1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: December 24, 2017, 04:11:47 AM »

When you bring evidence into a court the burden of proof is never on the jury. The burden lies on the prosecution and they build their case in such a way that the evidence presentation corroborates and may even expand upon the case they have built. This is sound logical approach for the jury since they remain on the fence in order to see both sides soundly in an attempt to find the truth in order to help the judge serve justice. If the jury just believed everything you rolled in on a TV/VCR cart then Disney would be the best team of lawyers on earth who would win 100% of cases. There is not much more for me to try to illustrate you, video evidence was presented, it was challenged and refuted and as I have no actual observations from the point of the shot, I have to dismiss the evidence as incredible. It's a cute video for sure, but nothing more. Just think about our real world for one minute. When you measure a distance from city to city, you get a number. You can share that number and a friend and he can corroborate that observation by making a same or similar observation. This video fails that test hard. There is another video from a similar perspective and its vastly different... so how can you look at either as relevant? You have look at other real world results that we ourselves can observe and corroborate as concrete evidence. I'm sorry, but movies are not one of those things.

There is one plausible reason that we might look at the presented video and go forward with it as evidence of it's creators claims. Faith. Religion. Belief. You don't need any verifiable reality to be scared of ghosts as you walk down into a dark basement, you don't need any proof to believe there is 99 virgins waiting for you wherever allah is chilling these days. There is nothing wrong with this IMO, just be sure you know this is where you stand on the issue. This matters because I am arguing logic and reasoning against your faith and religion. If you cannot see that for what it is, we will never get through the other side. I'm not saying the video is right or wrong, I am saying it is unverifyable nonsense irrelevant to the OP topic, even though it was the OP.

Lastly I don't mean to attack your religion. The earth may be round, youtube videos may tell the truth, I don't know - but I know that's not where my faith is.

There's no need to bring faith in here in an attempt to steer the conversation away from facts.

Thork raised objections to the video. They were proven unfounded...

YOU are the one bringing faith into this discussion. You believe the youtube tapes are fact, or you at the very least use that position as a basis for your argument. I am saying they can be disputed and lack the credibility of personal observation and data gathering. Your faith in this document as representing fact is being passed off as just beliving a fact when it is presented. This aims to pigeonhole anyone who disagrees with you as a denyer of fact since they do not accept the evidence presented as a legitimate document. The video is not enough, we need reliable data based on ovservation that can be interperated, taught, understood, and observed.

Thork raised objections to the video. They were proven unfounded...

They were never PROVEN unfounded. Certainly he made himself look like a fool, but it gave no new credibility to the video, and it did not PROVE anything.

Lastly, I won't engage in this back and forth with you any longer. You throw words like "fact" and "proven" around like they are tools to sharing your point of view. This is futile if you refuse to play by the rules of argument.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: December 23, 2017, 08:43:37 PM »

I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Do we agree these transmission lines exist?

Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?

Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.

Well, having proven their existence, can we get back to how the existence of curvature shown in these photo's is explained in the FE hypothesis? I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated in the original thread and linked images that the only way to produce a look of a curve using this technique is for the curve to already exist.The forced perspective technique being used simply highlights and enhances a curve already there, but was shown to not create one where one didn't exist.

Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly. What more is there to explain?

He claimed the towers didn't exist, and was shown to be wrong quite conclusively I thought. We have records of them being put up, we have multiple sources unrelated to flat Earth conjecture/debate showing they exist. They have been proven to exist without a doubt.

He appeared to claim (which you are now stating) that it was an editing job. But the 'proof' for this is inconclusive at best. Especially when it's been shown the effect of the enhanced/magnified curvature can be created through simple camera and perspective tricks.

That leaves you with a few option if you are going to approach this honestly.
1) Present actual, conclusive and compelling evidence the curvature was faked in some manner. We currently have an image with no context, and a tweet with no context. Thork fabricated the context for both of these to fit the point/side he was presenting, but presented no evidence his context is correct.
2) Explain how this works on a flat Earth. How can there be an appearance of a curve upon a flat plane? This is what must be answered.

Alternatively do exactly what you just did and claim there is nothing left to discuss and leave the thread as Thork has done.

1) Just because someone posts a video does not make it credible evidence to suggest anything other than they have an objective in sharing the video. With the quality of editing software, lenses and capturing equipment, processors and video cards there is no rational reason to believe what you see in a video. In fact, the way we have classically tested these things is with personal observations. You have observed Youtube.com and believe what you see. That's fine, but for you to expect anyone else to "dissprove" what you see and therefore choose to believe in fact is of faulty logic. There is no way for me or anyone to disprove your beliefs. You may believe The Lion King was 100% actual footage - this does not mean I have (or can for that matter) to prove to you that it is not actual footage for it to be what it actually is. The earth may still be flat no matter how foolish we all become. It may be a ball, there may be cheese inside, the cake may in fact be the truth. (The cake is a lie!)

2)One explanation was given as to how this would happen on a flat earth. Video editing. It happens to be a very solid answer. Have you visited this site? Have you done any actual observing of this perspective?

Final thoughts) Thork certainly made himself look foolish early on in this thread, there is no question of that. I don't think that makes his points any more or less valid so attacking his foolishness does not give any further credibility to the OP video. Here is one more video for you to take a look at, it contradicts the other video that you believe already, now you have to make a choice. Both videos hold the same amount of water for me.

<iframe width="642" height="392" src="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

1) Simply claiming "FAKE" to anything that disagrees with your worldview isn't how this works. He's posited that it's fake. He needs to conclusively back this up in order to dismiss the evidence presented. If you want to dismiss all video and photographic evidence on the basis of "Well anything can be faked nowadays" then why bother engaging in a debate or discussion? To dismiss such evidence you must present a compelling reason or evidence to it's fakery. Thork tried by claiming the towers did not exist, and some images that made sense within that context. Those images and that tweet now need more context, in light of the towers existing. By themselves they are not evidence of trickery, only a curiosity that could use some more information.

2) It's a good answer, but it requires actual proof. See answer to #1. Waving your hands and shouting "FAKE" only makes you look the fool.

As to your video, yes I've seen that one. Couple of issues with it though. First, his camera leaves much to be desired in resolution further out. Makes it hard to tell a whole lot. BUT I would point out how the pylons on the bottom appear to see less and less of them the further out you go. Why would that be? Could they be vanishing behind the curve? Second, the original photo and video makes use of a very specific perspective effect to enhance/embellish the appearance of a curve. I have no doubt looking at it in such a way as this video does could make them appear flat and level. The curve is very small compared to the 100 foot tall towers. Lastly, some commenters suggest he might be showing a different set of towers all together. I'm not certain how likely this is without more information, but it's at least a reasonable explanation regardless of how much stock one puts in it.

Both videos can in fact show the truth. That's the fun part. There's no need for either to have doctored the videos using software, as with the naked eye those towers probably do look very flat! This is why the first video and the images brought in a very specific perspective effect to help amplify the appearance of the curve. There's no need whatsoever to have to pick one, when both can be correct in so far as what they're showing!

When you bring evidence into a court the burden of proof is never on the jury. The burden lies on the prosecution and they build their case in such a way that the evidence presentation corroborates and may even expand upon the case they have built. This is sound logical approach for the jury since they remain on the fence in order to see both sides soundly in an attempt to find the truth in order to help the judge serve justice. If the jury just believed everything you rolled in on a TV/VCR cart then Disney would be the best team of lawyers on earth who would win 100% of cases. There is not much more for me to try to illustrate you, video evidence was presented, it was challenged and refuted and as I have no actual observations from the point of the shot, I have to dismiss the evidence as incredible. It's a cute video for sure, but nothing more. Just think about our real world for one minute. When you measure a distance from city to city, you get a number. You can share that number and a friend and he can corroborate that observation by making a same or similar observation. This video fails that test hard. There is another video from a similar perspective and its vastly different... so how can you look at either as relevant? You have look at other real world results that we ourselves can observe and corroborate as concrete evidence. I'm sorry, but movies are not one of those things.

There is one plausible reason that we might look at the presented video and go forward with it as evidence of it's creators claims. Faith. Religion. Belief. You don't need any verifiable reality to be scared of ghosts as you walk down into a dark basement, you don't need any proof to believe there is 99 virgins waiting for you wherever allah is chilling these days. There is nothing wrong with this IMO, just be sure you know this is where you stand on the issue. This matters because I am arguing logic and reasoning against your faith and religion. If you cannot see that for what it is, we will never get through the other side. I'm not saying the video is right or wrong, I am saying it is unverifyable nonsense irrelevant to the OP topic, even though it was the OP.

Lastly I don't mean to attack your religion. The earth may be round, youtube videos may tell the truth, I don't know - but I know that's not where my faith is.

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: Trump signs NASA bill today..

« on: December 23, 2017, 10:19:35 AM »

Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so  they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..

The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?

This question as a rebuttal in reference to the United States government?? 

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Non metal pendulums / black sun

« on: December 23, 2017, 10:12:29 AM »

Welcome to the forums. I think being on the edge of this topic is an excellent place to be. Let's face it, Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are reason enough to question whether or not the earth is round. Being undecided is important because it shows a resilience to influence and that resilience is necessary if you are going to ask the right questions. Observation only comes because we hesitate, we hesitate and look with inquisition and wonder, when we are certain of things this ability is diminished and our world closes in. Stay on the fence, it's a wise place to be.

Question 4, about the rope - a rope will not work because it can bend and curve. What would maybe work would be a fence... a fence post plumb and level say every 6' or so for a mile or 2. Level a 2x4 between each post to connect them all near the bottom of the post. Then come back to the start and place a second 2x4 between the first and second post, but rather than leveling the next 2x4 between the 2nd and 3rd post, make it level according the the 2x4 you placed between the 1st and 2nd post. Do this repeately back through the 1-2 miles of posts. Here is what would happen:

The posts are all plumb and level. The row of 2x4s connecting each post near the base would each be level according to a level. No matter what the shape of the earth is, these boards will be perpendicular to the force acting on the bubble in the level. The second row of 2x4s, which should be started just above the first row of 2x4s, would start off level between post 1 and 2, (parallel to the 2x4 under it) and because you used that first board as a reference to leveling the rest of the fence, if the earth is curved, you should see that over a great distance, the gap between the lower and upper row of 2x4s will increase. This will happen because by making the top row of boards perfectly in line with just the first 2x4, you are forcing the line to be straight outside of the typical references. Basically, you will see the earth dropping out from under the fence.

To my knowledge this has not been done, and I certainly cannot afford to make a fence for 2 miles. Perhaps the highway department could help us out since they are doing this thing daily.

Thanks for your post!

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: December 23, 2017, 09:48:23 AM »

I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Do we agree these transmission lines exist?

Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?

Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.

Well, having proven their existence, can we get back to how the existence of curvature shown in these photo's is explained in the FE hypothesis? I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated in the original thread and linked images that the only way to produce a look of a curve using this technique is for the curve to already exist.The forced perspective technique being used simply highlights and enhances a curve already there, but was shown to not create one where one didn't exist.

Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly. What more is there to explain?

He claimed the towers didn't exist, and was shown to be wrong quite conclusively I thought. We have records of them being put up, we have multiple sources unrelated to flat Earth conjecture/debate showing they exist. They have been proven to exist without a doubt.

He appeared to claim (which you are now stating) that it was an editing job. But the 'proof' for this is inconclusive at best. Especially when it's been shown the effect of the enhanced/magnified curvature can be created through simple camera and perspective tricks.

That leaves you with a few option if you are going to approach this honestly.
1) Present actual, conclusive and compelling evidence the curvature was faked in some manner. We currently have an image with no context, and a tweet with no context. Thork fabricated the context for both of these to fit the point/side he was presenting, but presented no evidence his context is correct.
2) Explain how this works on a flat Earth. How can there be an appearance of a curve upon a flat plane? This is what must be answered.

Alternatively do exactly what you just did and claim there is nothing left to discuss and leave the thread as Thork has done.

1) Just because someone posts a video does not make it credible evidence to suggest anything other than they have an objective in sharing the video. With the quality of editing software, lenses and capturing equipment, processors and video cards there is no rational reason to believe what you see in a video. In fact, the way we have classically tested these things is with personal observations. You have observed Youtube.com and believe what you see. That's fine, but for you to expect anyone else to "dissprove" what you see and therefore choose to believe in fact is of faulty logic. There is no way for me or anyone to disprove your beliefs. You may believe The Lion King was 100% actual footage - this does not mean I have (or can for that matter) to prove to you that it is not actual footage for it to be what it actually is. The earth may still be flat no matter how foolish we all become. It may be a ball, there may be cheese inside, the cake may in fact be the truth. (The cake is a lie!)

2)One explanation was given as to how this would happen on a flat earth. Video editing. It happens to be a very solid answer. Have you visited this site? Have you done any actual observing of this perspective?

Final thoughts) Thork certainly made himself look foolish early on in this thread, there is no question of that. I don't think that makes his points any more or less valid so attacking his foolishness does not give any further credibility to the OP video. Here is one more video for you to take a look at, it contradicts the other video that you believe already, now you have to make a choice. Both videos hold the same amount of water for me.

<iframe width="642" height="392" src="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>