41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter

« on: January 17, 2019, 12:30:49 AM »

Don't think so Tom no.   We use numbers all the time but not in the context of needing to prove anything to ourselves. For instance we know the Jovian longitude of the GRS and sources such as the BAA handbook quotes the longitude of the visible central meridian of Jupiters disk at any one time as seen from Earth.  We can then use that to determine whether or not we will see the GRS for the time we are observing.

Those are all based upon angular measurements, not direct measurements of distance to Jupiter or the dimensions of Jupiter.  You need theory to bridge the gap between angular measurements and tangible measurements.

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter

« on: January 16, 2019, 02:30:17 AM »

His assertion that they are wrong are not based on any mathematical conclusions of some error of any magnitude. It is literally based of the theory proposed by Hipparchus that since he could not measure the distance to the stars that they are infinitely distant. We know this to not be true. Flat Earthers provide a measurement. Round Earthers provide a measurement. The hypothesis that all of the astronomers are wrong because Hipparchus said that the stars are an infinitely distant is foolish. Infinitely distant means infinity, immeasurable. So........... and that's just in the first few pages. I will continue reading.

And in apparent attempt to not piss off the moderators, I will edit my response instead posting another reply. The next issue I have with the literary work of Gerrard is his assertion the Ptolemy accepted Hipparchus' theory without question. He cites no source for this. But, yes, please blindly accept his assertion about Ptolemy blindly accepting the previous work of Hipparchus. Anyone notice the logical fallacy there? Or was this an attempt at humor on the authors part?

Hickson's argument isn't the thing about "infinitely distant stars", he just says that the theoretical belief in infinitely distant stars is where astronomy initially went wrong.  He knew that astronomers of the modern era don't believe in literally infinitely distant stars.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter

« on: January 16, 2019, 12:16:54 AM »

Ok Tom I have several books which also quotes the same figures that these websites do.  I can take photos of the pages that gives these figures.  Would that be evidence enough for you?  Short of hiring a spacecraft equipped with a very long tape measure I can provide pretty much any evidence you want so just let me know.

In any case, numbers shown on a website or numbers shown on the page of a book.  What's the difference?

A number printed in a book wouldn't do it either. We are talking about how the numbers were originally derived. If that's wrong then it's all wrong.

Winning this matter should be easy. Just look up Dr. Halley's method of astronomical triangulation and show that it doesn't match up with the author of Kings Dethroned is talking about, and that the book is therefore all nonsense.

Right, and Hickson's Kings Dethroned simply asserts reasons why he thinks the measurements are wrong. But then doesn't apply what he thinks is a superior methodology to telling us what the numbers actually are. In other words, none of his assertions are backed up. They are just assertions.

Non-sequitur.  Also, Hickson doesn't "assert" that the measurements are wrong, he gives arguments as to why those methods are on shaky logical grounds.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter

« on: January 16, 2019, 12:11:54 AM »

With respect Mr Sandokhan, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Jupiter through any kind of optical instrument?   Oh yes and 636 meters is pretty specific.  Where do you get that from?  Jupiters diameter is 88,000 miles unless you can prove me wrong.

You need to prove your own self right. Those astronomical measuring methods are flawed. Read Kings Dethroned.

The random guy who wrote Kings Dethroned provides no real evidence astronomical measuring methods are flawed. He simply just says that they are. And that's just not good enough I'm afraid.

He doesn't just say that they are wrong, he shows how they are flawed. No one has shown the analysis to be wrong.

As far as your invitation to read Kings Dethroned is concerned I will politely decline. As I'm sure you would decline to read the many books that I could quote and will verify everything I say on here.

I haven't declined in addressing anything. If you would like to provide evidence for the size and distance to Jupiter, I would be happy to look at it.

For your own query, see the work Kings Dethroned. Otherwise perhaps you should not ask us questions if you are unwilling to look at the evidence.

This is essentially the summation of Kings Dethroned (It falls into the classic, "everyone is doing it wrong bucket"):

"By that almost inconceivable blunder real and
imaginary angles came into conflict on two different
planes, so the triangulation was entirely lost ; and as
a consequence the distance of the moon is no more
known to-day than it was at the time of the flood. "

The author believes he is showing how all astronomical measurements are wrong and then proceeds not show what the correct measurements should be. A measurement method he believes he has that is superior to the ones commonly used back in the day. Yet no revelation as to what the size and distances of celestial objects are using his method. Odd.

The only thing that matters, for the purposes of this discussion, is that the method used to measure distances by astronomers is wrong.  The author of Kings Dethroned goes into detail as to why those methods are wrong.  You haven't refuted his arguments, all you have is the claim that he provided "no revelation as to what the size and distances of celestial objects are using his method" which, of course, does not address his arguments as to why the methods used by astronomers are wrong.  Is it because you have no refutation?

45

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham

« on: January 12, 2019, 09:55:54 PM »

Why do all the studies if there's no one in space anyway???

In order to dupe people like yourself. 

Back to the topic, I think it's safe to say that Tom conclusively rebutted the false statements about Rowbotham.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon size and distance

« on: January 11, 2019, 04:09:49 AM »

The whole cold war thing was basically a ruse as argued by the great historian Antony Sutton. 

"His (Sutton's) conclusion from his research on the issue was that the conflicts of the Cold War were "not fought to restrain communism" since the United States, through financing the Soviet Union "directly or indirectly armed both sides in at least Korea and Vietnam" but the wars were organised in order "to generate multibillion-dollar armaments contracts."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton

The space-race was similarly a ruse and the US and USSR space-programs colluded while pretending to be diametrically opposed to each other.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another sunrise question

« on: December 29, 2018, 03:32:18 AM »

The flat earth design would be interesting if we lived on it. When I was actively flying airplanes the air traffic controller could say to me: fly heading 270 degrees, slow to 140 knots, and maintain 4000 feet.  After acknowledging the directive, I was then obligated to navigate the aircraft to those exact specifications.  Flying a heading of 270 degrees (assuming no wind) meant that I would have no course components either to the North or to the South, my latitude would remain constant.  Now the other very important thing is the altitude. My directive was to maintain 4000 feet.  That means stay at a constant level above the surface of the earth.  If I were facing a fixed point in space off the earth somewhere and the earth wasn’t rotating my aircrafts nose would indeed appear to steadily move lower & lower relative that fixed point.  The aircraft’s pitch attitude would be slowly changing.  This illustrates the importance of the Z axis on a sphere.  Usually the autopilot would be engaged, and it would keep me at a constant distance above the ground.

The flat earth design throws away the Z axis altogether.  If I were to ‘fly my vector’ on a flat earth it would be different.  Say there was another fixed reference point somewhere in space and the flat earth was not accelerating upwards and I lined up that reference point to a dot on the aircraft’s windshield on a 270 degree heading at the instant we started.  To maintain a constant latitude (fixed distance to the North Pole) I would have to continue a slow constant turn to stay on the latitude circle.  My fixed point in space would then slowly move horizontally on the windshield. 

The bottom line is this.  On a flat earth flying a straight East or West heading and keeping your latitude constant as your longitude changes means that you would have a constant change in the yaw axis. No way around that.  On any circle to traverse the circumference requires a change in both the X and Y axis while you hold the distance from the center constant.  That completely earth agnostic, it’s just geometry.  On a globe earth you would traverse the X axis and the Z (pitch) axis to fly in a straight line and there would be no turning required to stay on a straight Easterly or Westerly heading.  Again, this is strictly earth agnostic and is a property of any sphere.

In the real world in the air or on the high seas you never have to make an adjustment in you azimuth (yaw axis) to stay on the same latitude line.  That means flat earth 0  Round Earth 1.  Your're argument isn't with me, it's with basic geometry.

This completely contradicts every other account from RE pilots who claim that there is no adjustment necessary for the z axis because gravity somehow keeps the plane flying at a constant equipotential curve.

Case in point:   https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/do-pilots-adjust-the-aircrafts-flight-path-to-allow-for-the-curvature-of-the-ea  "There is no adjustment needed as the aircraft will naturally follow the curvature of the earth without any input from the pilot. This is because the aircraft flies through the atmosphere which also follows the curvature of the earth."

48

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Titanic search in 1985 was a cover

« on: December 24, 2018, 04:28:53 PM »

The whole "they couldn't possibly keep it a secret" argument is a red-herring, specifically an argument from incredulity fallacy.  What matters is the actual physical evidence for fakery, not ones inability to believe that anybody could keep it a secret.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of Western Horizon at Sunrise

« on: December 18, 2018, 05:36:40 PM »

People always conflate optical perception with tangible perception.  Lines may be tangibly parallel but not optically parallel if the lines are viewed from certain perspectives.  When train tracks are viewed head on from the ground they are no longer optically parallel but at angles to each other while still being tangibly parallel.  Tangible geometry does not change with perspective, optical geometry does.  Read Bishop George Berkeley's works on optics for more on this.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Drone footage across a lake: flat earth explanation?

« on: December 16, 2018, 11:24:38 PM »

Here's footage of a drone rising from lake level to about 400 feet, shooting across about 24-30 miles of water:



The 'round earth' explanation is obvious: as altitude increases, so does the distance to the horizon, as well as the viewable amount of distant landmarks.

But what's the flat earth explanation for what we see here?

What do you think is particularly damning about this video? 

51

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".

« on: December 16, 2018, 10:55:38 PM »

So the anti-FE Youtuber "GreaterSapien" has a video claiming that this observation (Monterey Bay Mirror experiment) can be explained by "scattering of light." 



I'd like to know what Bobby Shafto or any other RE thinks this explanation makes any sense.  It doesn't seem like a good explanation to me but it's the only semi-plausible RE explanation I've seen.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?

« on: December 15, 2018, 02:13:21 AM »

Video footage of the 2010 solar eclipse from Easter Island during which that photo was taken.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?

« on: December 15, 2018, 12:43:30 AM »

I googled "eclipse photos" via the images tab. Randomly selected an eclipse photo that came from here:

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/2017-total-solar-eclipse/eclipse-events-roundup/

I opened the image in Photoshop, and adjusted the levels. That's all I did. Granted, a sample size of 1 so far, but I did select it completely at random. You be the judge:

I don't know whether or not the photo is faked but I can clearly see the moon blemishes without the Photoshop (and I bet most people could too) so this doesn't really effect Sandokhan's thesis...it isn't as if the undoctored photo looks absolutely dark and you need to adjust it to see the moon spots which would have called into question why somebody would doctor a photograph in such a way that the effect of the doctoring couldn't even be noticed unless somebody happened to decide to look at in Photoshop.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?

« on: December 14, 2018, 08:15:37 PM »

Because you would have to account for the moon being invisible during the eclipse. As well you would need to account for Earthshine images allowing you to see the features of the moon during the eclipse. Quite the coincidence if 'Rahu' both looked exactly like the moon, AND hid the moon somehow.

“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”

I'm sorry, but what do lunar eclipses have to do with this? We're discussing solar eclipses are we not? This certainly doesn't appear to be a rebuttal to the fact the Rahu idea must vanish the moon and look exactly like the moon as well.

Good catch, I misread the quote in my haste. 

Thanks for the info on those earthshine photos.
http://www.astropix.com/eclipse/Lodriguss_Total_Solar_Eclipse_Earthshine.jpg

You tried this line of reasoning before, it doesn't work:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9797.msg154268#msg154268

Very interesting...

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?

« on: December 14, 2018, 01:25:04 AM »

Because you would have to account for the moon being invisible during the eclipse. As well you would need to account for Earthshine images allowing you to see the features of the moon during the eclipse. Quite the coincidence if 'Rahu' both looked exactly like the moon, AND hid the moon somehow.

“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?

« on: December 14, 2018, 12:20:53 AM »

That you can take pictures during a solar eclipse and confirm that it is indeed the moon that's blocking the sun doesn't seem to hold much weight with them.

How so?  The two explanations for solar eclipses would look identical as long as Rahu is presumed to have the same angular size as the moon.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?

« on: December 13, 2018, 05:37:38 PM »

I wonder how transparent moon believers explain the lack of sunlight coming through it during a solar eclipse?

I'm no transparent moon believer (mark me down as a transparent moon agnostic) but many Flat Earthers believe that solar eclipses are caused by a black disc (known as Rahu in Ancient Indian astronomy) passing in front of the sun.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 12, 2018, 06:42:49 PM »

Any photos or videos that I might have would just be claimed to be be altered so there's no point to showing them.  No one on here as ever written down acceptable photo or video authentication standards that everyone could accept.  It would just take one person to say 'fake' and then everyone would believe it.   

Whether or not the photo is genuine isn't really even relevant, I just would like to visualize what it is you're claiming.

I tried to explain that perspective wasn't a factor in my observations.  We had a very good telescope on the bridge of the ship and we could only see the TOPS of the clouds at first.  As the ship progressed we could start to see more & more of the clouds until a small gap started to appear between the sea and the bottoms of the clouds.  What I was seeing couldn't be explained with the flat earth paradigm, but only with a globe earth one.   

What I saw was just a kind of a reversal of the 'sunken ship' effect that is so often 'debunked' on this site and I didn't really expect too many to believe me anyway.

You might have tried to explain why perspective couldn't explain it but you didn't succeed.  When you make this kind of "slam-dunk FE debunked!" claim you should probably put more effort into explaining and illustrating the phenomena.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 12, 2018, 05:54:57 PM »

From time to time I would see an interesting thing while at sea in the middle of the ocean.  The ship would be under a perfectly clear sky and heading towards a bank of clouds ahead.  Those clouds appeared to extend all the way to the surface of the ocean and you could see the tops of the clouds above that.  For sure you would assume that the ship was heading into some fog and we would have to be ready to operate in reduced visibility in a couple of hours.  Then as we progressed closer to the clouds, slowly the bottoms of the clouds would start to appear to rise above the level of the sea.  After a while we would actually pass under the clouds with about a 500 foot to 1000 foot ceiling.  This phenomenon wasn't all that unusual and would usually appear as we approached a weather front while at sea.  It illustrated the sunken ship effect only using clouds above the sea.  Perspective isn't an issue here because you would start by seeing the actual tops of the clouds at a far distance then slowly the side and then the bottoms would appear.  Finally the bottoms would appear to rise from the sea and then eventually the ship would pass under the clouds.  Only with a global earth would you expect to see something like this.

Maybe I'm not grasping fully what you're trying to say but it doesn't sound like anything that couldn't be explained by perspective.  Do you have any video or photographic evidence of what it is you claimed to see?  On a flat earth clouds the bottoms of the clouds would appear to rise as you got closer to them due to perspective just the same as on a globe earth.

Does this picture illustrate what you saw when you said "The ship would be under a perfectly clear sky and heading towards a bank of clouds ahead.  Those clouds appeared to extend all the way to the surface of the ocean and you could see the tops of the clouds above that.?"

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 12, 2018, 04:04:07 AM »

Turn you train track vertically. Bottom track's the ground, top track the clouds respectfully 2 miles apart. Now ad a 3rd rail to represent the sun at 3,000 miles apart.  Now move the them away until the the two bottom rails by perspective almost come together. This represents the clouds an the ground where you can still see the sun between the two illuminating the clouds even before it drops blow the horizon. Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.     
 

This (above) is a poor and convoluted analogy but I'll play: What would the observer from a given point of the lower train track see of the upper train track?  That depends upon the distance of the given point of the upper train track that he is observing and the height of the upper tracks above the lower tracks.  At a given distance (if both tracks were long enough), an arbitrary portion of the upper track (representing the sun) would appear so low that only observers situated at the bottom end of the lower train tracks would see that portion of the upper tracks (which is analogous to the sun illuminating the lower portion of clouds.)