sufficient to determine reality. Our senses are limited and fallible.
I was also clear that he shouldn't blindly accept alternative evidence as better. As with anything we can't observe directly, we have to use weight of evidence to arrive at a belief.

But to answer his question properly I need to understand what he means when he says he "perceives the Earth to be flat".

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax

« on: January 30, 2024, 03:02:37 PM »

Do you have a worthwhile reply that answers the question posed by Roundy?

The more fulsome reply to his question was in the part of my post you haven't quoted.
The TL;DR bit was merely a summary.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax

« on: January 30, 2024, 09:59:23 AM »

Where does this leave Flat Earth Theory? Just fine, as it turns out, as long as one accepts Electromagnetic Acceleration as a necessary component of FET. The same effect that might cause the illusion of a horizon might also cause large flat objects to appear round from a great distance.

In which case what's the differentiator between FE and RE? What observation can you make to distinguish between the two models if FE + EA = RE, in terms of what we observe? Presumably there's some difference which makes you lean towards one model over the other.

Indeed, I think the immediate evidence with my own eyes is more likely to be reliable than pictures from many thousands or more of miles away. I guess it's more of a philosophical position than anything else. If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?

Firstly, I'd be interested to know what you think the "immediate evidence" of your own eyes tells you.
There's two things about that. If you're talking about a flat horizon then you surely understand that on a sphere of sufficient size the observation would be indistinguishable from a flat plane? So that observation is not sufficient to determine the reality. Secondly, whatever observations you're talking about, you know that our senses are limited and fallible? There are things we can't see with the naked eye that are real - germs, UV light, etc. And there are things we see which aren't real. Optical illusions are a good example, these horizontal lines appear curved but they are in fact straight:



So drawing conclusions just from looking at stuff is a bit dangerous.
Secondly, you shouldn't "blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better". You shouldn't blindly assume anything. For anything we can't directly observe we can only base conclusions on the evidence presented to us. I've never been to space but I've seen a shuttle launch. I've seen the videos and photos from space missions and seen expert analysis of them (as opposed to some dude who doesn't know what he's talking about saying "BuT wHeRe ArE tHe StArS?!!!"). I've read books about the Apollo missions and I've been to talks by astronauts. I've covered above the evidence that the ISS is real and satellite dishes really are pointing at something in the sky. If it is all fake then a lot of effort is being put into making it all look real, and for what? So, on balance, I'm inclined to believe it isn't all being faked.

TL;DR - be careful about basing beliefs just on your observations. They're not necessarily going to lead you to the correct conclusions. And with many things we can't observe them directly, so the best we can do is base conclusions on the weight of evidence.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax

« on: January 29, 2024, 05:56:38 PM »

The only reason most people are enamored with NASA is because of a childhood space fantasy.

There is something in that.

Based on all we know, government claims should be inherently distrusted.

There's something in that too.
But.

NASA et al aren't just going "trust me, bro". They release endless pictures and video of their missions. There are an increasing number of people doing broadcasts from space who presumably all have to be "in on it". You can watch their launches - I've seen one my self during a fortuitously timed trip to Florida when a Shuttle was going up.

There are multiple technologies which rely on satellites. I've posted before how my satellite TV stopped working when my neighbour had some construction done, the scaffolding of which blocked my dish's line of sight to the satellite. And on a work trip to Sri Lanka I observed how the dishes were angled upwards noticeably more steeply, which fits with the claim that TV satellites are above the equator.
Are Sky TV in on this deception or are they being fooled too? And to what end? No-one cares how this stuff works, so long as it does. Atmospheric conditions can affect satellite TV so it's clearly receiving a signal from up there somewhere.

Then there's GPS, which can be observed to work in the middle of large oceans.

And, of course, there's the ISS which can be seen from the ground. With decent optics you can see the shape of it. I've even see YouTube FE people concede that. What is it, if not a satellite orbiting the earth? 7 "space tourists" have made trips to the ISS. Are they all "in on it" too? Why? What's their angle?

And, of course, it's not just NASA. Lots of countries have now got space programs. And if you distrust governments then there's private enterprise now launching things. Even amateurs have sent up balloons which go high enough to see the earth's curve.

All the arguments I've seen for fakery are based on ignorance or incredulity. Where's the solid evidence that none of this is real?

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax

« on: January 29, 2024, 05:37:30 PM »

Where does this leave Flat Earth Theory? Just fine, as it turns out, as long as one accepts Electromagnetic Acceleration as a necessary component of FET. The same effect that might cause the illusion of a horizon might also cause large flat objects to appear round from a great distance.

In which case what's the differentiator between FE and RE? What observation can you make to distinguish between the two models if FE + EA = RE, in terms of what we observe? Presumably there's some difference which makes you lean towards one model over the other.

52

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Get a haircut, you hippie!

« on: January 25, 2024, 06:06:59 PM »

Not my country, not my legal system, not my school board and not my choice of tonsorial elegance but, ffs, what is this; the 1960s?  Isn't a State court a rather heavy steamhammer against bad hair?  Jeepers, if your hair/attire/adornments aren't endangering or offending the public, what's the problem?

Dress code requirements are also not endangering the public, so what's the issue?

I thought you were the "land of the free"?

53

Flat Earth Community / Re: Snopes Debunks the “Members All Around the Globe” Meme Hoax

« on: December 21, 2023, 10:26:59 AM »

Does this really matter?
You understand that most jokes contain something which isn’t true, which is the bit that makes them funny.
I get it’s irritating I guess, but I’m not sure it should be a hill to die on.

54

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 20, 2023, 07:11:31 PM »

I don't see how this will make a difference unless it happens in some purple or red states. And it will fuel the illusions of unfair persecution his zombie followers already buy into.

This is correct. We need Trump on every ballot in every state so we can beat him down in the most embarrassing landslide defeat in the history of this nation.

Trump's not going to lose in a landslide if he's on the ballot paper.
Definitely not if the other name is Biden who doesn't seem fit for office. Trump isn't either of course, for different reasons, but like in the UK people are going to have to choose the least bad option. I've been thinking that Trump couldn't win again because while the MAGA crowd will vote for him come what may, he wouldn't benefit from the "anyone but Hillary" boost he got in 2016. But if the other option is Biden he could get an "anyone but Biden" boost. From thinking "there's no way Trump will get a second term" I'm now more of the view that it's a grim inevitability if Biden is the alternative and Trump isn't in prison or disqualified for some other reason.

55

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 02, 2023, 08:08:30 AM »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67598948

Are you MAGA lot sick of all the winning yet?

56

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 14, 2023, 05:59:54 PM »

There isn't any reason to believe that they have substantial evidence against Trump. This is like the boy who cried wolf story. Trump was supposed to be in jail because there was all of this evidence that he was a russian spy years ago. It turned out that the evidence was pretty shoddy and politically motivated.

But the evidence against Clinton and her numerous crimes was really solid, which is why she's currently rotting in pris...oh.

Either Trump is one of the most prolific criminals ever and always evades justice for his many crimes, or this is an ongoing witch hunt with no real substance.

Those aren't the only two possibilities.  Most likely he has committed crimes but just about been smart enough to not actually get put in prison for them.

Spoiler: No one has flipped on Trump. No one will say anything directly accusatory or anything wildly surprising against Trump.

After you spent months in the wake of the election confidently predicting that everything was going Trump's way, forgive us if we don't take your predictions too seriously. Although my gut feeling is while he probably does belong in jail, he probably won't end up there.

57

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 03, 2023, 07:20:58 AM »

ITT: Tom doesn’t understand the difference between what one can say on social media and what one can say in court when under oath.

58

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 28, 2023, 04:41:53 PM »

No, no, Tom is right. Prosecutors don't actually prosecute. They are Zen truth-seekers with no interest in convincing the jury of any particular narrative. They have no idea what any witness will say until they're up on the stand, and they only properly understand what's actually happened after everyone has already testified and presented their evidence. It's a lot like Ace Attorney in that way.

Tom is right. In fact, as disparaging as he is about movie depictions of court cases, you’ll see in the film A Few Good Men Tom Cruise yells “I WANT THE TRUTH”. He is admittedly a defence lawyer but it’s proof that lawyers on both sides are just objective truth seekers who are in no way in an adversarial relationship.

This whole exchange is why there’s no point engaging with Tom. He’s either insane or arguing on bad faith. Possibly both. It doesn’t make for a particularly constructive dialogue.

59

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 27, 2023, 12:05:18 PM »

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

60

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 27, 2023, 10:57:33 AM »

Even if that were true about making it easier to compel people to testify, none of it suggests that those people have agreed to "flip" or testify negatively on Trump. They have only agreed to testify truthfully in the agreement.

And why the utter fuck would a deal be made with them if what they had to say was going to exonerate Trump? Holy shit, dude! The mental backflips you do to argue black is white are ridiculous.