I hear a lot of people who believe in a flat earth say that is should be "easy" to convince them of a flat earth.Convincing people of things they already believe in tends to be easy.
Then no matter what evidence they are presented with they claim its fake and part of a conspiracy.This is simply untrue. You lot just insist on presenting near-identical evidence over and over. It's very unsurprising that attempting the same thing multiple times yields fairly consistent results.
The stars rotating the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere: fake.Have you actually found a person here who claims that the rotation of the stars is, uh, "fake"? That doesn't even convey a coherent thought.
Ships shown disappearing hull up over the horizon: fake.Actually, ships disappearing over the horizon and one's ability to recover them with a telescope is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for a Flat Earth. Again, I doubt that anyone here would call it "fake"
Airline flights taking just as long to travel similar longitudes in the northern hemisphere as the southern hemisphere: fake.Again, that's not even a coherent thought. You lot get confused because you insist on interpreting the Flat Earth map as if it were a Cartesian plane. Can't help you with that one.
Snipers taking into account the Coriolis effect of the earth for long range shots: fake.Y'know, the longer you list these, the longer I think that you haven't spoken to many people here.
Convincing people of things they already believe in tends to be easy.
This is simply untrue. You lot just insist on presenting near-identical evidence over and over. It's very unsurprising that attempting the same thing multiple times yields fairly consistent results.
Have you actually found a person here who claims that the rotation of the stars is, uh, "fake"? That doesn't even convey a coherent thought.
Actually, ships disappearing over the horizon and one's ability to recover them with a telescope is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for a Flat Earth. Again, I doubt that anyone here would call it "fake"
Again, that's not even a coherent thought. You lot get confused because you insist on interpreting the Flat Earth map as if it were a Cartesian plane. Can't help you with that one.
Y'know, the longer you list these, the longer I think that you haven't spoken to many people here.
Take for example these posts, not a single person has provided any counter arguments to eitherThe culture of this community (in which you are a guest) is fairly harsh. If you haven't bothered to research the basics of FET, we're not going to rush through your aid and tutor you through it. The two threads you've presented are extremely old and tired tropes, and you decided to talk about them at great length. Honestly, I'd be surprised if anyone had the patience to entertain you there.
You missed the key word in that sentence. What I said was "The stars rotating the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere: fake."I didn't miss it, I just shortened my response for brevity. I've quoted the sentence I'm responding to, so I would hope this is fairly clear.
If you talk to many flat earthers about stars rotating clockwise in the southern hemisphere (as opposed to counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere) the two most common responses are either 1) those videos are fake or 2) There's a conspiracy among compass manufacturers and people in the southern hemisphere are actually facing north when they see the rotation of the stars rather than south. And this isn't just some random crackpots saying this, we're talking people like Eric Dubay making these kind of claims.Eric Dubay is quite disrespected around here, and I believe the feeling is mutual. As far as we're concerned, he's much worse than a random crackpot. If you have any questions about Dubay's crackpottery, I suggest you take it up with him, not us.
And that's how I know you flat earthers have never been at sea.That's nice, dear. Unfortunately, your fantasies about who has and hasn't been at sea do very little to affect reality.
I've been in the Navy for 9 years with telescopes far more powerful than anyone has in the civilian sector and I can assure you that once a ship goes over the horizon there is no magnification that can bring it back. I have literally observed thousands of ships come over the horizon or go over the horizon. Ships always disappear hull up and the first thing that appears when a ship comes over the horizon is the mast. We actually can calculate the distance to a ship based on how much of the ship is over the horizon and it matches up perfectly with radar, sonar and AIS. Hell, you can even prove the earth is Round just by changing the location of your radar on a ship. If you place the radar near the waterline then your effective range of the radar is much shorter than if you place it at the top of the ship. That's why every ship ever build always places their radars as high as possible.I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills.
If that is one of your strongest pieces of evidence for a flat earth then I feel very sorry for you indeed. If you look closely at every video of flat earthers performing this "experiment" you will notice that none of the ships are actually over the horizon nor do they ever appear to be over the horizon at any point during the zooming.Can't say I've ever seen a video of this being performed. I prefer doing my own experiments.
And you act like what you're saying is a coherent thought.For the first time in forever, you managed to make an accurate observation.
Its like people claiming that "perspective" accounts for the massive difference between actual angles to polaris and the angles that the flat earth model predicts. In theory it sounds great but when you actually crunch the numbers its a load of rubbish.I agree with you. Once again, you seem to be quoting random crackpots (or, worse, Dubay and his sycophants). I can't help you when it comes to arguing against these people, because I, too, think they're wrong.
I've seen some posts on the issue. None that actually explain why snipers need to account for additional drift in their shot depending on what cardinal direction they face. In fact, the only answer I've heard is "wind." Yes, I'm sure that professional snipers forgot to account for wind and they are confusing that with the rotation of the earth (end sarcasm.)Well, if you're not willing to read our resources, there's not much we can do for you.
That's literally all you people do here. Instead of answering the question with some actual proof you just attack the person and call them stupid. That's not debating and it shows how flimsy your arguments are. If you want to disprove something then attack my arguments, don't attack me.I'd love to attack your arguments, but you have yet to make any. Your debating strategy is to loudly announce that you haven't studied FET but that you think it's wrong. My best response to that is "that's nice, dear". We simply have better things to do.
You flat earthers have really proven nothing. Your models cannot predict any stellar phenomena or explain literally anything about our physical world which proves how horrible of a model you have. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and let you know where your arguments are weak and instead of bolstering your arguments with actual facts, logic and reasoning you just resort to insults. Its really quite hilarious, pathetic and ironic in a way."Don't attack the person, attack the argument. ALSO YOU'RE STUPID AND WEAK HAHA - Silent Service, 2017.
Also, I love how you COMPLETELY avoided the question. How big is the conspiracy? Really, please tell me. Because I'm doing the math and it looks like hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of people have to be involved in this conspiracy to fake everything that you claim is fake.For this question to be answerable, you must first define what you mean by "the conspiracy". For this definition to be agreeable, we must first agree on which of your premises are true, and which are not. In order to establish this, I asked you some questions on the premises which are most glaringly false. I'm being patient with you, but you're making it very difficult.
The culture of this community (in which you are a guest) is fairly harsh. If you haven't bothered to research the basics of FET, we're not going to rush through your aid and tutor you through it. The two threads you've presented are extremely old and tired tropes, and you decided to talk about them at great length. Honestly, I'd be surprised if anyone had the patience to entertain you there.
I didn't miss it, I just shortened my response for brevity. I've quoted the sentence I'm responding to, so I would hope this is fairly clear.
Eric Dubay is quite disrespected around here, and I believe the feeling is mutual. As far as we're concerned, he's much worse than a random crackpot. If you have any questions about Dubay's crackpottery, I suggest you take it up with him, not us.
That's nice, dear. Unfortunately, your fantasies about who has and hasn't been at sea do very little to affect reality.
I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills.
Can't say I've ever seen a video of this being performed. I prefer doing my own experiments.
For the first time in forever, you managed to make an accurate observation.
I agree with you. Once again, you seem to be quoting random crackpots (or, worse, Dubay and his sycophants). I can't help you when it comes to arguing against these people, because I, too, think they're wrong.
Well, if you're not willing to read our resources, there's not much we can do for you.
I'd love to attack your arguments, but you have yet to make any. Your debating strategy is to loudly announce that you haven't studied FET but that you think it's wrong. My best response to that is "that's nice, dear". We simply have better things to do.
"Don't attack the person, attack the argument. ALSO YOU'RE STUPID AND WEAK HAHA - Silent Service, 2017.
For this question to be answerable, you must first define what you mean by "the conspiracy". For this definition to be agreeable, we must first agree on which of your premises are true, and which are not. In order to establish this, I asked you some questions on the premises which are most glaringly false. I'm being patient with you, but you're making it very difficult.
If you'd like me to answer your question while assuming your false premises, then logically speaking any number will be correct. If P is false,then P−>Q is true for any Q.
Then link me to where your community disproves my claims. Should take you less time that it took you to make this response.Sorry, I will not be doing that. I'm also much better at managing my own time than you are, so keep your assessments of what will and won't take me time to yourself.
Obviously no one believe the rotation of the stars is fake but there are plenty of people who believe the stars rotating in the opposite direction is fake because it would be impossible for stars to rotate in the opposite direction if the earth was flat.Thinking about those "plenty of people", have you met any of them here? What was their relation to the Flat Earth Society?
However, a lot of the logic I've seen from people on this site lines up perfectly with what Dubay says so you can understand my confusion. Its hard to separate one conspiracy theorist from another.I respectfully disagree, but given the depth of your research thus far, I am not surprised.
My point was that if you've been to see then you actually would have some concrete evidence that the earth was round.As a Round Earther, I'm sure you'd think that. It does not affect what actually happens, however.
I hope you guys know that your community has been become a running gag in the military, especially the Navy.;_; mummy, the mean armed forces told me i was stupid
Really, you're resorting to internet memes now? Not only is that extremely disrespectful to the people who have served in the military but it also shows how little of an argument you have. I gave you some pretty concrete information and your response is a meme. Hilarious.I have no counter-argument to your long paragraph about how you were totally in the Navy (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6160.msg115810). Perhaps you were, perhaps you weren't. Frankly, it's of little significance either way. But, of course, you did think it is of significance, and you took your time to brag about it. Does it really surprise you that you got mocked for it?
I'd love to see what experiments you've done. Please provide me with some links to your esteemed journal articles.Give me a few more years, I've only started my PhD a few months ago ;)
So you basically admit that your responses are just complete rubbish that are never actually designed to debate the point.No.
Link me to the correct explanations then. I am honestly trying to understand your point of view but its extremely hard when you all believe different things.Start with the FAQ: https://faq.tfes.org/
Links instead snide comments would be great. Thanks.Perhaps if, instead of rushing head first into the forum, you took your time to look around our homepage (https://www.tfes.org/) and the resources linked therein, you wouldn't be getting the snide treatment. Then again, that's unlikely.
Did I ever say that you are stupid and weak? No, I didn't.Ah, excellent. So, since I never directly called you anything mean, I understand you will be withdrawing your complaint now?
Another diversion, how quaint.Yeah, yeah, a "diversion". I'm very impressed by your ability to obstruct your own question. No, seriously, we never get your kind around here.
See, if the positions were reversed by this point in the conversation I would have provided you with multiple links and arguments for every sentence of your original post explaining how you were wrong.Okay, so do that. Answer my original questions and the follow-ups.
Furthermore, if any of your points were unclear I would have asked for amplification on your points to better explain yourself. Instead, all your respond with is just misdirection and insults. It speaks volumes on how concrete your evidence actually is.Hold on, I thought you were against conflating personalities/persons and arguments? You keep changing your mind on that one, it's so hard to keep up with which position suits you at which time ???
Sorry, I will not be doing that. I'm also much better at managing my own time than you are, so keep your assessments of what will and won't take me time to yourself.
But, once you're done amending your question, rendering it coherent and answerable, I'll do my best to help you.
Thinking about those "plenty of people", have you met any of them here? What was their relation to the Flat Earth Society?
I respectfully disagree, but given the depth of your research thus far, I am not surprised.
As a Round Earther, I'm sure you'd think that. It does not affect what actually happens, however.
;_; mummy, the mean armed forces told me i was stupid
I have no counter-argument to your long paragraph about how you were totally in the Navy (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6160.msg115810). Perhaps you were, perhaps you weren't. Frankly, it's of little significance either way. But, of course, you did think it is of significance, and you took your time to brag about it. Does it really surprise you that you got mocked for it?
Give me a few more years, I've only started my PhD a few months ago ;)
Start with the FAQ: https://faq.tfes.org/
The Wiki is a decent starting point after that: https://wiki.tfes.org/
Ah, excellent. So, since I never directly called you anything mean, I understand you will be withdrawing your complaint now?
Yeah, yeah, a "diversion". I'm very impressed by your ability to obstruct your own question. No, seriously, we never get your kind around here.
Look, your question is unanswerable until you've amended it. Get on with it or stop wasting my time.
Okay, so do that. Answer my original questions and the follow-ups.
Hold on, I thought you were against conflating personalities/persons and arguments? You keep changing your mind on that one, it's so hard to keep up with which position suits you at which time ???
All of my questions are coherent and answerable, hence why we are having this conversation.Okay. Well, since your core question relies on a number of false premises, I am unable to answer it meaningfully. Make of that what you will.
How do you think I found this place?Our main acquisition channels are search engines and social media services, so I'd my guess would be one of those.
So far the only ones I've heard is "the videos are fake" and "people are facing the wrong direction."Quotes, please. Who on this forum said that?
You can't blame me that you don't have much material out there. I did as much research as I could and I still have a lot of questions.I can blame you for not bothering to read the basics, and I will do so.
You don't think going to sea and seeing ships going over the horizon would change your perspective? I find that rather odd to say the least.That's because you operate under the incorrect assumption that I haven't done it before. Much like with the core question of this thread, as soon as you accept a false premise, all logic goes out the window.
You'd think if the earth was flat the Navy would be your greatest supporters. You'd think if the round earth model didn't work that the people who travel thousands of miles at sea would be the first people to point it out. If the earth was flat then traveling along great circle routes would actually waste fuel rather than save it. I'd love it if I could see ships from hundreds of miles away or if my radar wasn't limited by the curvature of the earth. I'd love it if I didn't have to put the bridge or my lookouts at the highest points in the ship (since the higher you go the worse the swaying motion gets in a storm.) But sadly the earth is curved and I do have to do all of these things.Your image of the FE model is extremely inaccurate. It's almost difficult to figure out what you mean, because you focus so hard on ripping into a hypothetical FE model nobody here supports.
I'd never mock someone for their service to their country. That's disgusting. You really should be ashamed of yourself.lol, this brand of "patriotism" will never cease to amuse me. But, for the sake of avoidance of doubt: I never mocked you for your service to your country. I mocked your insistence on showing off. This was clearly indicated in the original statement: "you took your time to brag about it"
Then I'm sure you've already published a master's thesis.You would be wrong. Once again, you operate on a false assumption. I'm not American, and my Master's degree is not an MSc nor an MA. You also seem to be under the impression that I'd reveal my identity to a random person on the Internet.
I've already read all this stuff. It didn't answer my questions.Most of the glaring holes in your understanding of FET are covered there. Once you've read through these, you can start amending your questions.
Do you also suffer from short term memory loss? Your response "doesn't even convey a coherent thought." Unfortunately, "your fantasies...do very little to affect reality." I hope that one day I can say "for the first time in forever, you managed to make an accurate observation." I've been craving a debate and "I'd love to attack your arguments, but you have yet to make any."All of these things relate to the things you said, not to your person. The key phrases there are "that" [the sentence quoted above], "your fantasies", "your arguments" [or lack thereof].
Yes, its a diversion. Instead of answering the question you just resort to character attacks and insults. All you do is ad hominem arguments.Your question cannot be meaningfully answered, and your character has yet to be attacked.
Its a pretty simple question, I have no idea why it is unanswerable.That would be due to your reliance on false premises and your unwillingness to review or explain them.
Who is lying about the earth being flat? Who knows that it is flat and yet continues to provide false evidence that it is round?Finally, a question that's both coherent and which doesn't rely on a laundry list of assumptions. I can answer that one for you. Strictly speaking: probably nobody.
I already did......are you sure you don't have short term memory loss?Yes, I am sure your personal attack doesn't hold much water. For example: I asked, multiple times, whether the people who you claim dismiss the apparent motions of stars as "fake" were from the Flat Earth Society. The closest you've come to answering this question is "How do you think I found this place?".
How am attacking you or your personality?For one, you keep suggesting that I suffer from at least two mental deficiencies: a short-term memory loss and poor reading comprehension. You also said I should be ashamed of myself.
I am merely pointing out that when a person does not have any concrete evidence to support their claims it is very common for them to resort to misdirection or insults.I agree, your "memory loss" schtick is very telling.
If you had concrete evidence then you would have already presented it to me and this discussion would have been over several posts ago.An interesting assumption, but there are many other reasons for which I might not want to waste my time on educating you.
All of my questions are coherent and answerable, hence why we are having this conversation.Okay. Well, since your core question relies on a number of false premises, I am unable to answer it meaningfully. Make of that what you will.How do you think I found this place?Our main acquisition channels are search engines and social media services, so I'd my guess would be one of those.
However, this does not answer my question. If you did meet someone like that here, could you quote them? It would be interesting to see.So far the only ones I've heard is "the videos are fake" and "people are facing the wrong direction."Quotes, please. Who on this forum said that?You can't blame me that you don't have much material out there. I did as much research as I could and I still have a lot of questions.I can blame you for not bothering to read the basics, and I will do so.You don't think going to sea and seeing ships going over the horizon would change your perspective? I find that rather odd to say the least.That's because you operate under the incorrect assumption that I haven't done it before. Much like with the core question of this thread, as soon as you accept a false premise, all logic goes out the window.You'd think if the earth was flat the Navy would be your greatest supporters. You'd think if the round earth model didn't work that the people who travel thousands of miles at sea would be the first people to point it out. If the earth was flat then traveling along great circle routes would actually waste fuel rather than save it. I'd love it if I could see ships from hundreds of miles away or if my radar wasn't limited by the curvature of the earth. I'd love it if I didn't have to put the bridge or my lookouts at the highest points in the ship (since the higher you go the worse the swaying motion gets in a storm.) But sadly the earth is curved and I do have to do all of these things.Your image of the FE model is extremely inaccurate. It's almost difficult to figure out what you mean, because you focus so hard on ripping into a hypothetical FE model nobody here supports.I'd never mock someone for their service to their country. That's disgusting. You really should be ashamed of yourself.lol, this brand of "patriotism" will never cease to amuse me. But, for the sake of avoidance of doubt: I never mocked you for your service to your country. I mocked your insistence on showing off. This was clearly indicated in the original statement: "you took your time to brag about it"Then I'm sure you've already published a master's thesis.You would be wrong. Once again, you operate on a false assumption. I'm not American, and my Master's degree is not an MSc nor an MA. You also seem to be under the impression that I'd reveal my identity to a random person on the Internet.I've already read all this stuff. It didn't answer my questions.Most of the glaring holes in your understanding of FET are covered there. Once you've read through these, you can start amending your questions.Do you also suffer from short term memory loss? Your response "doesn't even convey a coherent thought." Unfortunately, "your fantasies...do very little to affect reality." I hope that one day I can say "for the first time in forever, you managed to make an accurate observation." I've been craving a debate and "I'd love to attack your arguments, but you have yet to make any."All of these things relate to the things you said, not to your person. The key phrases there are "that" [the sentence quoted above], "your fantasies", "your arguments" [or lack thereof].Yes, its a diversion. Instead of answering the question you just resort to character attacks and insults. All you do is ad hominem arguments.Your question cannot be meaningfully answered, and your character has yet to be attacked.Its a pretty simple question, I have no idea why it is unanswerable.That would be due to your reliance on false premises and your unwillingness to review or explain them.Who is lying about the earth being flat? Who knows that it is flat and yet continues to provide false evidence that it is round?Finally, a question that's both coherent and which doesn't rely on a laundry list of assumptions. I can answer that one for you. Strictly speaking: probably nobody.I already did......are you sure you don't have short term memory loss?Yes, I am sure your personal attack doesn't hold much water. For example: I asked, multiple times, whether the people who you claim dismiss the apparent motions of stars as "fake" were from the Flat Earth Society. The closest you've come to answering this question is "How do you think I found this place?".How am attacking you or your personality?For one, you keep suggesting that I suffer from at least two mental deficiencies: a short-term memory loss and poor reading comprehension. You also said I should be ashamed of myself.I am merely pointing out that when a person does not have any concrete evidence to support their claims it is very common for them to resort to misdirection or insults.I agree, your "memory loss" schtick is very telling.If you had concrete evidence then you would have already presented it to me and this discussion would have been over several posts ago.An interesting assumption, but there are many other reasons for which I might not want to waste my time on educating you.
I feel like we're going in circles.Yes. Repeatedly accusing your conversation partner of having mental disabilities while virtue-signalling about just how opposed you are to personal attacks will usually lead to an unproductive conversation.
You keep telling me that all of my comments are under false pretenses and false assumptions but you will never say how they are false.Actually, I stated them outright in my first response. A bunch of the things you say "Flat Earthers" claim simply do not apply to this community. You can either acknowledge that and asks questions that someone here will be able to answer, or insist that you know our positions better than we do and... well, you can probably infer from our conversations how far that will get you.
You also insist that I don't answer your questions and yet also refuse to answer all of mine.Yes, so long as your questions remain unanswerable, I will be unable to do much more than point this out. If you want to know about Dubay and his friends, ask Dubay and his friends.
I'm sitting here telling you 2 + 2 = 4 and you're telling me I'm wrong and not only will you not say what the "correct" answer is but you also wont' provide me with any mathematical proof to show that 2 + 2 equals any other number but 4.No, you're not. What you're doing is saying something along the lines of "Flat Earthers claim that 2+2=5 and that is wrong. Why would you believe something so wrong? I'd like to see some proof of 2+2=5". I'm simply pointing out that this community doesn't have anyone who claims that 2+2=5 and am asking who told you otherwise. You, in return, continue to complain that I'm doing little to defend the notion of 2+2=5. Well, buddy, that's because I have no interest in defending something that's blatantly wrong. You'll have to direct your question to the people who made the claims you're opposed to (but, frankly, I doubt they actually exist, as you're very defensive about providing quotes)
Snipers taking into account the Coriolis effect of the earth for long range shots: fake.Y'know, the longer you list these, the longer I think that you haven't spoken to many people here.
Also, the FAQ says planes are not allowed to fly over 40,000 ft. Pure bunk. A Cessna Citation X flys at 51,000 and the same for a Gulfstream g650. The concord flew at 60,000 and passengers reported seeing the curvature.
All of my questions are coherent and answerable, hence why we are having this conversation.Okay. Well, since your core question relies on a number of false premises, I am unable to answer it meaningfully. Make of that what you will.How do you think I found this place?Our main acquisition channels are search engines and social media services, so I'd my guess would be one of those.
However, this does not answer my question. If you did meet someone like that here, could you quote them? It would be interesting to see.So far the only ones I've heard is "the videos are fake" and "people are facing the wrong direction."Quotes, please. Who on this forum said that?You can't blame me that you don't have much material out there. I did as much research as I could and I still have a lot of questions.I can blame you for not bothering to read the basics, and I will do so.You don't think going to sea and seeing ships going over the horizon would change your perspective? I find that rather odd to say the least.That's because you operate under the incorrect assumption that I haven't done it before. Much like with the core question of this thread, as soon as you accept a false premise, all logic goes out the window.You'd think if the earth was flat the Navy would be your greatest supporters. You'd think if the round earth model didn't work that the people who travel thousands of miles at sea would be the first people to point it out. If the earth was flat then traveling along great circle routes would actually waste fuel rather than save it. I'd love it if I could see ships from hundreds of miles away or if my radar wasn't limited by the curvature of the earth. I'd love it if I didn't have to put the bridge or my lookouts at the highest points in the ship (since the higher you go the worse the swaying motion gets in a storm.) But sadly the earth is curved and I do have to do all of these things.Your image of the FE model is extremely inaccurate. It's almost difficult to figure out what you mean, because you focus so hard on ripping into a hypothetical FE model nobody here supports.I'd never mock someone for their service to their country. That's disgusting. You really should be ashamed of yourself.lol, this brand of "patriotism" will never cease to amuse me. But, for the sake of avoidance of doubt: I never mocked you for your service to your country. I mocked your insistence on showing off. This was clearly indicated in the original statement: "you took your time to brag about it"Then I'm sure you've already published a master's thesis.You would be wrong. Once again, you operate on a false assumption. I'm not American, and my Master's degree is not an MSc nor an MA. You also seem to be under the impression that I'd reveal my identity to a random person on the Internet.I've already read all this stuff. It didn't answer my questions.Most of the glaring holes in your understanding of FET are covered there. Once you've read through these, you can start amending your questions.Do you also suffer from short term memory loss? Your response "doesn't even convey a coherent thought." Unfortunately, "your fantasies...do very little to affect reality." I hope that one day I can say "for the first time in forever, you managed to make an accurate observation." I've been craving a debate and "I'd love to attack your arguments, but you have yet to make any."All of these things relate to the things you said, not to your person. The key phrases there are "that" [the sentence quoted above], "your fantasies", "your arguments" [or lack thereof].Yes, its a diversion. Instead of answering the question you just resort to character attacks and insults. All you do is ad hominem arguments.Your question cannot be meaningfully answered, and your character has yet to be attacked.Its a pretty simple question, I have no idea why it is unanswerable.That would be due to your reliance on false premises and your unwillingness to review or explain them.Who is lying about the earth being flat? Who knows that it is flat and yet continues to provide false evidence that it is round?Finally, a question that's both coherent and which doesn't rely on a laundry list of assumptions. I can answer that one for you. Strictly speaking: probably nobody.I already did......are you sure you don't have short term memory loss?Yes, I am sure your personal attack doesn't hold much water. For example: I asked, multiple times, whether the people who you claim dismiss the apparent motions of stars as "fake" were from the Flat Earth Society. The closest you've come to answering this question is "How do you think I found this place?".How am attacking you or your personality?For one, you keep suggesting that I suffer from at least two mental deficiencies: a short-term memory loss and poor reading comprehension. You also said I should be ashamed of myself.I am merely pointing out that when a person does not have any concrete evidence to support their claims it is very common for them to resort to misdirection or insults.I agree, your "memory loss" schtick is very telling.If you had concrete evidence then you would have already presented it to me and this discussion would have been over several posts ago.An interesting assumption, but there are many other reasons for which I might not want to waste my time on educating you.
I feel like we're going in circles. You keep telling me that all of my comments are under false pretenses and false assumptions but you will never say how they are false. You also insist that I don't answer your questions and yet also refuse to answer all of mine. The only links and evidence you have provided me do nothing to disprove my arguments. I can't have a logical debate with you if you don't provide examples of how or why I am wrong. So either prove to me how I'm wrong or this is essentially a waste of our time. I'm sitting here telling you 2 + 2 = 4 and you're telling me I'm wrong and not only will you not say what the "correct" answer is but you also wont' provide me with any mathematical proof to show that 2 + 2 equals any other number but 4.
Also, the FAQ says planes are not allowed to fly over 40,000 ft. Pure bunk. A Cessna Citation X flys at 51,000 and the same for a Gulfstream g650. The concord flew at 60,000 and passengers reported seeing the curvature.
The FAQ actually says:
" It is widely stated you would need to be at a height of at least 40,000 ft to get even a hint of curvature if earth were round. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly this high."
Neither the Cessna, nor the Gulfstream you cited are commercial aircraft. Your anecdote about the Concorde is fantastic, however there is no empirical evidence supporting this claim (unless you have some you would like to share).
There are thousands of witnesses to the curvature of the earth on the concord and modern small jets.
There are thousands of witnesses to the curvature of the earth on the concord and modern small jets.
Citation needed...
Seeing as how you are the one making unfounded claims and now deflecting, it would seem you are actually the troll.There are thousands of witnesses to the curvature of the earth on the concord and modern small jets.
Citation needed...
Are you really a moderator? I ask because you seem like more of a troll?
There are thousands of witnesses to the curvature of the earth on the concord and modern small jets.
Citation needed...
Are you really a moderator? I ask because you seem like more of a troll?
Seeing as how you are the one making unfounded claims and now deflecting, it would seem you are actually the troll.There are thousands of witnesses to the curvature of the earth on the concord and modern small jets.
Citation needed...
Are you really a moderator? I ask because you seem like more of a troll?
If you have no evidence to support your claims then just say so and move on. If you aren't going to stay on topic then refrain from posting. If you want to actually discuss the topic, then maybe support your claims.
First off, I presented facts about airliners and private jets that you conveniently ignored.Given that private jets are irrelevant to your claim about the FAQ, there wasn't anything to discuss beyond your dishonest attempt to claim the FAQ stated something that it clearly does not.
This is on topic because the size of the crowd keeping the secret would be huge and getting bigger every day. Everyone that ever flew from Sydney to South Africa would know if they own a watch or looked out the window.Cool, where is the evidence? Also, the fuselage is curved and the windows have some curvature. Keep that in mind when you decide to start providing evidence for your claims (assuming you actually attempt to).
Second, it is a widely accepted fact that people flying Concord saw the curvature.Fantastic. Then you should have no problems finding evidence to support this claim.
A simple google search would let you know that.You want me to do your homework for you? Not how it works, friend. You made the claim, it is on you to support it.
Are we to assume every passenger of Concorde is part of the coverup?You can assume whatever you would like, but I am not sure how this strawman is relevant to the discussion.
https://www.google.com/search?q=view+from+concorde+window&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBn9Cbg_rTAhUC1mMKHbhjBCkQ_AUIBigB&biw=1920&bih=950I suggest you see the point above regarding the fuselage and windows. Do you know what conditions are required to be able to perceive curvature assuming the accepted RE model? It sure seems that you do not. But hey, Googling some pictures is a lot easier than doing actual research. I know how lazy you RE logicians tend to be, so I understand why you put in such a minimal effort.
Since you are a mod here, will you answer the question of the OP or a modified version of it?Why would me being a mod be remotely relevant to answering someone's question?
Your best guess, not an exact number, how big is the number of people hiding the flat earth from all of us?No idea, as I am not the one claiming anyone is hiding the shape of the earth.
Furthermore, off topic to some extent but why are they hiding it, who stands to gain?Irrelevant.
First off, I presented facts about airliners and private jets that you conveniently ignored.Given that private jets are irrelevant to your claim about the FAQ, there wasn't anything to discuss beyond your dishonest attempt to claim the FAQ stated something that it clearly does not.This is on topic because the size of the crowd keeping the secret would be huge and getting bigger every day. Everyone that ever flew from Sydney to South Africa would know if they own a watch or looked out the window.Cool, where is the evidence? Also, the fuselage is curved and the windows have some curvature. Keep that in mind when you decide to start providing evidence for your claims (assuming you actually attempt to).
First off, I presented facts about airliners and private jets that you conveniently ignored.Given that private jets are irrelevant to your claim about the FAQ, there wasn't anything to discuss beyond your dishonest attempt to claim the FAQ stated something that it clearly does not.
I was being quite honest as the FAQ states. "It is widely stated you would need to be at a height of at least 40,000 ft to get even a hint of curvature if earth were round. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly this high. They are only allowed to fly just under this altitude. " That is either dishonest or ignorant? It can only be one of those. Which is it?
Then why does the horizon look flat at normal cruising altitudes?Why wouldn't it look flat? I am not the one claiming to perceive curvature on any sort of plane because it is extremely unlikely when you account for the required altitude and the required FOV. People see what they want to see, they take pictures with cameras that have fisheye lenses. This is what results in people claiming they can see the curvature, when in fact they cannot.
I was being quite honest as the FAQ states. "It is widely stated you would need to be at a height of at least 40,000 ft to get even a hint of curvature if earth were round. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly this high. They are only allowed to fly just under this altitude. " That is either dishonest or ignorant? It can only be one of those. Which is it?
Also, the FAQ says planes are not allowed to fly over 40,000 ft. Pure bunk. A Cessna Citation X flys at 51,000 and the same for a Gulfstream g650. The concord flew at 60,000 and passengers reported seeing the curvature.I pointed out that your claim regarding the FAQ was false. I also directly quoted the FAQ for you. So yes, you were either being ignorant or dishonest, but I am not sure why you are asking me which one you were.
Maybe I should tell something about my own history.
I have done military service in field artillery, as a positioner. A part of my duty was to determine exact direction to the north (and obviously all other directions as well) with an allowed error of less than 0.1 degrees. A compass is not good enough: especially not so, because as soldiers we usually carried weapons and other equipment, that have iron in them...
However, there are some ways to do this using certain devices:
- to measure the relative direction between two known points (easiest, but often not available on an enemy controlled territory)
- to measure the relative direction to the sun on a given second (daytime only)
- to measure the relative direction to a certain distant star on a given second (night time only; there were 7 different stars with precalculated paths, chosen from different parts of the sky, so that any night at least some of them should be visible if only clouds allowed)
- to find the direction of the rotational axis of the earth
During peace time the use of GPS helps a little, but as my country is not a member of NATO, it cannot be relied upon in case of a conflict.
Now the question: does my history and experience in various land surveying techniques – or even the mere knowledge of the existence of such techniques – make me a part of the conspiracy?
Well, every military organization, certainly.
this is what, for some stupid reason, prevents people from even investigating massive deceptions.
just like 9/11, focus on the facts and physics. don't let your ego interfere with your logic. use your own powers of observation and calculation instead of relying on folks you don't know.
1. pictures taken of things farther away than would be possible on a ball
2. sun rays coming through clouds at an angle and making angled shadows from parallel objects
3. triangulation calculations for the distance to the sun.
4. the water doesn't go to the equator and then fly off
5. the air magically sticks to a spinning ball so well that it appears as if we aren't moving! ;D
ballers they claim gravity can do all these things just before they say we don't understand gravity!
ball-deniers understand gravity!
this is simple, but unfortunately, so are sheeple, led by the government schools and media. WAKE UP :o
Then why does the horizon look flat at normal cruising altitudes?Why wouldn't it look flat? I am not the one claiming to perceive curvature on any sort of plane because it is extremely unlikely when you account for the required altitude and the required FOV. People see what they want to see, they take pictures with cameras that have fisheye lenses. This is what results in people claiming they can see the curvature, when in fact they cannot.I was being quite honest as the FAQ states. "It is widely stated you would need to be at a height of at least 40,000 ft to get even a hint of curvature if earth were round. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly this high. They are only allowed to fly just under this altitude. " That is either dishonest or ignorant? It can only be one of those. Which is it?
Ignoring your improper use of the quote function (hint: you can preview your post before posting, this will help ensure it looks appropriate), I am not sure what you are claiming here. You're initial claim was:Also, the FAQ says planes are not allowed to fly over 40,000 ft. Pure bunk. A Cessna Citation X flys at 51,000 and the same for a Gulfstream g650. The concord flew at 60,000 and passengers reported seeing the curvature.I pointed out that your claim regarding the FAQ was false. I also directly quoted the FAQ for you. So yes, you were either being ignorant or dishonest, but I am not sure why you are asking me which one you were.
So here is what you're talking about - right? Clearly the light source is not a few million miles away!
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-42e57d7eed17d447c7a07e883ba110ca-c)
We can certainly see that those rays are emerging from the cloud with about a 90 degree angle from the leftmost ray to the rightmost...agreed? This cannot possibly be the case if the light source is millions of miles away...for sure.
But in FE theory, the sun is claimed to be about 3,000 miles away - so how, even in FE theory can you explain these rays?
The truth is that the sun (be it 3,000 or 3,000,000 miles away) is illuminating a large thunderhead cloud that's right above the cloud deck. It's light REFLECTED from that bright, white cloud that produces those rays.
this is what, for some stupid reason, prevents people from even investigating massive deceptions.Just saying something means nothing!
just like 9/11, focus on the facts and physics. don't let your ego interfere with your logic. use your own powers of observation and calculation instead of relying on folks you don't know.
1. pictures taken of things farther away than would be possible on a ball
Undoubtedly you will have many counter-examples. Let's see them, along with distance and viewing height.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Toronto_seen_across_lake_Ontario_from_Olcott_2.JPG)Now those buildings are 64.5 km away and large part's are hidden.
Toronto as seen across lake Ontario from Olcott Beach, NY; evening 18th July EST, by Ad Meskens
2. sun rays coming through clouds at an angle and making angled shadows from parallel objectsPlease present some examples, along with your calculations as to the sun height you would estimate from each.
3. triangulation calculations for the distance to the sun.Sure, but why do you rely on just one calculation, presumably done way back by Voliva with two points 45° apart?
Latitude | Sun Elevation, Θ | Distance from Equator, d | Sun Height, h |
7.2° N | 82.8° | 500 miles | 3,961 miles |
15° N | 75° | 1,043 miles | 3,891 miles |
45° N | 45° | 3,128 miles | 3,128 miles |
75° N | 15° | 5,213 miles | 1,397 miles |
85° N | 5° | 5,908 miles | 517 miles |
4. the water doesn't go to the equator and then fly offSimple! You do understand neither gravity nor centripetal acceleration! At the equator,
5. the air magically sticks to a spinning ball so well that it appears as if we aren't moving! ;DClearly, the air doesn't "magically stick" because we do get winds.
ballers they claim gravity can do all these things just before they say we don't understand gravity!We probably don't know the ultimate cause of gravitation,
ball-deniers understand gravity!
this is simple, but unfortunately, so are sheeple, led by the government schools and media. WAKE UP :oSo you are now reduced to attempting to insult anyone who doesn't agree with you and claim that they are "simple sheepie".
Quote from: BrightNextStepballers they claim gravity can do all these things just before they say we don't understand gravity!We probably don't know the ultimate cause of gravitation,
ball-deniers understand gravity!
but would you please explain the ultimate cause of electromagnetic forces.
Opposite electric charges, q1 and q2, attract each other over a distance d with exactly the same form of expression as the gravitational force.
When it is said that "don't know the ultimate cause of gravitation",
what is meant is that we have never identified a "gravitational charge", nor the gravitation equivalent of a "photon"
and quite possibly never will because the energy involved is probably below any limit (Planck limit) of detection.
But, so what does the fact that you cannot explain "the ultimate cause of electromagnetic forces" mke them less real?
We do understand the way gravitation works, it has been directly measured dozens of time and it has been verified uncountable times.