5781

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Would you consider arguing in favor of a Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?

« on: May 25, 2018, 02:53:05 PM »

The conversation can go on many different ways form here.

- I can assert that it is not really me who claimed anything about infinite perspective lines being the cause, and so that is your burden to show.

- I can continue to ask for evidence of the admitted hypothesis

- I can point out the assumptions.

- I can argue by incredulity.

There are many ways for us to go on this, in my effort to show that a theory held as true for thousands of years can seem to wobble with the weakest of scrutiny.

It is not hard to argue on this side, and it encourages the production of evidence or supporting evidence. And isn't that more interesting than a forum full of dead threads and non responses?

Why hold up these interesting conversations based on the participation of a few people?

5782

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Would you consider arguing in favor of a Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?

« on: May 25, 2018, 02:29:50 PM »

But if we can't experiment on that concept of the infinite perspective lines how do we know that the universe plays by those rules? Numerous assumptions are being made about perspective.

Since it is widely admitted that we can't really experiment on such things, we are really just discussing a hypothesis.

A hypothesis that you will need to prove wrong yourself, not demand proof for. It's already been proven experimentally over many different distances.

Tested over different distances, perhaps (based on what study and what exact results?), but the lines may eventually merge. Who showed that they continue infinitely and ad infinitum?

The response in all of the above is "but math says..."

But if we can't experiment on that concept of the infinite perspective lines how do we know that perspective plays by those rules? Numerous assumptions are being made about perspective.

Since it is widely admitted that we can't really experiment on such that matter, we are really just discussing a hypothesis.

No you misunderstand the nature of proof. A proof is valid in all cases, that is the whole point of it. Nor are we 'discussing a hypothesis'. A hypothesis is something put forward which needs to be tested by empirical investigation. A proof by contrast requires no hypothesis.

This statement just admits that the argument is weak house of cards and that you may be rationalizing your result rather than making an empirical conclusion.

5783

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Would you consider arguing in favor of a Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?

« on: May 25, 2018, 02:19:12 PM »

The response in all of the above is "but math says..."

But if no one has experimented on that concept of the infinite perspective lines how do we know that perspective plays by those rules? Numerous assumptions are being made about perspective.

Since it is widely admitted that experiments have not been made on that matter, we are really just discussing a hypothesis.

5784

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Would you consider arguing in favor of a Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?

« on: May 25, 2018, 02:01:53 PM »

Since you guys admit that the infinite perspective line concept probably has never been demonstrated, and that you could not do it, and that there are no experiments on infinite perspective lines, what just happened here?

The Rowbotham side seems to have gained ground in the debate. The fundamental assumptions of the Ancient Greek side was never truly demonstrated in the first place.

The Rowbotham side just needs to continue to point out that certain assumptions are being made and the tables have completely turned.

5785

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Would you consider arguing in favor of a Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?

« on: May 25, 2018, 01:31:24 PM »

"But how did the Ancient Greeks know that perspective lines receded infinitely into the distance when they came up with their perspective theory?"
That puts the onus back onto the person asking the question (that Ancient Greek question is something I have never seen a good answer to).

Euclid's geometry answers the question perfectly well under his definition of 'parallel line' and any reasonable definition of 'perspective line'.

Yeah, that's his theory, but how did he KNOW that the perspective lines were infinite and never touched? What experiment did he do?

Some pressing questions brings us into some interesting topics to discuss.

We don't need to be waiting for me to appear to continue these conversations. I feel that the people here are smart and clever enough to maintain these conversations on their own.

5786

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Would you consider arguing in favor of a Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?

« on: May 25, 2018, 01:20:38 PM »

The argument of "Samuel Birley Rowbotham studied the matter, look at his study, he says that perspective is the cause" is an appeal to an authority. Is that really any different than one million appeals to "wikipedia said so" we see posted on the forum anyway?

When Rowbotham's study is questioned and it is asserted that the sun would never set on a flat earth the debator can just simply say "But how did the Ancient Greeks know that perspective lines receded infinitely into the distance without touching when they came up with their perspective theory?"

That puts the onus back onto the person asking the question (that Ancient Greek question is something I have never seen a good answer to).

We just need to put a little effort into this and we will have some good and interesting conversations. Some people will troll (as they always will), but some people will actually engage and think of something to move the conversation forward.

The current "ask the experts" theme is a bad one. There aren't enough participating FE'ers. These debates can't be held up waiting on me to join in. Right?

5787

Flat Earth Community / Re: So everyone, I mean everyone – family and friends think I'm going insane

« on: May 25, 2018, 06:08:08 AM »

Even of he had a compass or a gyroscopic compass, if you are at what you think to be the South Pole on a Round Earth, you know that have to go North to go back to the coast.

We see from the diagrams of these explorers that they didn't continue in a straight line after reaching the pole. They turned in an angle. Show me an expedition where they continued in a straight line.

If your goal is to cross Austrailia, why would you change your angle mid journey?

5788

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Would you consider arguing in favor of a Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?

« on: May 25, 2018, 03:57:49 AM »

I would be happy to debate from the other side. I can pose questions where the theory is weak and we can think up a good explanation for it, which we can post in the wiki to build up and better our arguments. And isn't that a good thing?

If you are serious about this and promise not to troll, and to think up genuine responses, then sure, I would engage with you in that. Differences aside, I am interested in what kind of arguments or rational you would make for some of these topics.

Don't we all want to see some good arguments for this topic?

Start a new thread on that, Max, and we can start. I will post where things are the weakest. This thread was mainly to gauge participation interest.

5789

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Debate Club: Technical Forums Execution

« on: May 25, 2018, 02:42:10 AM »

Lets be happy about what we have discussed and strategized. We got in many good ideas.

I understand that there is jadedness after sitting here for years, and on the other site, looking at the state of the discussions; but that jadedness is tainted because the original formula was not a winning one.

I think we have reached a pretty good and fair compromise on this. We will wait for Pete to respond on his particular concerns with forum merging and old threads.

5790

Flat Earth Community / Re: So everyone, I mean everyone – family and friends think I'm going insane

« on: May 25, 2018, 01:25:27 AM »

Doesn't matter - what matters is that YOU CAN GO TO ANTARCTICA AND GO OVER ANY ROUTE YOU WANT, you just have to be able to pay, and you better be in good shape and know your way around survival equipment.

Really? The video we saw seemed to imply that Antarctica is very highly regulated and there was a ton of paperwork and government approvals, to the point where they approve where you go and the path you travel through.

5791

Flat Earth Community / Re: So everyone, I mean everyone – family and friends think I'm going insane

« on: May 24, 2018, 11:24:10 PM »

The compass doesn't work in Antarctica, not even a dip compass. The magnetic field lines are vertical there. On a Round Earth, when you are at the "South Pole" you then need to go North to get back to the coast.

Yeah, so?

In fact, most of these images show that after staying at McMurdo South Pole station for a while they made a different angle back to the coast. They did not travel in a straight line, and the maps show that.

Yeah, so?


Without a compass, how did he travel North after reaching the South Pole?

Either: They used markers built by previous explorers who were able to get back to the coast, landmarks, or they used the sun as a guide back Northwards to the coast.

Again, so what?

So it's not a definite proof that, on a Monopole model Flat Earth, that they ventured out into the infinite plane.

5792

Flat Earth Community / Re: So everyone, I mean everyone – family and friends think I'm going insane

« on: May 24, 2018, 10:30:43 PM »

The compass doesn't work in Antarctica, not even a dip compass. The magnetic field lines are vertical there. On a Round Earth, when you are at the "South Pole" you then need to go North to get back to the coast. In fact, most of these images show that after staying at McMurdo South Pole station for a while they made a different angle back to the coast. They did not travel in a straight line, and the maps show that.

Without a compass, how did he travel North after reaching the South Pole?

Either: They used markers built by previous explorers who were able to get back to the coast, landmarks, or they used the sun as a guide back Northwards to the coast.

5793

Suggestions & Concerns / Debate Club: Non-Technical Forums Execution

« on: May 24, 2018, 10:05:32 PM »

This thread will discuss the non-technical Flat Earth forums.

Flat Earth Information Repository
Zetetic Council Board
Earth Not a Globe Workshop

Thork's last proposal that was discussed:

1. Rename Flat Earth Information Repository to Flat Earth Media - A place for discussing Flat Earth articles, YouTube videos, books, interviews and social media
2. Rename Zetetic Council Board to Flat Earth Community - A place for the society to collaborate on new projects, improvements and content for Flat Earth Theory
3. Merge Earth Not a Globe Book forum with Flat Earth Community

My comments:

A slight rephrase of the community forum description to "A place for the society to collaborate on new projects, improvements and content for the Flat Earth Theory and Movement"

Rather than merging the ENAG Book Forum with the Flat Earth Community, how about making it a sub forum to Flat Earth Community that doesn't appear on the front page? Most of the threads are notes that I will need to refer back to when continuing this project, and more threads of that nature, or continuations of them, may be added. They are not old unimportant things that can be thrown away or mixed in with other threads.

If a project can't be accomplished in one or two threads, large projects we are interested in doing should become sub forums to the Flat Earth Community that doesn't show up on the front page.

5794

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Debate Club: Technical Forums Execution

« on: May 24, 2018, 07:06:36 PM »

Yes, there was miscommunication. I do only have the best intentions. I was mostly talking in general to you, Thork, and the audience, on the matter of a large and concerted attempt to eliminate or disenfranchise FE discussion. I don't think you want to do that, and I think Thork is more on board now. I do enjoy Thork's last proposal. He has my support on his steps of renaming and merging. Rename of FEG to Flat Earth Investigations and the specific actions and texts he envisions sounds great.

We can always adjust later, as Thork says.

This thread was mainly for the Technical Forums. Unless there are some major issues, I think that we may be at a point to where we can start talking about the community/lower forums. I will start another thread on the community forums. The multi-use of the community forums, for also being a place where people come ask us questions like "Are FE'ers religious?" sounds like a good idea.

5795

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Debate Club: Technical Forums Execution

« on: May 24, 2018, 05:04:49 PM »

Lets just add the headers to the top level forums first, so as not to cause a gridlock

Which headers are you referring to?

I am referring to the headers that execute the Debate Club idea:

From the original thread:

When users visit the forum, I propose that they arrive under the impression that they are participating in a debate club of sorts, with instructions that may choose to debate in favor of FE, or in favor of RE. The discussions will contribute to the overall quality of the movement. Perhaps a header message can be implemented that clearly describes this.

And I gave an example as such:

Welcome to the Debate Club

The top level Flat Earth Discussion Forums are a Debate Club. As in any debate club, the goal is to exercise your ability in debate to poke holes in arguments and expose weaknesses, even if you do not believe in that position yourself. Keep in mind that this is a friendly debate. Post in the Flat Earth Debate Club and join the fun!

Turning the current top level Flat Earth discussions into a Debate Club was the original idea. And there was nary a dissenting opinion. The only argument in there was from a person who started with "I agree," and continued with "but you guys will really need to step it up..." All of the long time posters who appeared gave positive reviews. So lets just do that. Start the Debate Club.

If we jumped the gun and turned it all into a major conspiracy forum, or disenfranchised Flat Earth debate, or turned it into a place where any Flat Earth discussion was just a place where we handed out links and information, or very significantly refocused the discussion, that is a serious modification to the basic concept, and a serious change to the the forums. We should have wider buy-in for that. I do like a lot of the ideas, and will be willing to agree with with Thork and you on many subjects, but we can't just tack on such serious changes to the end of a project after we were able to get buy-in on something.

I do like Thork's last idea for renaming and general purposing of the forums:

4) Merge ENaG Workshop and Zetetic Council and rename to Flat Earth Community A place for the society to collaborate on new projects, improvements and content for Flat Earth Theory.
2) Rename the Information Repository to Flat Earth Media For discussing Flat Earth articles, youtube videos, books, interviews and social media.
3) Merge FE debate and FE Q&A and rename Flat Earth Theory A place to examine the Flat Earth Theory.

Now pending the final name and description (we could change later)
1) Rename FE General to Flat Earth Investigations Investigate authoritative claims on any topic. Question our institutions and challenge conventional wisdom.

With the exception that the Earth Not a Globe Book forum should be a sub forum or separate forum, this is a great compromise. I like the words used. We aren't changing the main formula too much, just generalizing some concepts.

With the generalized name changes Thork has suggested, we have full agreement with me on the matter.

5796

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Debate Club: Technical Forums Execution

« on: May 24, 2018, 02:53:06 PM »

Thanks for the comments, Bobby.

Thork, Pete, something important: Are you suggesting to take away the user's ability to debate against FET?

No, I want to change our focus. It's not a binary decision between allowing it and banning it. Currently, we encourage it too much, and I felt that your proposal carried the same problem. Hence my insistence on pushing the appropriate board down to the third position.

But that is not what everyone agreed upon. The concept of the parent post was that it was better if the current top level Flat Earth debate and discussion forums were debate clubs.

Then, after everyone agreed on that, and we were considering the board changes, there were efforts to add on to that movement to either disallow Flat Earth debate altogether or disenfranchise it.

That seems out of scope to the agreement. Thork has different ideas than you on what debate should look like. I have different ideas. I am sure that others have different ideas as well. Even when legislation is passed in the United States Congress, changes after the fact are pushed back for Congress for debate and discussion when someone tries adding significant changes at the end.

Why not just add the headers to the top level forums first, so as not to cause a gridlock, and then we can all talk about significant scope changes and resolve the best way for disenfranchisement of Flat Earth Debate and the new focus for the entire forum, if that is indeed the best path forward? As it is, I feel that some are trying to squeek in significant add ons.

5797

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Debate Club: Technical Forums Execution

« on: May 24, 2018, 02:03:24 AM »

1) And what do you hope to achieve?

2) Supposing your poll comes back with plenty of people willing to argue in favour of FET, do you think they will on a regular basis after the novelty wears off,

3) and do you think they'll be any good at it at? Enough to hold the interest of the REr.

4) Also, does transparently turning The World Famous Flat Earth Society into a debate club, not destroy its value? A bunch of people arguing for the sake of arguing without offering anything unique?

I hope to achieve a growing, self sustaining, movement.

Right now of the most ardent Round Earth proponents on the forum is Max. I've abused Max pretty thoroughly on the forums lately to the point where he is now just spamming random stuff from MetaBunk, and even he thinks that arguing in favor of Flat Earth is good fun:

I've argued in favour of a flat earth in real life, and it's pretty good fun.

...

So though I'm tempted to say "yes", given that I would expect good questions to be asked here, I'm gonna have to go with "no".

Voted "no" out of spite, perhaps.

His words, however, admits the notion that many of these guys are easily flipped to argue with us. He is a MetaBunk anti-FE debunker on the MetaBunk website and, still, he admits to arguing in favor of an FE. They just need the right culture. The current culture is "debate the experts who know that the earth is flat," which causes instant aggression similar to a UFO forum with the message of "debate the experts who know that aliens have visited earth" would. That is the only problem. "Have good fun here considering on the possibility of aliens" would be a great alternative to that. It is more interesting to see what people have to say, and welcomes one to join in. It's a common platform for discussion, not a preaching one.

If some people are having fun with it, why not let them have a lot of fun arguing and coming up with creative arguments, which we can put to good use in our Wiki? Our current Wiki is nearly all a result of the anti-FE forum debates. We need iron to sharpen iron.

Bobby is so into the topic that he sometimes even argues against himself, posting good content points we can use in the future in Wikis and such.

9 out of 10 registered a month ago and already he's posting pro FE threads which supports Dr. Rowbotham's ideas.

CuriousSquirrel seems to bounce back and fourth between posting pro or anti FE.

All of the above posters are RE'ers, but they are posting in favor of FE for the fun of it. Some of those people will be so encouraged by their results that they will want to get more into it, some eventually becoming real FE'ers.

I will let you in on something. This is such an interesting topic that people want the earth to be flat. We just need to allow them a path for growth. This is how we generate a movement.

The concept is open to debators of all skill levels. Some will be poor debaters and automatically jump to "it's fake." Others will try to explain the phenomenon or muddy the waters. There already is a question if anyone "really" believes in Flat Earth, and that notion will continue whether we turn our forums into debate clubs or not. It does not degrade our value at all.

I have provided a path to real growth of the movement, and this is a far grander plan than an attempt to eliminate all debate against FE. It turns a pain in our side into a tool for growth. You should join me in this effort.

5798

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Six simple ways to measure whether the horizon is at eye level or not

« on: May 24, 2018, 12:49:50 AM »

At altitudes near sea level where the earth's horizon is sharp, it may be at eye level per Earth Not a Globe's explanation of finite perspective lines. This has not been disproven.

We know that from an international flight the horizon is just a foggy mess.

At various other altitudes and atmospheric conditions, the situation is less clear; but you may keep trying. I can see in that video that it is not the clearest day.

These were taken at the same location (380' above sea level), viewing the Middle Islands of Islas de Coronado, about 20 miles away:



Yesterday evening was much clearer, but still hazy enough to maybe not qualify as a "sharp" horizon.
Today, the marine layer haze is thicker and definitely not a good horizon viewing day (currently).

Comparing the two images: in the sharper of the two you can more clearly make out a horizon line slightly higher than in the later, hazier one.

I can tell in the clearer one that the sea plane rises more behind the islands. I can't tell that in the hazier one, where the plane of the sea appears to end near the islands themselves.

The challenge/question is how clear is clear enough? At what point can we confidently say there will be no more rise in the horizon line with additional clarity? I know where that is in globe earth. But if I don't want to bias this with a globe earth premise, what is the flat earth criteria for knowing you are looking at a 'true" horizon?

For reference, the larger island on the left has summits near 400'. (Wikipedia is wrong, listing both islands as rising to only 100', which is true for the small one on the right but obviously not true for the one on the left.) Since my height was 380' (+/- 5') the summit of the large island is right about "eye level" in the picture. Will I only be seeing the "true horizon" if it matches with that summit? If so, then I don't think I've ever seen a "true" horizon.

Doesn't this lend credence to the idea that the state of the atmosphere in the distance can move the horizon down?

5799

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map

« on: May 24, 2018, 12:05:53 AM »

Now let's see if I can put into words what I realised:

1. On the equinoxes, the area of sunlight forms a perfect straight line across the (flat) Earth's surface
2. This can be tested and measured, and is proven to be true

Where is a listing of observations from across the world for that?

3. This map is a verified projection of the globe (equal to the Gleason AE Map)
4. Flat Earthers like to tell us it's not really an accurate map, it's just the best we've got, for now. But...

Are they then expecting us to believe that it's just a coincidence that the places that are in daylight happen to form a perfectly straight line across the surface of the Earth?

Every single place on Earth, verified and measured?

I'm not quite able to put it into the words yet - but do you see what I'm saying?

You are posting an assumption that every point on earth was measured rather than calculated or assumed.

5800

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Spotlight Sun

« on: May 24, 2018, 12:03:40 AM »

The images do not assume RET - they are based on thousands of years of observations. The map itself may not be an accurate FET map, but the lit and unlit patterns are correct.

Remember the giant conversation we had about the equinox, and finally we found that website with all the solar panels from all over the world?

That is the pattern of sunlight on earth. Making it fit a flat earth theory is YOUR problem, not mine.

I recall from that thread that you weren't able to demonstrate that the daylight patterns were correct.

Did the person making that image personally verify the Round Earth model for daylight?