9501

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the notion of FES reunification

« on: July 19, 2014, 07:22:04 PM »

I say hold a vote on main forum of the other site on who would like to see fair and open elections. If the results rule that the society would like to see elections, Daniel will be embarrassed to do anything otherwise. As I said, I believe many people would be embarrassed to say "I'm the president. No elections!"

Let the community decide on how the power structure should be set up.

9502

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia

« on: July 19, 2014, 07:04:38 PM »

And just how does that satisfy Daniel who is ultimately the only party that can make that a possibility?

If I had started a club or society, appointing myself as president, and my group members suddenly started calling for elections to change things up in order to grow and prosper I would be embarrassed to say "I'm the president. No elections!" Wouldn't you?

It's not like if you're not the president or vice president you can't contribute. If you make a reputation as someone who contributes then you will be noticed and respected. A title doesn't give you reputation. A title only gives you the authority and access to get things done for the benefit of the society.

I agree. He's not really a president, but so what?

On the so what.... I see how that bothers you but I don't see why it would bother him. You say that you'd be embarrassed and I probably would be too but it all really depends on whether you guys matter to him at all and given what looks like unfettered hate toward him I'm not so sure he'd be inclined to play fair.

I believe that Daniel has morals deep down inside. It's up to people like you and Wilmore to go back and remind him of that. Call for what is right for the society, and show him how embarrassing it is otherwise.

Like I said, it may be that it's all about the site to him and NOT the society.

It's called the Flat Earth Society. The site is nothing without the society.

9503

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia

« on: July 19, 2014, 06:45:38 PM »

And just how does that satisfy Daniel who is ultimately the only party that can make that a possibility?

If I had started a club or society, appointing myself as president, and my group members suddenly started calling for elections to change things up in order to grow and prosper I would be embarrassed to say "I'm the president. No elections!" Wouldn't you?

It's not like if you're not the president or vice president you can't contribute. If you make a reputation as someone who contributes then you will be noticed and respected. A title doesn't give you reputation. A title only gives you the authority and access to get certain things done for the benefit of the society.

9504

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia

« on: July 19, 2014, 06:00:26 PM »

I'm having a hard time seeing what either side has to offer the other.

The trade-off that I've seen suggested here is that the members of this forum would move back to the old one if Daniel steps down but seeing as how Daniel is in charge of the old site, I don't see how the members that have embraced the new one simply coming back is worth losing control of something he probably doesn't want to lose control of. What matters is that the old site drives more traffic to newcomers. Discussions actually happen in the upper fora there and in due time, you'll have regulars on the FE side again. It just won't be the same people and if I was Daniel, I don't see why that would matter at all. The traffic exists because when a curious bystander looks for it on a search engine, that is where they are led.

On the other hand, keeping in mind that Daniel would probably not give the site away, I don't see why the members here should leave either. The site is functional and the domain name is good enough. The only thing missing is the traffic and the only way to change that is by working to get more people to come here instead. This means getting the word out but it also means that you have to have a conversation taking place in the upper fora. There just isn't much going on in the upper fora and unless people who like to argue for FE want to make that discussion happen, there is no reason for newcomers to keep the discussion going. There is literally 2 or 3 posts per day here in the FE discussion boards. Compare that to the old site where there is an abundant amount of activity in the upper boards. Every five minutes there is something else being added to the discussion there. You need people on the FE side here that actually care to counter RE arguments.

Just my 2 cents.

Just to weigh in slightly (and briefly): I don't think anyone is really talking about a compromise of this sort. I don't see a net benefit for either side in such a scenario, and it doesn't really make any sense for anyone. The kind of reconciliation I envisage would be one along the lines of what Snupes suggested earlier.


I don't mean to unduly direct this conversation, but it would be bad if people started getting downbeat or unduly negative about the chances of a deal because they had the wrong gist.

The only way I see everyone being satisfied is if elections were held, to make things fair and equal. If Daniel is truly the best choice for the society then he will be secure in his position. Only the society knows what is best for it. That would be the fairest way to handle things.

9505

Flat Earth Projects / Re: FES reunification

« on: July 19, 2014, 05:40:26 PM »

I would like to see reunification. I agree that Shenton must step down as president. His presidency is a fraud. A president must be fairly elected as such by his or her constituents.

Daniel must agree to fairness and democracy. If he would like to "run" at some point then that's fine. He should not be prohibited from doing so. If he is truly the best choice, then the people will choose him and he has nothing to worry about. We must frame this as a call for openness.

9506

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia

« on: July 19, 2014, 04:45:25 PM »

I have a question. Who elected Daniel?

Who elected Samuel Shenton or Charles K. Johnson?

Samuel Shenton did not form a group and appoint himself president. He formed a group, appointing himself only as secretary and treasurer of affairs. The group then chose someone named William Mills as their president.

Sounds like Mills was a figurehead and Shenton did all of the real work.

They had a group. They got together for events. They had MEETINGS. The group had a say in matters. They chose their presidents. There is a distinct difference between that FES group and Daniel's fraudulent presidency.

John Davis claims to have his own FES group in Tennessee.  What's stopping you from forming your own FES group and running it however you see fit?

Nothing stopped us. We did form our own group.

The admins of this forum knew enough that they couldn't just appoint themselves president and vice president and call it a day. Nor could they simply appoint someone to be the president. It is common knowledge that presidents must be elected, whether it is president of the classroom, president of the astronomy club, or president of the United States. If you appointed yourself the title of president then you are a fraud.

9507

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia

« on: July 19, 2014, 04:38:45 PM »

I have a question. Who elected Daniel?

Presidents are elected by their constituents.

Is that how it works in the business world?  You are treating the FES like it's a democratic nation and, hello, it's not.

Yes, that's how it works everywhere. The definition of president is an elected leader. Company presidents are elected by the shareholders of the company. If you are appointed then you are a CEO, chairman, director, or some other title, although the higher positions like CEO/CFO are often elected by the shareholders or board of directors as well.

9508

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Membership suggestion

« on: July 19, 2014, 04:23:37 PM »

I support opening up membership as Thork suggests. Membership isn't meaningless because it's freely given. It is meaningful because that person deliberately chose to become a member of the Flat Earth Society.

9509

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia

« on: July 19, 2014, 04:07:44 PM »

I have a question. Who elected Daniel?

Who elected Samuel Shenton or Charles K. Johnson?

Samuel Shenton did not form a group and appoint himself president. He formed a group, appointing himself only as secretary and treasurer of affairs. The group then chose someone named William Mills as their president.

They had a group. They got together for events. They had MEETINGS. The group had a say in matters. They chose their presidents. There is a distinct difference between that FES group and Daniel's fraudulent presidency.

9510

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia

« on: July 19, 2014, 06:59:59 AM »

Well, he's a part of the Shenton legacy. It isn't much, but it's something.

He's not related to Samuel Shenton. Daniel Shenton is a pseudonym.

9511

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Greenpeace asks Lego to stop partnership with Shell

« on: July 19, 2014, 06:35:20 AM »

I don't see Green Peace's argument. Last I checked oil spills were not a world wide epidemic. I also don't buy the evil implication that Shell is trying to kill the environment with oil spills.

Of course not, it'd be bad PR, and would cost them money for cleanup.

Then what is the video trying to say? That oil spill accidents sometimes happen and therefore Shell is a bad terrible sinful company which brainwashes the feeble minds of children with insidious Lego toys to turn them pro-industry and pro-oil?

9512

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia

« on: July 19, 2014, 06:22:51 AM »

I have a question. Who elected Daniel?

Presidents are elected by their constituents. If you were not elected by your constituents then the title of "president" or "vice president" is fraudulent, just like the fake presidents of some 3rd world countries. But even they know enough about the title that they need to concoct a rigged election to claim that position.

Daniel is a fraud president. I was on the forum from when it began. There was never any election. His claim of being the "President of the Flat Earth Society", which he uses as justification on the talk page, has no merit whatsoever.

9513

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Greenpeace asks Lego to stop partnership with Shell

« on: July 18, 2014, 10:19:29 PM »

I don't see Green Peace's argument. Last I checked oil spills were not a world wide epidemic. I also don't buy the evil implication that Shell is trying to kill the environment with oil spills.

9514

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia

« on: July 18, 2014, 09:56:35 PM »

I guess the mystery of who edited that article has been solved.

Indeed. I was just about to post something along these lines.

Was that a confession, Tom Bishop?

I did not change the page, but wouldn't have objected to it.

9515

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia

« on: July 18, 2014, 09:41:55 PM »

I don't see what's wrong with the Wikipedia edits. Wikipedia works by user contribution. I saw on the talk page it was argued that many of the notable members have moved here. Therefore this is now the Flat Earth Society. I see the change to the page as a simple update of fact.

As per "they're copycats stealing content" argument, I don't consider that as valid considering that I wrote a majority of the material in the original Wiki, and now I'm here.

If Daniel and his team feels that they are the 'true' Flat Earth Society, then maybe they should argue based on their notability with something other than "we posted links to some books written by previous Flat Earth Societies" and "Tom Bishop stole the wiki he wrote". They can make their case by talking about the few Flat Earth podcast episodes they did which had nothing to do with the topic of Flat Earth. Or perhaps they can talk about their engaging Flat Earth community activities, such as the annual "save the animals" charity drive panhandling.

9516

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Round Earth Theory explain the Selenelion?

« on: July 08, 2014, 06:46:09 PM »

Your argument relies on assumed position of the moon based on your best guess and the same for the sun which we do not see in the video. I do agree that your contentions are seemingly impossible if we assume what you've laid out in the op. But like markjo said, you've presented no evidence about where the sun is.

Please discover the definitions of dawn and dusk.

We know where the sun is when the moon is fully eclipsed... it's directly behind the earth, lined up with the earth and moon.

Excuses that the sun is "also" refracted 0.5 degrees into the air are meaningless when we see that the required angles of refraction must be significantly more than a 0.5 degrees here and there for any of this to occur.

Oh, so you don't think this video depicts a selenelion?

I'm not making excuses, I've been hammering on about all the things that you haven't considered before you drew your initial conclusions in the op. If the moon is as high as it is in the video and if the sun hasn't even risen yet until the moon is much closer to the horizon toward the end of the video, then I don't see the problem. Since there is no evidence of what is going on with the apparent position of the sun other than the fact that it looks like dawn, then what else can be said?

We don't need to know the position of the sun behind the camera for this.

When the moon is eclipsed we know that the sun, earth, and moon are completely aligned. At this moment in the video we can see that the moon is several moon-diameters above the horizon line. I estimate over 4.5 moon diameters with a ruler. Knowing that the moon takes up 0.5 degrees of the sky, we can compute (0.5 x 4.5) that moon is over 2.25 degrees above the horizon.

Thinking back to the scaled model; if it takes over 1 degree of refraction just to get the moon to the horizon, and it must take an additional 2.25 degrees to get into its position into the sky, the moon must therefore be refracted at least 3.25 degrees to be where it is.

This is ignoring that the moon must be even lower than the last scaled model I posted depicts, beneath the earth's shadow, to account for it being lit from the bottom up.

Altogether, we see that the scenario is plainly impossible.

9517

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Round Earth Theory explain the Selenelion?

« on: July 08, 2014, 06:22:10 PM »

Your argument relies on assumed position of the moon based on your best guess and the same for the sun which we do not see in the video. I do agree that your contentions are seemingly impossible if we assume what you've laid out in the op. But like markjo said, you've presented no evidence about where the sun is.

Please discover the definitions of dawn and dusk.

We know where the sun is when the moon is fully eclipsed... it's directly behind the earth, lined up with the earth and moon.

Excuses that the sun is "also" refracted 0.5 degrees into the air are meaningless when we see that the required angles of refraction must be significantly more than a 0.5 degrees here and there for any of this to occur.

9518

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Round Earth Theory explain the Selenelion?

« on: July 08, 2014, 06:06:24 PM »

I see that you used my drawing where I did not make this to scale. If you would like to show the curved point in the imaginary line that separates the denser medium and the lighter medium of air then be my guest. I at least know that these calculations are far from simple. Not to mention that it isn't merely a case of two mediums. You are going from space into the atmosphere which gets progressively more dense as you get closer to the surface.

The part of the atmosphere where these rays enter the atmosphere is very far away too. Much further away than the horizon since it is some 80 miles or so above the surface of earth.

And again, remember the light we are seeing from the moon is the result of refracted light from the opposite side of the earth from the observer as well. This means that the moons position itself is also highly suspect.

Here's a scaled model from http://andrewsteele.co.uk/physics/senseofscale/

"This image shows the Earth–Moon system to scale, with every pixel on the full-size image representing about 220 km."



Applying protractor we see that we require over 1 degree just to get to the horizon, let alone several moon diameters into the sky as seen in the video.



Not only that, the moon would have to be positioned a bit lower than it is in this image in order to get the shadows to match up and be lit from the bottom, as seen in the video.

We can clearly see that over 0.5 degrees is required, whichever way we put it.

Nor does it matter if this angle of refraction happens in the atmosphere "80 miles from the surface of the earth". The closer the starting point of the protractor gets to the moon, the bigger the angle will be.

9519

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Round Earth Theory explain the Selenelion?

« on: July 08, 2014, 05:42:50 PM »

Without being to scale, this is what I mean:




We need to use the appropriate ray of light.

Mine isn't to scale but I'm just trying to get the concept across for you.

Another note. Refraction occurs when a ray of light goes from one medium to another. In this scenario the line that is separating the two mediums is curved and the point where it enters is far away from the observer on the horizon. This means that that line is not parallel with the earth underneath the observer. Because of this, the calculated half degree would need to be based off of whatever angle the ray of light from the moon hits the new medium as it enters. This makes it a lot more feasible for that half degree.

But the refraction you need is way more than 0.5 degrees.

Extending your refraction with a red line:


Adding protractor:

9520

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Round Earth Theory explain the Selenelion?

« on: July 07, 2014, 07:32:51 PM »

Why do you have the blue line coming from the moon heading toward a point so far away from the observer? You point it to where it needs to be above the observer, where that ray of light enters a denser medium. You don't really have any conception of what is going on do you?

Do you mean, like this?

Tom, you have to add .5 degrees to both the sun's elevation and the moon's elevation.  Also, please make it a ray diagram so that you can see where the umbra and penumbra are (adjusted for refraction).

0.5 degrees doesn't help you and 1 degree doesn't help you.

In the video from the first post of this thread the moon is several moon-diameters above the horizon line. It is common knowledge that the moon takes up 0.5 degrees of the sky. So we can already see that the optical illusion explanation is bunk.