The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Don Lengthy on April 13, 2017, 01:47:12 PM
-
...then why would it be so hard to convince us?
Despite your claims to have a wealth of strong evidence for Round Earth Theory, there are still thousands of Flat Earthers, all around the world! Including some very ingenious and deliberate thinkers. If it were truly clear that the Earth wasn't flat, do you not think we'd accept it?
-
And if the earth were really flat, then why would it be so hard to convince the billions who believe it is round, including the vast majority (probably over 99%) of scientists?
If the earth were truly flat, don't you think we'd accept it?
Question: have you truly deliberately examined the evidence for a round earth and found the flaws in all of the the reasoning supporting that evidence? For example, how do you explain the results of this experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk&t=209s
And for reference, the results are also presented as a chart here (Note that there is an added photo that is not in the video that was taken at the same location as the last observation reported in the video, but at a higher elevation for the observer):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/138443523@N08/32177485004/
-
If the earth were truly flat, don't you think we'd accept it?
No. Because you've been lied to since Kindergarten.
I just discovered Flat Earth about a year ago.
Which scenario do you think is more inducive to cognitive bias?
-
If the earth were truly flat, don't you think we'd accept it?
No. Because you've been lied to since Kindergarten.
I just discovered Flat Earth about a year ago.
Which scenario do you think is more inducive to cognitive bias?
Ok, so that means that you've finally decided?
But besides that, how would a flat earth explain the video?
-
If the earth were truly flat, don't you think we'd accept it?
No. Because you've been lied to since Kindergarten.
I just discovered Flat Earth about a year ago.
Which scenario do you think is more inducive to cognitive bias?
Ok, so that means that you've finally decided?
But besides that, how would a flat earth explain the video?
I decided that I don't know. And I feel a special kind of pity for those that have convinced themselves that they do.
Haven't had a chance to watch it, will check it out later.
-
If the earth were truly flat, don't you think we'd accept it?
No. Because you've been lied to since Kindergarten.
I just discovered Flat Earth about a year ago.
Which scenario do you think is more inducive to cognitive bias?
I just discovered that there was a flat earth movement a few months ago, and I listened to a lot of videos and read a lot of material both in favor of the theory and also debunking the theory. I have yet to encounter evidence for a flat earth that held up to careful examination and analysis. And I have yet to encounter evidence for a round earth that did not hold up under that same kind of examination and analysis. Is that all due to cognitive bias from what I was taught? I don't think so, as I also use reasoning and logic applied to both sets of evidence. And the evidence for one theory falls down every time and one theory withstands reasoning and logic every time.
My experience on this forum has reflected that same pattern. I find there are very few flat earthers that consistently and directly respond to my questions and assertions with well-reasoned arguments. I am not sure why that is, but it most often feels like this is actually "The Round Earth Society" based on how willing the round earthers are to actually engage versus how unwilling most flat-earthers seem to be to engage with the evidence and the reasoning for a round earth. Or maybe the round earthers outnumber the flat earthers to such a degree that it just seems that way.
I am glad to hear that you are willing to watch the video posted. If you have a valid and logical counter-argument to the conclusion that it is evidence for a round earth, I would be glad to hear it. Again most of the time, I do not receive any responses that are well reasoned and thoughtful to my own assertions on here.
-
Just as an example, I checked this forum for the threads under "Flat Earth Debate" where this thread is located. On the first 2 pages of thread, 80-90% of the most recent comments on the various threads were by round earth proponents. Where are all of the flat earthers willing to debate or discuss?
-
Just as an example, I checked this forum for the threads under "Flat Earth Debate" where this thread is located. On the first 2 pages of thread, 80-90% of the most recent comments on the various threads were by round earth proponents. Where are all of the flat earthers willing to debate or discuss?
The flat earth proponents here have simply grown tired of having the same debates over and over again. It seems each round of noobs that come by are more entitled with each iteration. Roundies make demands that they can rarely fulfill themselves, so over the years, regulars get tired of it.
-
JUNKER, come on! That is a cop-out argument and you know it. The fundamental fact of the matter is that even the founder of modern FET makes MASSIVE errors in ENaG. Furthermore he claims a PhD that he could NOT have had, since Britain's Empire did not offer it until 1917. The USA did not until 1861, and he was parading up and down the length and breadth of Britain teaching his bilge at the time. The only place that DID was what was then pre-Imperial Germany. There is NO evidence that he spoke German or ever went there.
His MD is also suspect. We know he had some education in Scotland, but there is no indication of his graduation with any degree. He did have medical background, that much is clear. So does my mother. An MD that does not make.
My whole point is that pretty much EVERY single argument FEer's make, including Rowbotham, will not stand up to scientific or historical evidence. Whining is NOT the solution. Using the scientific method, and historically valid points, is. FEer's seem to be singularly unable to accomplish that.
-
I understand why someone who has had a debate several times would not be interested in engaging it in again. But where are all of the flat earth noobs who are also just encountering these ideas? Are all of the flat earthers on here, old timers who are too tired to discuss in depth? Is this like an old monastery where all of the monks are old and no one new is joining their ranks? Why are there so few new believers attracted to this site?
-
I understand why someone who has had a debate several times would not be interested in engaging it in again. But where are all of the flat earth noobs who are also just encountering these ideas? Are all of the flat earthers on here, old timers who are too tired to discuss in depth? Is this like an old monastery where all of the monks are old and no one new is joining their ranks? Why are there so few new believers attracted to this site?
Because they come here and get verbally abused a couple times and never come back. Also, seems that RE people are way more insecure in their beliefs because they have to come here every day to reaffirm them. There is no doubt a large FE community, and this one forum doesn't hardly represent its entirety. As Junker said, it gets a little old debating on the internet where the bias and the circle jerk is so strong that even a well argued point will honestly just get swept aside if it doesn't agree with the GROUPTHINK.
-
You do need to be a bit thick skinned to debate things on the internet. I try to keep a level tone and not resort to personal attacks, but it is too easy to get carried away when something goes against your beliefs.
I do have a wonderful life, so if no one answers my questions and observations, I will actually be just fine 8)
-
I understand why someone who has had a debate several times would not be interested in engaging it in again. But where are all of the flat earth noobs who are also just encountering these ideas? Are all of the flat earthers on here, old timers who are too tired to discuss in depth? Is this like an old monastery where all of the monks are old and no one new is joining their ranks? Why are there so few new believers attracted to this site?
Because they come here and get verbally abused a couple times and never come back. Also, seems that RE people are way more insecure in their beliefs because they have to come here every day to reaffirm them. There is no doubt a large FE community, and this one forum doesn't hardly represent its entirety. As Junker said, it gets a little old debating on the internet where the bias and the circle jerk is so strong that even a well argued point will honestly just get swept aside if it doesn't agree with the GROUPTHINK.
I don't think it's a question of REer's being insecure. I think it's more along the line of them thinking FEer's are simply so utterly absurd that they want to try to argue sense into them.
I very rarely get into the topic, because anyone who has an IQ over 70 knows the earth is round. The Greeks knew this over 2400 years ago. Every educated sailor, and most educated people of any variety, including Columbus and his crew, knew it in 1492, Washington Irving notwithstanding.
I usually stick to theoretical subjects here at TFES. But I could not help but see this one and dive in.
-
Just as an example, I checked this forum for the threads under "Flat Earth Debate" where this thread is located. On the first 2 pages of thread, 80-90% of the most recent comments on the various threads were by round earth proponents. Where are all of the flat earthers willing to debate or discuss?
The flat earth proponents here have simply grown tired of having the same debates over and over again. It seems each round of noobs that come by are more entitled with each iteration. Roundies make demands that they can rarely fulfill themselves, so over the years, regulars get tired of it.
Flat earthers simply have no factual information of a flat earth.
-
Just as an example, I checked this forum for the threads under "Flat Earth Debate" where this thread is located. On the first 2 pages of thread, 80-90% of the most recent comments on the various threads were by round earth proponents. Where are all of the flat earthers willing to debate or discuss?
The flat earth proponents here have simply grown tired of having the same debates over and over again. It seems each round of noobs that come by are more entitled with each iteration. Roundies make demands that they can rarely fulfill themselves, so over the years, regulars get tired of it.
Flat earthers simply have no factual information of a flat earth.
I would suggest reading the wiki, FAQ, and doing some searching on the forum. Aside from that, your post is completely irrelevant and off topic. I am not sure what it will take to get you to follow very simple rules, but it seems that you refuse. Have a couple week vacation to review the rules.
-
Just as an example, I checked this forum for the threads under "Flat Earth Debate" where this thread is located. On the first 2 pages of thread, 80-90% of the most recent comments on the various threads were by round earth proponents. Where are all of the flat earthers willing to debate or discuss?
The flat earth proponents here have simply grown tired of having the same debates over and over again. It seems each round of noobs that come by are more entitled with each iteration. Roundies make demands that they can rarely fulfill themselves, so over the years, regulars get tired of it.
Flat earthers simply have no factual information of a flat earth.
I would suggest reading the wiki, FAQ, and doing some searching on the forum. Aside from that, your post is completely irrelevant and off topic. I am not sure what it will take to get you to follow very simple rules, but it seems that you refuse. Have a couple week vacation to review the rules.
And when you present that information to the Flat earth proponents, don't be surprised when they disavow it the moment it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The topic here is "why is it so hard to convince people the earth is round?"
I believe that gecko's post was right on topic and his ban should be lifted, since until the Flat Earth Society can agree on a reliable repository of information rather than an "unregulated mess" that gets chucked out in a heartbeat, then none of you have any concrete information to back yp the Flat Earth claims.
And our sources? Try and fucking encyclopedia on the planet, every geophysicist that has ever published and even a cursory Google search that will reveal countless images from space.
So unless you guys can stop being deliberately stupid, this is not a debate forum - it's a place where "roundies" get banned for pointing out baseless arguments.
-
Avoiding the use of the F-Bomb, the above is a correct perspective. There certainly IS a Flat Earth Repository on this site. But banning someone for being unable to accept the totally illogical arguments contained therein is simply juvenile. It certainly doesn't improve your case any. It merely makes you look like a 5-year-old. Perhaps improving the arguments, to the point that they can be accepted by respectable scientists and historians would be a start.
I too thought the statement for which he was banned was entirely apropos.
-
Why is there no discussion allowed in the Wiki? If we are directed to just read the Wiki, then why can we not post replies and questions directly to the information in the Wiki? It appears there is a button for that, but they all open up to blank pages.
-
NOVARUS, I encourage you to edit out the the F-Bomb in your post. One, it is gratuitous. Two, it may get you banned. Just my thoughts.
-
Some guy on Youtube named Rob Skiba has posted videos of a trip he took on Lake Michigan which he claims proves the earth is flat because he can still see part of the Chicago skyline from over 40 miles away. Unfortunately for him, the video actually proves the curvature of the earth as the visible portion of the Skyline is reduced the further he got away from Chicago....by the proportion one could predict from a calculation based on a round earth.
It is great when flat-earthers set out to prove the earth is flat and in the process prove that the earth is actually round!
Here is an analysis of the images taken by Rob Skiba:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-_U5Yhlcck
-
NIRMALA, I encourage you to edit out the the F-Bomb in your post. One, it is gratuitous. Two, it may get you banned. Just my thoughts.
It is Novarus who has the f-bomb in his post, but your advice is still good.
-
NIRMALA, quite correct. Post edited to reflect that.
-
Some guy on Youtube named Rob Skiba has posted videos of a trip he took on Lake Michigan which he claims proves the earth is flat because he can still see part of the Chicago skyline from over 40 miles away. Unfortunately for him, the video actually proves the curvature of the earth as the visible portion of the Skyline is reduced the further he got away from Chicago....by the proportion one could predict from a calculation based on a round earth.
It is great when flat-earthers set out to prove the earth is flat and in the process prove that the earth is actually round!
Here is an analysis of the images taken by Rob Skiba:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-_U5Yhlcck
What do you know about Lake Michigan?
I happen to live nearby and I can certainly tell you the waters of that lake at times tend to collect in greater amounts toward the end of the "fingertip."
Skiba's video does nothing to prove RE.
-
What do you know about Lake Michigan?
I happen to live nearby and I can certainly tell you the waters of that lake at times tend to collect in greater amounts toward the end of the "fingertip."
Skiba's video does nothing to prove RE.
I have a feeling that if enough supposedly flat water collected in the tip of Lake Michigan to hide 2/3 or more of a skyscraper, then quite a few people would have drowned.
-
Some guy on Youtube named Rob Skiba has posted videos of a trip he took on Lake Michigan which he claims proves the earth is flat because he can still see part of the Chicago skyline from over 40 miles away. Unfortunately for him, the video actually proves the curvature of the earth as the visible portion of the Skyline is reduced the further he got away from Chicago....by the proportion one could predict from a calculation based on a round earth.
It is great when flat-earthers set out to prove the earth is flat and in the process prove that the earth is actually round!
Here is an analysis of the images taken by Rob Skiba:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-_U5Yhlcck
What do you know about Lake Michigan?
I happen to live nearby and I can certainly tell you the waters of that lake at times tend to collect in greater amounts toward the end of the "fingertip."
Skiba's video does nothing to prove RE.
We're is your proof? How much is "greater" amounts? By my calculation you have to have about 280 feet greater. I'm not going to believe you until you can prove it.
-
Skiba's boat was on top of the water. Even if you had a Hurricane Katrina sized storm surge of say 25 feet, then Skiba's boat would have been 25 feet higher and also there would have been serious flooding along the entire southern tip of the lake. The water and his boat both being up higher than normal would have had some effect on the appearance of a skyscraper at a distance, if the surface of that higher water was truly flat. However, if the surface is curved as predicted by a round earth, then the sky scraper still would have gradually disappeared just as it did at the various distances in the video, no matter how much "extra" water had collected in the tip of the lake, due to say wind.
A more typical surge of water in a body of water that size without a major storm would have been at most a foot or two. It was a clear sunny day with waves about 1-2 feet high, so clearly no major storm surge would have been in effect.
-
I believe that gecko's post was right on topic and his ban should be lifted, since until the Flat Earth Society can agree on a reliable repository of information rather than an "unregulated mess" that gets chucked out in a heartbeat, then none of you have any concrete information to back yp the Flat Earth claims.
Do you have any idea what context is? Have you read the thread? Is simple logic hard to follow? No wonder roundies have such a hard time following a very basic set of rules.
And our sources? Try and fucking encyclopedia on the planet, every geophysicist that has ever published and even a cursory Google search that will reveal countless images from space.
So unless you guys can stop being deliberately stupid, this is not a debate forum - it's a place where "roundies" get banned for pointing out baseless arguments.
So, you have no sources, then. Gotcha. It isn't our job to do your homework. And no one gets banned for for pointing out baseless arguments. People get banned for repeatedly breaking the rules. Again, I know it is hard for you round earthers to grasp such a simple concept, but you should really work on it.
Avoiding the use of the F-Bomb, the above is a correct perspective. There certainly IS a Flat Earth Repository on this site. But banning someone for being unable to accept the totally illogical arguments contained therein is simply juvenile. It certainly doesn't improve your case any. It merely makes you look like a 5-year-old. Perhaps improving the arguments, to the point that they can be accepted by respectable scientists and historians would be a start.
I too thought the statement for which he was banned was entirely apropos.
I would suggest you review the rules, then. They really are quite simple. The rest of your post is irrelevant to the topic, and about as nonsensical as most of the drivel you have posted up to this point. Anyway, if you are really struggling this hard with understanding how the rules are applied, I would suggest asking a question in the appropriate forum. Again, it really isn't hard to understand.
-
JUNKER, the fact that you have to be heavy-handed with your Moderator status simply indicates an inability to present logical arguments. And yes. Every encyclopedia, every geophysicist who has published, and a cursory Google search DO in fact add up to an impressive list of sources.
I see you STILL have not responded to my points re: Rowbotham. I find that interesting.
-
JUNKER, the fact that you have to be heavy-handed with your Moderator status simply indicates an inability to present logical arguments.
Not only is this assertion false, it is also a non-sequitur. I am actually incredibly lenient. Very few people ever get banned, which can be verified as the ban log is publicly viewable for any user. Nice try, though. It seems you put about as much effort into this claim as your other nonsensical claims so far.
And yes. Every encyclopedia, every geophysicist who has published, and a cursory Google search DO in fact add up to an impressive list of sources.
Yet, you roundies cannot seem to cite them in arguments. You seem to be happy to allude to them, though.
I see you STILL have not responded to my points re: Rowbotham. I find that interesting.
I don't recall what your "points," were, but it doesn't matter as they are irrelevant to the discussion.
-
My advice would be to look up "Earth" in any currently published encyclopedia, in any language. It will immediately alert you to the fact that the object so designated is an oblate spheroid, third in orbit about a star, designated the Sun, or Sol. Said object is a planet, approximately 25,000 miles in circumference, with one satellite, designated the Moon. To date, it is the only known object in space to have life, although it is possible that life MAY exist on Mars in microscopic form. Usually said encyclopedia will contain a picture of said spheroid, so designated as Earth. Occasionally, one might find the Moon pictured as well.
I would recommend looking under the Volume of whatever encyclopedia you use that is designated to the letter "E". That will assist you considerably. World Book is excellent for its pictorial aspects. And it still publishes a hard-copy volume. Britannica is better in terms of information, but is now only found electronically.
There. I have just satisfied your request for citation of sources. Enjoy your research.
-
There. I have just satisfied your request for citation of sources. Enjoy your research.
You obviously have no clue whatsoever as to what it means to cite sources, or you are just trolling at this point. Have you ever written a research paper, or performed actual research? Nothing you are saying is even remotely accurate. I think we are done here since you can't grasp simple concepts such as evidence or citing sources.
-
There. I have just satisfied your request for citation of sources. Enjoy your research.
You obviously have no clue whatsoever as to what it means to cite sources, or you are just trolling at this point. Have you ever written a research paper, or performed actual research? Nothing you are saying is even remotely accurate. I think we are done here since you can't grasp simple concepts such as evidence or citing sources.
Please cite your sources and data that proves it's flat. That is your claim. The wiki doesn't count because you all wrote it. Please link outside sources. Data and map plots please.
-
Actually, yes. I have written a book. I have an MA, and 2 BAs, which probably is equal to or greater than your own education, likely greater, since I at least know the shape of the Earth.
And yes, I did validly cite any general encyclopedia article you might want on the oblate spheroid commonly designated "Earth". Your refusal to look up said information does not decrease the validity of the citation. I don't happen to have an encyclopedia with me at the moment, hence the general citation. But it should be sufficient for anyone with a 4th Grade education or better to find the information.
-
Please cite your sources and data that proves it's flat. That is your claim. The wiki doesn't count because you all wrote it. Please link outside sources. Data and map plots please.
Can you point out where I have made the claim that you are suggesting? Asking me to cite sources to support something I haven't claimed seems a bit nonsensical, don't you think?
Also, I am not sure who you are referring to relative to the wiki. I haven't written anything for it.
-
Please cite your sources and data that proves it's flat. That is your claim. The wiki doesn't count because you all wrote it. Please link outside sources. Data and map plots please.
Can you point out where I have made the claim that you are suggesting? Asking me to cite sources to support something I haven't claimed seems a bit nonsensical, don't you think?
Also, I am not sure who you are referring to relative to the wiki. I haven't written anything for it.
So you don't claim that the earth is flat?
-
Here is an 8-page article on Encyclopedia Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/place/Earth/Basic-planetary-data
Part way down the second page, there is even a short embedded video showing 10 reasons we know that the earth is round!
-
Please cite your sources and data that proves it's flat. That is your claim. The wiki doesn't count because you all wrote it. Please link outside sources. Data and map plots please.
Can you point out where I have made the claim that you are suggesting? Asking me to cite sources to support something I haven't claimed seems a bit nonsensical, don't you think?
Also, I am not sure who you are referring to relative to the wiki. I haven't written anything for it.
So you don't claim that the earth is flat?
Irrelevant. But I see you can't point out where I have made that claim. You sure do a good job of assuming, though.
-
Here is an 8-page article on Encyclopedia Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/place/Earth/Basic-planetary-data
Part way down the second page, there is even a short embedded video showing 10 reasons we know that the earth is round!
I don't see the video in that wall of irrelevant text. If I were to assume it is the same video that has been posted here repeatedly, then you are going to have to do better.
-
Given your title of "Planar" Moderator, it is not an unreasonable assumption. And again, a general citation to any respected encyclopedia IS sufficient. The fact that you don't like that is irrelevant.
-
Please cite your sources and data that proves it's flat. That is your claim. The wiki doesn't count because you all wrote it. Please link outside sources. Data and map plots please.
Can you point out where I have made the claim that you are suggesting? Asking me to cite sources to support something I haven't claimed seems a bit nonsensical, don't you think?
Also, I am not sure who you are referring to relative to the wiki. I haven't written anything for it.
So you don't claim that the earth is flat?
Irrelevant. But I see you can't point out where I have made that claim. You sure do a good job of assuming, though.
Nice deflection.
-
Given your title of "Planar" Moderator, it is not an unreasonable assumption.
It just happens to be the title of the position, given the forum we are on. There have been plenty of round earth proponents who were "planar moderators" over the years.
And again, a general citation to any respected encyclopedia IS sufficient. The fact that you don't like that is irrelevant.
Hey, whatever you say. You were called out for your BS and are trying to walk it back. You can pretend it isn't important all you want. I am sure those are some high quality degrees you have with the level of effort you seem to put in...
-
Below is a screenshot showing what the embedded video looks like:
-
Nice deflection.
What deflection? Pointing out what literally has transpired in the thread? I know you round earthers struggle with simple concepts pretty frequently, but this is becoming a bit too much. Please at least attempt to put some effort in.
-
No, JUNKER, you were called out for not using whatever passes for your intellect. You were unable to respond. You still have not responded to the fact that Rowbotham himself, on whose works you base your most basic claims, is a joke. You further have not bothered to look at an encyclopedia. Ergo, we have good reason to question your IQ, at the very least, and your intellectual integrity and honesty.
-
Below is a screenshot showing what the embedded video looks like:
10. Non sequitur.
9. Time zones exist in FE.
8. Irrelevant
7. A fun thought experiment that has been brought up repeatedly. Too bad no one has performed it on earth.
6. This one could be good for debate, since many FErs don't agree on the logistics of the sun.
5. Also irrelevant.
4. Circumnavigation works fine of FE.
3. Perspective.
2. Accounted for in FE.
1. What a weak number 1... Photographic evidence? Because photos have never been faked.
What a weak video. It is the same old, low-effort stuff that has been repeated and debunked again and again.
-
Irrelevant. But I see you can't point out where I have made that claim. You sure do a good job of assuming, though.
Nice deflection.
What deflection? Pointing out what literally has transpired in the thread? I know you round earthers struggle with simple concepts pretty frequently, but this is becoming a bit too much. Please at least attempt to put some effort in.
[/quote]
Please stay on topic. No need to belittle. You have breached rule 1 and 3.
-
Below is a screenshot showing what the embedded video looks like:
10. Non sequitur.
9. Time zones exist in FE.
8. Irrelevant
7. A fun thought experiment that has been brought up repeatedly. Too bad no one has performed it on earth.
6. This one could be good for debate, since many FErs don't agree on the logistics of the sun.
5. Also irrelevant.
4. Circumnavigation works fine of FE.
3. Perspective.
2. Accounted for in FE.
1. What a weak number 1... Photographic evidence? Because photos have never been faked.
What a weak video. It is the same old, low-effort stuff that has been repeated and debunked again and again.
Of course don't cite sources to the "debunked stuff". Just state that it has been and expect us to accept that. Real smooth.
-
No, JUNKER, you were called out for not using whatever passes for your intellect.
I think you are confused.
You were unable to respond. You still have not responded to the fact that Rowbotham himself, on whose works you base your most basic claims, is a joke.
What claims have I made that are based on Rowbotham? Have you read any of the thread up to this point? Or do you just post whatever the first thing that pops in your head turns out to be?
You further have not bothered to look at an encyclopedia. Ergo, we have good reason to question your IQ, at the very least, and your intellectual integrity and honesty.
Another non-sequitur. It is telling that you would rather argue about your inability to support your claims, instead of, you know, supporting them. But yeah, let's totally talk about my IQ and integrity.
-
Please stay on topic. No need to belittle. You have breached rule 1 and 3.
Hi there. As you are not a moderator, please refrain from attempting to moderate threads. Consider this a warning.
Of course don't cite sources to the "debunked stuff". Just state that it has been and expect us to accept that. Real smooth.
I don't expect you to accept anything. I am simply putting in as much effort in my replies as you put into your claims.
-
When you refuse to investigate a source that can be found in any elementary school classroom, yes, I question your IQ and integrity. My wife's students could do better, and many of them are Special Education students.
And your last post was juvenile. He was not attempting to moderate. He merely pointed out a violation of rules by someone who should know better. Perhaps you ought to learn how to act like an adult, rather than being heavy-handed with your position. I am going to report your post to other moderators.
-
And no, I have cited sources. You did not. Big difference.
-
When you refuse to investigate a source that can be found in any elementary school classroom, yes, I question your IQ and integrity. My wife's students could do better, and many of them are Special Education students.
More vague reference, no citations. I agree, your wife's students could put forth a better effort than you are right now. It is quite pitiful.
And your last post was juvenile. He was not attempting to moderate.
He merely pointed out a violation of rules by someone who should know better.
You realize you just claimed he was not doing something, and then described him doing the very thing you just said wasn't happening? Also, it isn't relevant to the thread, so I would suggest for you to move on. If you have an issue, there are places to discuss it. This is not the place.
Perhaps you ought to learn how to act like an adult, rather than being heavy-handed with your position.
Hey, I am just returning the favor of those I interact with. I also don't think you know what 'heavy-handed' means, based on your usage of the term.
I am going to report your post to other moderators.
Go for it, I am happy to have my actions reviewed. It is the only way to support a free and open community,
And no, I have cited sources. You did not. Big difference.
You do know that saying something over and over doesn't make it true, right?
-
Yes, the children could do better than you. JUNKER, you are a child in an adult' s body. In any civilised society, someone with your obvious lack of ability to function would not be allowed to interact with public. You should by law be restricted to your house, and all means of communication should be denied you except maybe smoke signals. You are a danger to intelligent beings.
And the fact that you have been given ANY power over others in even something so basic as this website, is an indicator of what a little Hitler you are in the present. God have mercy if you EVER get real power.
-
Yes, the children could do better than you. JUNKER, you are a child in an adult' s body. In any civilised society, someone with your obvious lack of ability to function would not be allowed to interact with public. You should by law be restricted to your house, and all means of communication should be denied you except maybe smoke signals. You are a danger to intelligent beings.
Hi there. Please refrain from personal attacks and low content posting in the upper fora. Consider this a warning. \
And the fact that you have been given ANY power over others even something so basic as this website, is an indicator of what a little Hitler you are in the present. God have mercy if you EVER get real power.
Glad to see Godwin's Law in full effect. Well-done, friend.
-
And yes, sometimes repeating a truth is necessary, particularly when the audience has indicated that they are obviously too slow of mind to comprehend the statement.
-
Godwin' s Law does not apply when the statement is true. However, would you prefer another example? Chairman Mao? Marshal Stalin?
-
And yes, sometimes repeating a truth is necessary
Now you just need to learn what truth means and maybe you will realize your error.
, particularly when the audience has indicated that they are obviously too slow of mind to comprehend the statement.
Last warning, refrain from personal attacks. All it does it prove that you have a weak argument (or in this case, no argument). But that is apparent to anyone reading the thread.
Godwin' s Law does not apply when the statement is true. However, would you prefer another example? Chairman Mao? Marshal Stalin?
>tfw someone un-ironically compares an internet forum to Hitler.
-
Yes, the children could do better than you. JUNKER, you are a child in an adult' s body. In any civilised society, someone with your obvious lack of ability to function would not be allowed to interact with public. You should by law be restricted to your house, and all means of communication should be denied you except maybe smoke signals. You are a danger to intelligent beings.
Hi there. Please refrain from personal attacks and low content posting in the upper fora. Consider this a warning.
Reported for abuse of moderator power.
And the fact that you have been given ANY power over others even something so basic as this website, is an indicator of what a little Hitler you are in the present. God have mercy if you EVER get real power.
Glad to see Godwin's Law in full effect. Well-done, friend.
[/quote]
-
And yes, sometimes repeating a truth is necessary
Now you just need to learn what truth means and maybe you will realize your error.
, particularly when the audience has indicated that they are obviously too slow of mind to comprehend the statement.
Last warning, refrain from personal attacks. All it does it prove that you have a weak argument (or in this case, no argument). But that is apparent to anyone reading the thread.
Reported for abuse of moderator power.
-
Below is a screenshot showing what the embedded video looks like:
10. Non sequitur.
9. Time zones exist in FE.
8. Irrelevant
7. A fun thought experiment that has been brought up repeatedly. Too bad no one has performed it on earth.
6. This one could be good for debate, since many FErs don't agree on the logistics of the sun.
5. Also irrelevant.
4. Circumnavigation works fine of FE.
3. Perspective.
2. Accounted for in FE.
1. What a weak number 1... Photographic evidence? Because photos have never been faked.
What a weak video. It is the same old, low-effort stuff that has been repeated and debunked again and again.
I will only tackle two of your points, although they are all rich areas for debate:
#4- Circumnavigation does not work on the flat earth. Yes, it is possible to circumnavigate the flat earth map even in the southern hemisphere, but not in the amount of time that modern commercial airlines do so if you connect the flights necessary. In other words, it would take much longer than it does in real life if the southern hemisphere was the size it is shown as on the flat earth map. See this post and the discussion that follows: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5888.msg113568#msg113568
#3- This is a misunderstanding about perspective. The perspective of a distant object changes because the angle of the light reflecting off of that object enters our eyes at a different angle, and so the object appears smaller in every direction. In other words the top half of the object gets smaller and the bottom half of the object gets smaller at the same rate. See this simple illustration:
(http://www.drawinghowtodraw.com/drawing-lessons/things/perspective-drawing/20.1perspective.JPG)
Note that the railroad tracks and the telephone poles "disappear" at the same rate. With an eye level horizon such as on the shore, this is how objects would disappear if the distance is not great enough for the curvature to have a noticeable effect. And it is what happens if you observe a very small boat that disappears well before the horizon. Actually the boat has not disappeared, it has just moved beyond the distance at which the anaided eye can distinguish it from the surroundings. The "vanishing point" in distance perspective is a theoretical concept. Nothing actually vanishes due to perspective.
Or check this photo:
(http://www.vanseodesign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/perspective-airport.jpg)
Note that the floor of the long hallway is not disappearing faster than the ceiling. There is no mechanism by which the bottom half of a distant object would disappear first due to perspective. In order for the bottom half to disappear more quickly than the top half, there needs to be something between the bottom half of the object and the observer's eye. That would not occur on a flat earth, even if the object were eventually far enough away to no longer be discernible by the eye from its surroundings, as there would not be anything in the way.
I know for some reason you still have not directly answered my question about why I cannot bring the sun or moon back into view once they have set below the horizon with a telescope. But if the sun or moon were disappearing due to perspective, then it would be possible. But there is no telescope that can see through another opaque object or surface.
However, on a round earth, there is something that gets in between the observer's eye and the distant object: the horizon. A stronger zoom on the videos in this thread would not have brought the lower parts of the buildings back into view, as they have not disappeared due to perspective. Again nothing actually ever leaves our line of sight due to perspective. That is a ridiculous assertion that is contrary to the way light always travels in a straight line between any object and our eye (leaving aside refraction which makes things appear higher than they are and would affect photons from both halves of an object roughly equally at the distance of the horizon)....again unless another object blocks its path. A photon of light reflecting off of the lower half of a distant object would follow this basic behavior of all photons as much as a photon reflecting off of the upper half of that same object.
if you disagree, can you show me the path a photon takes off of the lower half of a distant object that prevents it from reaching my eye if I am on a perfectly flat surface along with the object I am viewing. It is not geometrically possible on a truly flat plane for that photon to not reach my eye, if both my eye and the object being viewed are above the surface of the flat plane.
-
And yes, sometimes repeating a truth is necessary
Now you just need to learn what truth means and maybe you will realize your error.
, particularly when the audience has indicated that they are obviously too slow of mind to comprehend the statement.
Last warning, refrain from personal attacks. All it does it prove that you have a weak argument (or in this case, no argument). But that is apparent to anyone reading the thread.
Reported for abuse of moderator power.
Hi there. I am sorry you are having such a hard time following some very simple rules on how to post in the upper fora here. I am going to give you a few days off to review the rules. Please try to follow them if and when you return. If you need help finding the rules, just ask.
-
I wrote some more about how perspective cannot make an object disappear behind the horizon on a youtube video. Here is what I said:
This is a misunderstanding of how perspective works. On a truly flat surface, there is no mechanism involving perspective that would ever cause an object in the sky to disappear behind the distant ground, just as there is no mechanism that allows the distant earth to be hidden behind the clouds in the sky. A line of sight is a straight line and so both the line of sight to the sun and to the distant surface of a flat earth continue infinitely. The "vanishing point" in perspective is a theoretical concept as a distant object will get smaller and smaller, but it never truly leaves our line of sight solely due to perspective. We may no longer be able to see it if it becomes so small that our eye can no longer distinguish it from the surroundings, but at that point a telescope will bring it back into view by magnifying it to the point that our eye can distinguish it once again.
An object as large and bright as the sun would have to be a very great distance away from our eye for our eye to no longer be able to distinguish it from the surroundings, and again, a telescope would then bring it back into view. This does not happen with a setting sun as once the sun has set, we cannot bring it back into view with a telescope.
In fact the sun would have to be as far away as a mid sized star that our naked eye cannot see in order for it to appear to "vanish", but once again, in that case a telescope could bring it back into view.
The sun can only disappear behind the earth if the earth is blocking our line of sight to the sun. On a supposed flat earth, this never happens, and no amount of "perspective" will cause it to happen. The earth's surface may rise up to eye level, and similarly a distant object in the sky will drop down to eye level, but neither one will ever rise up or drop down enough to hide the other. The surface of the earth never rises above eye level, and the distant object in the sky never drops down below eye level, so again neither one can hide the other. One or the other would have to rise or drop more than the other and this does not happen due to perspective alone.
-
So, JUNKER, when you have no valid argument, go ahead and abuse the Moderator power. Smooth move, Dude. Truly makes you look mature.
-
So, JUNKER, when you have no valid argument, go ahead and abuse the Moderator power. Smooth move, Dude. Truly makes you look mature.
No, pOSEIDON, I simply enforce the rules of the fora. It seems you did not bother to read those rules during your time off, as you are still complaining about moderation in a thread where you were already warned/banned for that. I really don't know why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. I would suggest that you stay on topic, and use the methods available if you have a complaint. This is the only warning I will give you. Next one is a week ban.
-
I have a feeling that if enough supposedly flat water collected in the tip of Lake Michigan to hide 2/3 or more of a skyscraper, then quite a few people would have drowned.
We're is your proof? How much is "greater" amounts? By my calculation you have to have about 280 feet greater. I'm not going to believe you until you can prove it.
So, you are now claiming the water in Lake Michigan remains flat?
While the ocean experiences waves of larger magnitude of course, I can assure you the water in Lake Michigan regularly experiences swells and waves of oceanic proportions.
Your calculations are wrong.
-
I have a feeling that if enough supposedly flat water collected in the tip of Lake Michigan to hide 2/3 or more of a skyscraper, then quite a few people would have drowned.
We're is your proof? How much is "greater" amounts? By my calculation you have to have about 280 feet greater. I'm not going to believe you until you can prove it.
So, you are now claiming the water in Lake Michigan remains flat?
While the ocean experiences waves of larger magnitude of course, I can assure you the water in Lake Michigan regularly experiences swells and waves of oceanic proportions.
Your calculations are wrong.
Wow, a flat earther that claims that water is not always flat! Any rise in the water at that end of the lake caused by overall wind patterns would be relatively level, or it is not water we are talking about (remember that level is not the same thing as flat: level refers to the distance from the center of the earth which would remain constant on the surface of a body of water). Any tide-like surge caused by steady winds would affect all of the water in the area equally. Any waves would not be large enough to hide 2/3 to 3/4 of a sky scraper. Besides, the pictures were taken from a boat which at times would have been on top of the waves, so any hiding of the skyline by wave action would come and go as the boat itself rose and fell on the waves. Here is the original video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o37t6iBS_q4&t=1458s
The water was relatively calm that day with what appears to be a 1-2 foot swell which would have a negligible effect on the view of the skyline.
There is no question that he could still see the skyline, but the only explanation for why a larger and larger portion of it was hidden as he got farther away is that the earth itself is curved and so the average surface of the water is curved also.
-
Wow, a flat earther that claims that water is not always flat! Any rise in the water at that end of the lake caused by overall wind patterns would be relatively level, or it is not water we are talking about (remember that level is not the same thing as flat: level refers to the distance from the center of the earth which would remain constant on the surface of a body of water). Any tide-like surge caused by steady winds would affect all of the water in the area equally.
Assumption.
Any waves would not be large enough to hide 2/3 to 3/4 of a sky scraper.
Thinks conditions on a lake the size of Michigan are consistent across the board.
Besides, the pictures were taken from a boat which at times would have been on top of the waves, so any hiding of the skyline by wave action would come and go as the boat itself rose and fell on the waves. Here is the original video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o37t6iBS_q4&t=1458s
The water was relatively calm that day with what appears to be a 1-2 foot swell which would have a negligible effect on the view of the skyline.
Thinks swells are consistent across the board.
There is no question that he could still see the skyline, but the only explanation for why a larger and larger portion of it was hidden as he got farther away is that the earth itself is curved and so the average surface of the water is curved also.
Incorrect.
From the pic insert, it is clear to see there are atmospheric conditions already present, possible hindrance to ideal viewing.
-
Yes, I do assume that water remains roughly level, with exceptions for tide (negligible on the Great Lakes), wind or storm surges which can only affect fairly large areas at any particular point in time due to the fact that water remains roughly level, and waves, which were also negligible that day. The waves were fairly consistent through out the boat trip on a clear day, so yes, I am also assuming there were no giant waves between the boat and Chicago at any point during their short trip across the lake. In addition, any wind caused surge of water would have lifted the boat up higher which would have given them an easier time seeing more of the skyline than normal. If you truly think that a wind caused surge was high enough and somehow magically localized enough to hide the skyline, you would still need to explain why there was not large scale flooding as a result...unless the wind somehow created a giant hill of water in the middle of the lake....which is ridiculous. With average wave heights of 1-2 feet during their entire trip, and little or no apparent whitecaps, I would guess that the wind speed was under 15 mph for the entire trip, which again is not enough to cause much of a surge.
Please explain what atmospheric conditions would hide the lower 3/4 of a building 40 miles away, but allow the top 1/4 to remain visible. The building is not that high that there would be a significant difference in the amount of atmosphere between the viewer and the bottom of the building versus the amount of atmosphere between the viewer and the top of the building, so any atmospheric effects would be equivalent for all parts of the building. Remember, both top and bottom of the buildings are 42.6 miles away at the time the most distant image was recorded, so the amount of atmosphere involved is almost completely equivalent.
-
I have a feeling that if enough supposedly flat water collected in the tip of Lake Michigan to hide 2/3 or more of a skyscraper, then quite a few people would have drowned.
We're is your proof? How much is "greater" amounts? By my calculation you have to have about 280 feet greater. I'm not going to believe you until you can prove it.
So, you are now claiming the water in Lake Michigan remains flat?
While the ocean experiences waves of larger magnitude of course, I can assure you the water in Lake Michigan regularly experiences swells and waves of oceanic proportions.
Your calculations are wrong.
So, you must have done some calculations yourself then to determine that mine are wrong. How high do you propose the water swell was to obscure that much of the Chicago skyline? Use the 42 statue mile location and skyline view at the start of their journey.
-
Yes, I do assume that water remains roughly level, with exceptions for tide (negligible on the Great Lakes), wind or storm surges which can only affect fairly large areas at any particular point in time due to the fact that water remains roughly level, and waves, which were also negligible that day. The waves were fairly consistent through out the boat trip on a clear day, so yes, I am also assuming there were no giant waves between the boat and Chicago at any point during their short trip across the lake. In addition, any wind caused surge of water would have lifted the boat up higher which would have given them an easier time seeing more of the skyline than normal. If you truly think that a wind caused surge was high enough and somehow magically localized enough to hide the skyline, you would still need to explain why there was not large scale flooding as a result...unless the wind somehow created a giant hill of water in the middle of the lake....which is ridiculous. With average wave heights of 1-2 feet during their entire trip, and little or no apparent whitecaps, I would guess that the wind speed was under 15 mph for the entire trip, which again is not enough to cause much of a surge.
Please explain what atmospheric conditions would hide the lower 3/4 of a building 40 miles away, but allow the top 1/4 to remain visible. The building is not that high that there would be a significant difference in the amount of atmosphere between the viewer and the bottom of the building versus the amount of atmosphere between the viewer and the top of the building, so any atmospheric effects would be equivalent for all parts of the building. Remember, both top and bottom of the buildings are 42.6 miles away at the time the most distant image was recorded, so the amount of atmosphere involved is almost completely equivalent.
Wow.
How about fog?
How about smog?
Choose one.
Here is one of LA.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-los-angeles-skyline-with-palm-trees-in-the-foreground-376666267.jpg)
EDIT: was going to change/decrease image size,changes reverted
- junker
-
Just as an example, I checked this forum for the threads under "Flat Earth Debate" where this thread is located. On the first 2 pages of thread, 80-90% of the most recent comments on the various threads were by round earth proponents. Where are all of the flat earthers willing to debate or discuss?
The flat earth proponents here have simply grown tired of having the same debates over and over again. It seems each round of noobs that come by are more entitled with each iteration. Roundies make demands that they can rarely fulfill themselves, so over the years, regulars get tired of it.
Flat earthers simply have no factual information of a flat earth.
I would suggest reading the wiki, FAQ, and doing some searching on the forum. Aside from that, your post is completely irrelevant and off topic. I am not sure what it will take to get you to follow very simple rules, but it seems that you refuse. Have a couple week vacation to review the rules.
I agree with Poseidon, Gecko's comment definitely was relevant. Certainly more relevant than your comments Junker...
There is no scientific evidence that supports a flat earth. The only thing you guys have going for you are the conspiracy theorists that think everything is a lie. No matter how much evidence and proof there is for a globe, it's still all some huge hoax. There isn't even a logical reason to hide the shape of the world...
-
I agree with Poseidon, Gecko's comment definitely was relevant. Certainly more relevant than your comments Junker...
That is fantastic that you have an opinion. It is totally irrelevant and off-topic, but it is yours nonetheless. So, consider this a warning for off-topic posting.
There is no scientific evidence that supports a flat earth.
Do you have evidence to support your outlandish claim?
The only thing you guys have going for you are the conspiracy theorists that think everything is a lie.
False.
No matter how much evidence and proof there is for a globe, it's still all some huge hoax. There isn't even a logical reason to hide the shape of the world...
You have a nice strawman going so far, but I would suggest maybe actually sticking to arguments people are actually making in the thread if you are going to participate.
On another note, I want to thank round earthers for literally proving my point I made all the way back on the first page:
The flat earth proponents here have simply grown tired of having the same debates over and over again. It seems each round of noobs that come by are more entitled with each iteration. Roundies make demands that they can rarely fulfill themselves, so over the years, regulars get tired of it.
Several of you have literally behaved in the exact way I described. Well done.
-
I agree with Poseidon, Gecko's comment definitely was relevant. Certainly more relevant than your comments Junker...
That is fantastic that you have an opinion. It is totally irrelevant and off-topic, but it is yours nonetheless. So, consider this a warning for off-topic posting.
There is no scientific evidence that supports a flat earth.
Do you have evidence to support your outlandish claim?
The only thing you guys have going for you are the conspiracy theorists that think everything is a lie.
False.
No matter how much evidence and proof there is for a globe, it's still all some huge hoax. There isn't even a logical reason to hide the shape of the world...
You have a nice strawman going so far, but I would suggest maybe actually sticking to arguments people are actually making in the thread if you are going to participate.
On another note, I want to thank round earthers for literally proving my point I made all the way back on the first page:
The flat earth proponents here have simply grown tired of having the same debates over and over again. It seems each round of noobs that come by are more entitled with each iteration. Roundies make demands that they can rarely fulfill themselves, so over the years, regulars get tired of it.
Several of you have literally behaved in the exact way I described. Well done.
There are enough measurements of distances, angle of the sun, satellite operation, verified maps etc. to prove a round earth.
-
There are enough measurements of distances, angle of the sun, satellite operation, verified maps etc. to prove a round earth.
These are fantastic claims. Tremendous claims. You should provide evidence for them if you want to use them to support your position.
-
There are enough measurements of distances, angle of the sun, satellite operation, verified maps etc. to prove a round earth.
These are fantastic claims. Tremendous claims. You should provide evidence for them if you want to use them to support your position.
The evidence is available, as you know. Please provide details of any published information you believe to be untrue. eg. Satellite TV reception and how you believe it works. Also any incorrect measured distances.
-
The evidence is available, as you know. Please provide details of any published information you believe to be untrue.
eg. Satellite TV reception and how you believe it works. Also any incorrect measured distances.
Sorry, friend, that is not how the burden of proof works. You are the one making the claim. It isn't on me to 'prove you wrong'TM
-
The evidence is available, as you know. Please provide details of any published information you believe to be untrue.
eg. Satellite TV reception and how you believe it works. Also any incorrect measured distances.
Sorry, friend, that is not how the burden of proof works. You are the one making the claim. It isn't on me to 'prove you wrong'TM
You are disagreeing with known accepted information. eg. do you disagree with the accepted map and measurements of Australia?
If you disagree with measured distances of Australia then 'you' need to provide your version. It's easy to say 'prove it' yet you have not provided your measurements.
Similarly the operation of satellites with dish angles proves a transmitter over the equator, see the various angle calculators and check their maths.
-
You are disagreeing with known accepted information.
Where did I do that?
If you disagree with measured distances of Australia then 'you' need to provide your version. It's easy to say 'prove it' yet you have not provided your measurements.
Similarly the operation of satellites with dish angles proves a transmitter over the equator, see the various angle calculators and check their maths.
Was this supposed to be relevant? In the amount of time you have spent posting, it seems you could have just provided evidence for your claims.
-
Rules or not and whether you follow them yourself, junker, you are being intentionally obnoxious. Even to a point that reignites the plausibility of this site and its developers/admins/owner(s) being massive trolls.
-
Rules or not and whether you follow them yourself, junker, you are being intentionally obnoxious. Even to a point that reignites the plausibility of this site and its developers/admins/owner(s) being massive trolls.
I am not sure if you just don't know how the rules work, or don't understand what transpired in the thread thus far, but there is a place where you can post suggestions or concerns. If you need help finding it, please just ask. I will ask that you please refrain from off-topic and low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
-
You are disagreeing with known accepted information.
Where did I do that?
If you disagree with measured distances of Australia then 'you' need to provide your version. It's easy to say 'prove it' yet you have not provided your measurements.
Similarly the operation of satellites with dish angles proves a transmitter over the equator, see the various angle calculators and check their maths.
Was this supposed to be relevant? In the amount of time you have spent posting, it seems you could have just provided evidence for your claims.
What would you accept as evidence of eg. satellite operation on a round earth? Links have been posted to sites that calculate the elevation and azimuth of a dish as used by installers across the world. 'You' have provided no evidence of an alternative explanation.
-
Yes, I do assume that water remains roughly level, with exceptions for tide (negligible on the Great Lakes), wind or storm surges which can only affect fairly large areas at any particular point in time due to the fact that water remains roughly level, and waves, which were also negligible that day. The waves were fairly consistent through out the boat trip on a clear day, so yes, I am also assuming there were no giant waves between the boat and Chicago at any point during their short trip across the lake. In addition, any wind caused surge of water would have lifted the boat up higher which would have given them an easier time seeing more of the skyline than normal. If you truly think that a wind caused surge was high enough and somehow magically localized enough to hide the skyline, you would still need to explain why there was not large scale flooding as a result...unless the wind somehow created a giant hill of water in the middle of the lake....which is ridiculous. With average wave heights of 1-2 feet during their entire trip, and little or no apparent whitecaps, I would guess that the wind speed was under 15 mph for the entire trip, which again is not enough to cause much of a surge.
Please explain what atmospheric conditions would hide the lower 3/4 of a building 40 miles away, but allow the top 1/4 to remain visible. The building is not that high that there would be a significant difference in the amount of atmosphere between the viewer and the bottom of the building versus the amount of atmosphere between the viewer and the top of the building, so any atmospheric effects would be equivalent for all parts of the building. Remember, both top and bottom of the buildings are 42.6 miles away at the time the most distant image was recorded, so the amount of atmosphere involved is almost completely equivalent.
Wow.
How about fog?
How about smog?
Choose one.
Here is one of LA.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-los-angeles-skyline-with-palm-trees-in-the-foreground-376666267.jpg)
EDIT: was going to change/decrease image size,changes reverted
- junker
Yes, how about that fog or smog in LA. Pretty dramatic, huh? Except for a few small details: the smog/fog is not obscuring just the bottom of the buildings in your example, and the photo was not taken from 40 miles away at eye level. I asked for an example of an atmospheric condition that would only hide the bottom 3/4 of a building 40 miles away. And the bottom of the buildings in the photos taken from the video are behind water, not some hazy fog. It was a bright sunny day with a light breeze, and when they got closer to Chicago, the buildings were completely visible with no evidence of fog or smog.
Nice try, but no cigar.
-
Links have been posted to sites that calculate the elevation and azimuth of a dish as used by installers across the world.
What does this have to do with the shape of the earth?
'You' have provided no evidence of an alternative explanation.
Was I supposed to provide evidence for a discussion I was not a part of?
-
...then why would it be so hard to convince us?
Despite your claims to have a wealth of strong evidence for Round Earth Theory, there are still thousands of Flat Earthers, all around the world! Including some very ingenious and deliberate thinkers. If it were truly clear that the Earth wasn't flat, do you not think we'd accept it?
Pretty sure I actually was on topic haha.
The flat earth theory is no different than people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old or that climate change isn't real. There are a surprisingly large amount of people that believe both of those as well. It doesn't matter the amount of evidence or research they are shown, some people will just believe whatever they want.
-
Links have been posted to sites that calculate the elevation and azimuth of a dish as used by installers across the world.
What does this have to do with the shape of the earth?
'You' have provided no evidence of an alternative explanation.
Was I supposed to provide evidence for a discussion I was not a part of?
Do measurements from various points of elevation and azimuth to fixed objects like sun and satellites to calculate shape of object we are on.
-
If the earth was flat, why would they hide it? What would they gain?
-
1. How do the seasons work?
2. Who installed the firmament (supposed dome over the Earth).
3. If all countries collude to defend the secret of the flat earth from the masses by sending 10-20 thousand naval ships to patrol the ice wall, why has no crew member from any of these ships come out and spoken of the conspiracy even after retiring? Surely, a story like this would be worth a fortune to the media.
4. What explains the error in the observations made by the greek mathematician Eratosthenes
5. How does GPS work? More importantly, Who has anything to gain by saying that the Earth is round vs. flat?
-
Because any evidence we provide flat earthers is labeled as a fake picture or a fake video or part of a great conspiracy. Every photo taken from space: fake. Every video from the International Space Station: fake. Every single GPS, military and telecommunications satellite: fake. The stars rotating the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere: fake. Ships shown disappearing hull up over the horizon: fake. Airline flights taking just as long to travel similar longitudes in the northern hemisphere as the southern hemisphere: fake. Snipers taking into account the Coriolis effect of the earth for long range shots: fake.
Apparently the conspiracy is so widespread that it includes:
All space agencies across the world
All private space companies in the world
All military intelligence agencies
All telecommunications companies
Anyone who has taken photos/video in the southern hemisphere
Anyone who has spent a lot of time sailing around the world (to include members of the Navy and all shipping companies)
All airline companies
All airline pilots
Military snipers and professional Marksmen
99% of the scientific community
Hell, even basic math will tell you the earth can't be flat (as detailed in my post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6120.0). Honestly, how much more evidence needs to be provided? What would it take to convince you?
-
because you can't fix stupid. FE theory is based on theories thousands of years old (and the bible) before humans understood science and just used the bible and God (which has yet to be proven) as an explanation of things they didn't understand.
-
If the Earth were really a ball... How come they faked six moon landings?
-
If the Earth were really a ball... How come they faked six moon landings?
I don't believe the moon landings were faked, and I don't believe the earth is flat. However, I want to point out that even on a round earth one might propose reasons to fake a moon landing. Maybe it was beyond the capabilities of 60's tech. Maybe it was too expensive. Maybe it was window dressing while the real money appropriated by Congress was spent on something else. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe several things...the point being that believing the moon landings to be fake is not enough to prove the earth to be flat.
-
The simple answer is you are thousands out of billions of people on Earth, which is not even 1%. So you are just tough cookies out of a ton of people.