[Daguerrohype]

I've read the wiki entry for burden of proof. For those that haven't read it recently or at all, the question posed is

"Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?"

The response is that no, it is the reader/RE supporter who claims that "NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system", and therefore the burden is upon that person to prove their claim(s).

I make no such claims. However, this entire site is based upon the premise, and therefore does claim, that the earth is flat.

Do FE believers consider themselves always to be the defendant/respondent in circumstances where the shape of the earth is being discussed? Do they never positively claim that the earth is flat? If they do, then they become the claimant, and therefore the burden of proving the claim rests with them.

I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.

I hold out little hope of any informative response. I might even be chastised for deigning to visit the website and expecting to be spoonfed evidence of a flat earth.

[Tom Bishop]

I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.

The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.

[Rama Set]

I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.

The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.

Your version of basic and obvious does not account for some basic and obvious concepts though.  For example: human sense are often insufficient to observe the predictions of FE theory or RE fact.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I believe the burden of proof has been on the Globe model since it's general acceptance, and it hasn't sufficiently been explained why the Earth must be oblate and spherical. To me there is a lot of conjecture and backwards reasoning to support the concept, and the simple "look out your window" does hold water, considering there are thousands of photos of large spans and great distances that show zero proof of curvature.

[Tom Bishop]

I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.

The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.

Your version of basic and obvious does not account for some basic and obvious concepts though.  For example: human sense are often insufficient to observe the predictions of FE theory or RE fact.

It doesn't matter. You could also say that they are insufficient to see that the earth is a torus.

The fact remains that the basic observational evidence tells us that the earth is flat. A flat earth is the most obvious truth, not a hypothetical torus.

[Roundy]

It's really very simple.  Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.  I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.

To use an example that has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, what if we are presented with what appears to be a living mouse whose activity reasonably duplicates those of an actual mouse?  Is the burden of proof not on the one claiming that it is a mechanical construct rather than a living thing?  Of course, that person might then open up the mouse and show us the mechanical innards that prove it is not an actual living thing.  Then the burden of proof is satisfied, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to show that our senses are deceiving us.

[Rama Set]

It doesn't matter. You could also say that they are insufficient to see that the earth is a torus.

That is exactly the point.  If you rely on an instrument that is not sensitive enough to distinguish a completely flat plane from an almost flat plane, or from a torus then your observation is useless.

The fact remains that the basic observational evidence tells us that the earth is flat. A flat earth is the most obvious truth, not a hypothetical torus.

No, you have to do all sorts of mental gymnastics to get to this "obvious truth" like assuming there is a massive conspiracy covering up space travel.  There is nothing basic about FET.

It's really very simple.  Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.  I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.

To use an example that has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, what if we are presented with what appears to be a living mouse whose activity reasonably duplicates those of an actual mouse?  Is the burden of proof not on the one claiming that it is a mechanical construct rather than a living thing?  Of course, that person might then open up the mouse and show us the mechanical innards that prove it is not an actual living thing.  Then the burden of proof is satisfied, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to show that our senses are deceiving us.
[/quote]

That burden of proof has been satisifed many, many times over.  A visit to any university geodesy department can provide it in droves.

EDIT: Added response to Roundy to my original post so that Saddam might be my friend one day.

[Bookish Neptune]

That burden of proof has been satisifed many, many times over.  A visit to any university geodesy department can provide it in droves.

But where is YOUR proof?

Without citing another person's work, without citing anyone else's experiments, without linking to any source.....

We want to see your personal proof the earth is round?

I have to ask a question though...

In your mind what is real and what is false? Where do you draw the line?

Is every single book that is published in the non-fiction section true? How do know? And where do you personally draw the line? Where do you start and stop believing something?

Do politicians lie? Do they all lie? Which ones do and which ones don't? Has a family member told you a lie? What about the lies you were never aware of?

Have you ever lied and fooled other people? Did you go back and tell every single person you've ever lied to the truth? No. So that means they have gone on believing your lie, and are none the wiser....

What makes YOU so wise that YOU know a lie from the truth???

Just how much have you been lied to by even your close personal friends and family members? And just how much have you lied in your life?

And you think rich powerful men aren't capable of huge worldly lies???

P.S.  Have you ever pondered the possibility that some people you lied to in your life knew it, but "let you slide" without confronting you?

Point is, not all lies go unnoticed by everyone.

[Roundy]

That burden of proof has been satisifed many, many times over.

Whether or not the burden of proof has been satisfied is not the focus of this thread.  The challenge presented was that FE must satisfy the burden of proof and I was simply explaining why that is not the case.

[Rama Set]

That burden of proof has been satisifed many, many times over.

Whether or not the burden of proof has been satisfied is not the focus of this thread.  The challenge presented was that FE must satisfy the burden of proof and I was simply explaining why that is not the case.

Well that is wrong too.  Each side must satisfy their positive claims. 

[Roundy]

That burden of proof has been satisifed many, many times over.

Whether or not the burden of proof has been satisfied is not the focus of this thread.  The challenge presented was that FE must satisfy the burden of proof and I was simply explaining why that is not the case.

Well that is wrong too.  Each side must satisfy their positive claims.

Our positive claim can be satisfied by looking down.

[Rama Set]

That burden of proof has been satisifed many, many times over.

Whether or not the burden of proof has been satisfied is not the focus of this thread.  The challenge presented was that FE must satisfy the burden of proof and I was simply explaining why that is not the case.

Well that is wrong too.  Each side must satisfy their positive claims.

Our positive claim can be satisfied by looking down.

Which is then shown to be insufficient because looking down cannot distinguish a flat plane from a spheroid 40,000km in circumference.

Ours is satisfied by looking down as well, from sufficient altitude.

[rabinoz]

It's really very simple.  Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.  I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.

To use an example that has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, what if we are presented with what appears to be a living mouse whose activity reasonably duplicates those of an actual mouse?  Is the burden of proof not on the one claiming that it is a mechanical construct rather than a living thing?  Of course, that person might then open up the mouse and show us the mechanical innards that prove it is not an actual living thing.  Then the burden of proof is satisfied, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to show that our senses are deceiving us.

Yes, I agree "It's really very simple", but I do not agree that "Our senses tell us the Earth is flat".

A "dyed in the wool" flat earther asked "It is baffling at times to understand just how REers can go on and on expressing their beliefs without opening their eyes and seeing what is past their text books and out the door of their lab".

Well, I do keep my eyes open and what do I see?

• The Earth looks flat - it does!
• On a clear day looking out to sea the sky-horizon interface is a sharp line (it is only about 5 km away!). On a flat earth it would have to fade into the distance with no distinct boundary.
• The sun appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
• The sun stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at sunrise and sunset.
• The sun always appears to be a disk, though sometimes a bit distorted at sunrise and sunset.
• Likewise the moon appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
• The moon stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at moonrise and moonset.
• The moon always appears to show the same face wherever it is in the sky. (And from wherever we observe it - I have have travelled and seen this).
• The full moon always appears to be a circle, though sometimes a bit distorted at moonrise and moonset.

Note that none of this is direct evidence of a rotating earth, but I believe is strong evidence of a Globe with a distant (far further than the earths size) sun and moon. So many of these points are "explained away" by TFES using "perspective", "bendy light" (massive refraction), extreme "magnification" by the atmosphere or simply ignored. These explanations are simply quoted with no justification at all!

I could go on about the direction of sunrise and sunset etc.

Of these, number (1) might indicate a flat earth, but then when we try to work out what the sun and moon are doing, we get into big trouble.
The Flat Earth movement just takes (1) and says "The earth is flat", then gets into terrible trouble explaining away all of the others with fanciful ideas of perspective, bending light, "celestial gears", universal acceleration (powered by "dark energy") and on and on.

But all the other points are far more simply explained on a Globe Earth, though not necessarily rotating. The Heliocentric Globe model came from much more detailed study of the motions of the planets, most of it without the help of any "optical" instruments.
Mind a bit of logic would show that it would be strange to have all of the sun, moon, planets and stars moving (not simply rotating, but with very complex motions) about a comparitively small earth - and that is before we bring Einstein into it!

There are more points you can see around every day (like the movement of the stars at night!) that are hard to explain on any flat earth model without resorting to nothing more than guesswork about strange things like celestial gears and aetheric whirlpools etc.

The Flat Earth Movement is challenging theories based on observations made over a couple of thousand years and confirmed by many more pieces of evidence collected since the time the Heliocentric Globe Earth was accepted.

So the onus of proof is most certainly on the Flat Earth Movement to prove their dissenting views.

[juner]

So the onus of proof is most certainly on the Flat Earth Movement to prove their dissenting views.

Your lack of logic is quite impressive. However, repeating the same nonsense over and over does not make it true. The onus of proof is on you silly round earth logicians who continue to defy observation and physics to explain your objectively false worldview.

[rabinoz]

So the onus of proof is most certainly on the Flat Earth Movement to prove their dissenting views.

Your lack of logic is quite impressive. However, repeating the same nonsense over and over does not make it true. The onus of proof is on you silly round earth logicians who continue to defy observation and physics to explain your objectively false worldview.

The points I listed I see with my own eyes. I might need a bit of logic (that I can add if you like), but If I need physics and perspective to explain those things I have to wonder just who is really following Zetetic ideas here!

Just where am I defying observation and physics. Sure I might defy your ideas on perspective, unexplainable atmospheric magnification and other things in your Wiki!
But, I have never seen any reasonable explanation in your Wiki for:

• The directions of the  sun and moon rising and setting.
• The six-months sun at the South Pole.
• The 24 hour sun everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle.
• All the points in my previous post! Without magic magnification the just happens to keep the sun and moon the same size.
• The moon phases! The Wiki explanation defies any ideas of geometry I have seen! Undoubtedly Tom Bishop would understand!
• Solar and lunar eclipses - oh, sorry you invent a magic "shadow moon" for that - evidence?
• The tides, especially two tides a day and spring and king tides.

That's enough for now! I don't want to get into physics or maths!

Mind you a map that showed the correct shape and dimensions for the Southern Hemisphere continents would be a great help to acceptance.
I know that  Australia is grossly misshapen on the "accepted" unipolar map, and a lot worse on the bipolar one!

[juner]

The points I listed I see with my own eyes
The six-months sun at the South Pole.
The 24 hour sun everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle.

Of course, you have undoubtedly observed these with your own eyes 

[Roundy]

That burden of proof has been satisifed many, many times over.

Whether or not the burden of proof has been satisfied is not the focus of this thread.  The challenge presented was that FE must satisfy the burden of proof and I was simply explaining why that is not the case.

Well that is wrong too.  Each side must satisfy their positive claims.

Our positive claim can be satisfied by looking down.

Which is then shown to be insufficient because looking down cannot distinguish a flat plane from a spheroid 40,000km in circumference.

Well, again, that is up for you as the one challenging the reality of what we see with our own eyes to prove.

I feel like we're going around in circles.  You should be better than that by now. 

[Roundy]

It's really very simple.  Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.  I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.

To use an example that has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, what if we are presented with what appears to be a living mouse whose activity reasonably duplicates those of an actual mouse?  Is the burden of proof not on the one claiming that it is a mechanical construct rather than a living thing?  Of course, that person might then open up the mouse and show us the mechanical innards that prove it is not an actual living thing.  Then the burden of proof is satisfied, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to show that our senses are deceiving us.

Yes, I agree "It's really very simple", but I do not agree that "Our senses tell us the Earth is flat".

Well, if you're going to just deny reality, I see no reason to engage in debate with you.

[rabinoz]

It's really very simple.  Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.  I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.

To use an example that has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, what if we are presented with what appears to be a living mouse whose activity reasonably duplicates those of an actual mouse?  Is the burden of proof not on the one claiming that it is a mechanical construct rather than a living thing?  Of course, that person might then open up the mouse and show us the mechanical innards that prove it is not an actual living thing.  Then the burden of proof is satisfied, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to show that our senses are deceiving us.

Yes, I agree "It's really very simple", but I do not agree that "Our senses tell us the Earth is flat".

Well, if you're going to just deny reality, I see no reason to engage in debate with you.

Just what reality am I denying?

All the points I mentioned are things I see! Am I supposed to deny my own eyes? Neither you nor anyone else has queried or discussed one of those points!

The only person to debate anything has been Tom Bishop and his explanations always involve the most unbelievable perspective and light properties I have seen. Yes, I know they were postulated by Rowbotham, but completely without any justification or experimental verification.

No, I guess you could  never be open minded enough to see any other possibilities, but that doesn't bother me in the slightest

.

[andruszkow]

The points I listed I see with my own eyes
The six-months sun at the South Pole.
The 24 hour sun everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle.

Of course, you have undoubtedly observed these with your own eyes 

That argument is weak as hell though, because that implies that what everybody else observes is false, and FE'ers are a group of people heavily relying on rowbotham and/or the very few key proponents of flat earth.

If relying on other people's observations is invalid, that makes information sharing invalid and even this site a waste of time, space, and resources.