[Pete Svarrior]

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.

Sure, if one were to look past the deliberately misleading generalisation on your part, one might think you have a point. But let's not do that. That would be silly.

Rowbotham's and other FE'ers' experiments are reproducible. rabinoz's claims rely on the Antarctic Treaty not existing. Unfortunately, it does exist.

[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.

Sure, if one were to look past the deliberately misleading generalisation on your part, one might think you have a point. But let's not do that. That would be silly.

Rowbotham's and other FE'ers' experiments are reproducible. rabinoz's claims rely on the Antarctic Treaty not existing. Unfortunately, it does exist.

I'm sorry, but there's nothing you in particular can say that will ever represent anything of value to me, knowing that you're not a FE'er at all.

Besides, I quoted junker with a very valid argument in relation to what he wrote, so I don't even know what you're on about, except for defending a fellow admin

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Luckily for me I feel completely unburdened in regards to proving anything to anyone. To me, any two people can look at the same exact thing and draw their own conclusions. The sum result of my own study and years of experience, and my own personal reasons bring me to the point of a decent probability that a flat earth can exist. Now someone else's life experience and study may put them on the other side of probability to 51% sure the earth is around sphere flying through curved space... But to say 100% would be an affront to reason and an stunting of your own consciousness. I would never say with 100% certainty the earth is flat, because I prefer to keep the options open, per se, and my mind ready to accept alternative explanations for the phenomena and evidence presented.

[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 

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.

Did you actually read what you quoted before you replied? Your response is in no way related to what was being talked about.

[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.

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!

Not a single one of them is a direct observation regarding the shape of the Earth.  In fact if you feel the need to point to such things as evidence that the Earth is round, you are supporting my argument that the burden of proof lies with RE rather than FE.  So, thanks, I guess.

[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!

Not a single one of them is a direct observation regarding the shape of the Earth.  In fact if you feel the need to point to such things as evidence that the Earth is round, you are supporting my argument that the burden of proof lies with RE rather than FE.  So, thanks, I guess.

Yes, I suppose you are right,
but of course common sense tells us:

• that steel ships can never float,
  
• heavier that air objects can never fly,
  
• that the sun is a flaming chariot that climbs up from the east and goes down in the west, finding some way to get back under the earth ready for the next day,
  
• that it is completely impossible to talk to someone in another place,
  
• that even large ships clearly sink well before they disappear in the distance.

Yes, I know I'm being stupid, but not all first impressions are correct, especially when other simple observations contradict then.
But, as they say, there are none so blind as those that will not see.

[Tom Bishop]

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!

Not a single one of them is a direct observation regarding the shape of the Earth.  In fact if you feel the need to point to such things as evidence that the Earth is round, you are supporting my argument that the burden of proof lies with RE rather than FE.  So, thanks, I guess.

Yes, I suppose you are right,
but of course common sense tells us:

• that steel ships can never float,
  
• heavier that air objects can never fly,
  
• that the sun is a flaming chariot that climbs up from the east and goes down in the west, finding some way to get back under the earth ready for the next day,
  
• that it is completely impossible to talk to someone in another place,
  
• that even large ships clearly sink well before they disappear in the distance.

Yes, I know I'm being stupid, but not all first impressions are correct, especially when other simple observations contradict then.
But, as they say, there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Except that observational evidence is a much different thing than "common sense".

[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.

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!

Not a single one of them is a direct observation regarding the shape of the Earth.  In fact if you feel the need to point to such things as evidence that the Earth is round, you are supporting my argument that the burden of proof lies with RE rather than FE.  So, thanks, I guess.

Yes, I suppose you are right

It feels good to get through.

[rabinoz]

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 

Please be just a tiny bit honest! If you actually read what I wrote, the points I claimed to see with my own eyes were these:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Then in a later post, I wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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!

Then I went on added other well known facts, that do not seem to be explained adequately in the 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!

But, if that's the sort of logic and level of debating you use, you really are wasted here and should be in politics!

[Tom Bishop]

Why are you here debating if you believe that all of this is obvious nonsense? Do you debate the people who think that unicorns exist too?

[Rounder]

rabinoz's claims rely on the Antarctic Treaty not existing. Unfortunately, it does exist.

I really wish people would stop pretending the Antarctic Treaty keeps people from going there.  It does no such thing.  You really want to go to Antarctica, you are allowed to.  It's expensive and difficult, but thousands of tourists go there every year.

[rabinoz]

Except that observational evidence is a much different thing than "common sense".

Touché, to me there is abundant "observational evidence" the points to an earth that is not flat!

• On a clear day looking out to sea the sky-horizon interface is a sharp line
  This would seem to mean that the horizon is fairly close (from a mountain we commonly see a bluish haze showing through 10 km over.
  
  
• The sun stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at sunrise and sunset.
  This would lead me to conclude that the sun is a very long distance away, compared to the size of the earth - how far, could not tell yet!
  
  
• etc, etc

I can't claim that these (and all the other points) prove a globe, but are evidence that at least points to an earth that is not flat.

[rabinoz]

Why are you here debating if you believe that all of this is obvious nonsense? Do you debate the people who think that unicorns exist too?

Yes, I quite see your point, one might as well!

Some of the ideas here (magical perspective and atmospheric magnification) seem just as believable.
It looks like "The earth is flat, so anything necessary to prop that up is justified."

[markjo]

I really wish people would stop pretending the Antarctic Treaty keeps people from going there.  It does no such thing.  You really want to go to Antarctica, you are allowed to.  It's expensive and difficult, but thousands of tourists go there every year.

It's much the same as North Korea in that respect. You can go there if you really want, and thousands of tourists do every year. However, your visit will be heavily regulated and you won't be seeing anything they don't want you to see.

What is there to see that "they" don't want to show you?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I really wish people would stop pretending the Antarctic Treaty keeps people from going there.  It does no such thing.  You really want to go to Antarctica, you are allowed to.  It's expensive and difficult, but thousands of tourists go there every year.

It's much the same as North Korea in that respect. You can go there if you really want, and thousands of tourists do every year. However, your visit will be heavily regulated and you won't be seeing anything they don't want you to see.

What is there to see that "they" don't want to show you?

Apparently, an ice wall extending to infinity.

Or maybe they don't want any independent research taking place.

[rabinoz]

I really wish people would stop pretending the Antarctic Treaty keeps people from going there.  It does no such thing.  You really want to go to Antarctica, you are allowed to.  It's expensive and difficult, but thousands of tourists go there every year.

It's much the same as North Korea in that respect. You can go there if you really want, and thousands of tourists do every year. However, your visit will be heavily regulated and you won't be seeing anything they don't want you to see.

What is there to see that "they" don't want to show you?

Apparently, an ice wall extending to infinity.
Or maybe they don't want any independent research taking place.

Or maybe you are simply making things up with absolutely no evidence! Hasn't slowed you down in the past.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Maybe I am, or maybe I'm just filling that guy in on flat earth theory. Maybe I could spam hella links to flat earth videos the same way you use nasa.gov for your sources of evidence.

Hell, maybe I can center my text and make it bold to make it seem more worthy of attention and at the same time harder to read.

[rabinoz]

Maybe I am, or maybe I'm just filling that guy in on flat earth theory. Maybe I could spam hella links to flat earth videos the same way you use nasa.gov for your sources of evidence.

Hell, maybe I can center my text and make it bold to make it seem more worthy of attention and at the same time harder to read.

OK, I'll make is easy on your poor old eyes.
I have not seen anything from you on Flat Earth Theory. All you ever do is question bits of the globe earth ideas that you claim not to understand.
So, what about filling us all in on Flat Earth Theory, and explain how moon phases work. Yes, I've read the Wiki, What I see there simply does not explain how a full moon could ever be seen when it so right overhead.
You have done nothing to "prove the earth is flat", so what about it?

[Daguerrohype]

I see that some flat earth proponents do positively claim the earth is flat, therefore taking on the burden of proof, and support their claim with "look out of your window" or "look down". This is the evidence upon which they rely in support of their positive assertion. I see the logic, but it is an extremely basic argument. Perhaps it is not the intention of the society or of the flat earth movement to be taken seriously. I anticipate a counter-argument along the lines of "why would we want to be taken seriously by people who refuse to question inconsistencies between what they see and what they are told?", and that may be why this debate will never get any further than these message boards.

If this forum were a courtroom, and the flat earthers had brought their claim that the earth is a disc, what finding would the judge make? He or she would be bound to consider evidence from both sides, but ultimately the burden of proof would be upon the claimant. Let's assume that the burden of proof is "on the balance of probabilities", such as in civil courts in England and Wales.

[Daguerrohype]

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.

If you are suggesting that a claim which is "basic and obvious" does not require proof, then I strongly disagree with you. Whether something is basic and/or obvious is subjective, and irrespective of that even the most basic claims must be supported by evidence. Let's say that I do not deny your claim, but I do still require you to prove it. What is the evidence in support of a flat earth (if there is any), save for that the earth appears flat?