*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #40 on: March 21, 2018, 09:42:39 PM »
This is a terrible argument from Tom. We do have data for going 'the long way around,' and you get it by connecting flights together like pz says. In another current case, Santiago to Cape Town to Sydney. It doesn't help his cause at all; again, the work has been done and it is a complete debunk of flat Earth belief. He's starting you all on a wild goose chase to retread an argument he already lost. Don't fall for it.

Connecting flights aren't traveling on the same latitude. They travel more northward. We have no idea how big the earth's circumference is at those far southern latitudes in question.

Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2018, 11:07:52 PM »
This is a terrible argument from Tom. We do have data for going 'the long way around,' and you get it by connecting flights together like pz says. In another current case, Santiago to Cape Town to Sydney. It doesn't help his cause at all; again, the work has been done and it is a complete debunk of flat Earth belief. He's starting you all on a wild goose chase to retread an argument he already lost. Don't fall for it.

Connecting flights aren't traveling on the same latitude. They travel more northward. We have no idea how big the earth's circumference is at those far southern latitudes in question.
Okay, so you can't argue with the flight times in the northern hemisphere so you've decided we have no data for the southern hemisphere. Except we have plenty of corroborating evidence for flight time there too - Chile to Sydney, Sydney to South Africa, New Zealand to anywhere, Brazil to South Africa. It all adds up. Which is almost a side issue, whether you believe it or not. Cruise ship times across the Pacific or Atlantic, north or south of the equator, the stars, the positions of the planets in the sky relative to anywhere on Earth and so on ad nauseum. They all correspond with distances between locations on the globe. All of them, no matter where you are. They work.

Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2018, 11:24:44 PM »
To conclude from the points raised in the posts, there is no empirical evidence for the ice-wall, there is no empirical evidence for the alternative contradictory projections of a flat earth, there is plenty of empirical evidence for global distances between cities, and the ice wall wiki page cherry-picks source material for anything that can be misinterpreted as supporting evidence to give the appearance of credence whilst ignoring the huge bulk of the same source material that explicitly rejects the flat earth position. Nice one.

Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #43 on: March 22, 2018, 05:32:06 AM »
To conclude from the points raised in the posts, there is no empirical evidence for the ice-wall, there is no empirical evidence for the alternative contradictory projections of a flat earth, there is plenty of empirical evidence for global distances between cities, and the ice wall wiki page cherry-picks source material for anything that can be misinterpreted as supporting evidence to give the appearance of credence whilst ignoring the huge bulk of the same source material that explicitly rejects the flat earth position. Nice one.

Expanding your comment,

To conclude from the points raised in the posts, there is no empirical evidence for the ice-wall, there is no empirical evidence for the alternative contradictory projections of a flat earth, there is plenty of empirical evidence for global distances between cities but Tom and his flat earthers believe in an ice wall, believe in an infinite plane, believe in a conspiracy, believe in bendy light (no emperical evidence of any of these) but reject distances between cities in both North and South (plenty of corroborated evidence for these)

And you say flat earthism isn't a belief.

Offline Ratboy

  • *
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #44 on: March 25, 2018, 03:26:42 PM »
This is a terrible argument from Tom. We do have data for going 'the long way around,' and you get it by connecting flights together like pz says. In another current case, Santiago to Cape Town to Sydney. It doesn't help his cause at all; again, the work has been done and it is a complete debunk of flat Earth belief. He's starting you all on a wild goose chase to retread an argument he already lost. Don't fall for it.

Connecting flights aren't traveling on the same latitude. They travel more northward. We have no idea how big the earth's circumference is at those far southern latitudes in question.

I again propose that people that live south of the equator are not stupider than those that happen to be born north of the equator.  If we sit in our basements and ignore that the human population is made up of individuals that live pretty much everywhere, we can propose that no one knows what happens in the south. Chile could be a hoax for all we know, based upon having no desire to ever go there.

Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #45 on: March 25, 2018, 03:52:19 PM »
This is a terrible argument from Tom. We do have data for going 'the long way around,' and you get it by connecting flights together like pz says. In another current case, Santiago to Cape Town to Sydney. It doesn't help his cause at all; again, the work has been done and it is a complete debunk of flat Earth belief. He's starting you all on a wild goose chase to retread an argument he already lost. Don't fall for it.

Connecting flights aren't traveling on the same latitude. They travel more northward. We have no idea how big the earth's circumference is at those far southern latitudes in question.
We do know, as you know.  Maybe you could give an example of a distance quoted and then propose how you would check it.

*

Offline Spycrab

  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Wait what's going on I fell asleep.
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #46 on: March 26, 2018, 05:13:16 PM »
Anyone else noticed how Tom has bailed when the RE folk called his bluff? It's almost as if he can't stand being proved wrong and abandons any thread that starts criticizing his views, but of course that can't be right. If you don't want to have this reputation as a flimsy retreater, then maybe present some of the evidence they're asking for and hold your flat ground.
The espionage crustacean strikes again.
Spycrab, you're the best memeber on the fora. Thank you for being born.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #47 on: March 26, 2018, 05:49:58 PM »
This is a terrible argument from Tom. We do have data for going 'the long way around,' and you get it by connecting flights together like pz says. In another current case, Santiago to Cape Town to Sydney. It doesn't help his cause at all; again, the work has been done and it is a complete debunk of flat Earth belief. He's starting you all on a wild goose chase to retread an argument he already lost. Don't fall for it.

Connecting flights aren't traveling on the same latitude. They travel more northward. We have no idea how big the earth's circumference is at those far southern latitudes in question.
Okay, so you can't argue with the flight times in the northern hemisphere so you've decided we have no data for the southern hemisphere. Except we have plenty of corroborating evidence for flight time there too - Chile to Sydney, Sydney to South Africa, New Zealand to anywhere, Brazil to South Africa. It all adds up. Which is almost a side issue, whether you believe it or not. Cruise ship times across the Pacific or Atlantic, north or south of the equator, the stars, the positions of the planets in the sky relative to anywhere on Earth and so on ad nauseum. They all correspond with distances between locations on the globe. All of them, no matter where you are. They work.

I see words, not demonstration.

Anyone else noticed how Tom has bailed when the RE folk called his bluff? It's almost as if he can't stand being proved wrong and abandons any thread that starts criticizing his views, but of course that can't be right. If you don't want to have this reputation as a flimsy retreater, then maybe present some of the evidence they're asking for and hold your flat ground.

Yes, I usually bail when the response is "the earth is round1!!" and "already proven and settled!"

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #48 on: March 26, 2018, 06:47:37 PM »
I see words, not demonstration.
That’s all you see from Rowbotham whose words you inexplicably take as gospel.
And when you are shown demonstrations you wilfully misunderstand them, start claiming silly things like planes don’t know how fast they are flying or ships who lay cables don’t know how much they used or just dismiss them as fake.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #49 on: March 26, 2018, 08:31:54 PM »
I see words, not demonstration.
That’s all you see from Rowbotham whose words you inexplicably take as gospel.
And when you are shown demonstrations you wilfully misunderstand them, start claiming silly things like planes don’t know how fast they are flying or ships who lay cables don’t know how much they used or just dismiss them as fake.

I don't take Rowbotham's work as gospel. The conclusion in Rowbotham's work is "Earth Not a Globe," not "The Earth is Flat". The work actually just explores one interpretation of the evidence, which is stated numerous times by the author, and we all recognize that.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #50 on: March 26, 2018, 08:47:31 PM »
I don't take Rowbotham's work as gospel. The conclusion in Rowbotham's work is "Earth Not a Globe," not "The Earth is Flat". The work actually just explores one interpretation of the evidence, which is stated numerous times by the author, and we all recognize that.

Are there some ideas you take issue with? I've never seen you call anything he says into question, including some blatantly false stuff. (continents floating on water, etc)
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #51 on: March 27, 2018, 02:16:17 AM »
I don't take Rowbotham's work as gospel. The conclusion in Rowbotham's work is "Earth Not a Globe," not "The Earth is Flat". The work actually just explores one interpretation of the evidence, which is stated numerous times by the author, and we all recognize that.

Are there some ideas you take issue with? I've never seen you call anything he says into question, including some blatantly false stuff. (continents floating on water, etc)

I don't find issues with the conclusions he makes based on the evidence he presented. He is very logical in his determinations.

Later years have provided additional evidence and insight to various phenomena. I think Rowbotham would have made some different conclusions to different evidence.

Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #52 on: March 27, 2018, 03:16:17 AM »
I don't take Rowbotham's work as gospel. The conclusion in Rowbotham's work is "Earth Not a Globe," not "The Earth is Flat". The work actually just explores one interpretation of the evidence, which is stated numerous times by the author, and we all recognize that.

Are there some ideas you take issue with? I've never seen you call anything he says into question, including some blatantly false stuff. (continents floating on water, etc)

I don't find issues with the conclusions he makes based on the evidence he presented. He is very logical in his determinations.

Later years have provided additional evidence and insight to various phenomena. I think Rowbotham would have made some different conclusions to different evidence.
Please give details of where he was mistaken.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #53 on: March 27, 2018, 04:08:19 AM »
Later years have provided additional evidence and insight to various phenomena. I think Rowbotham would have made some different conclusions to different evidence.

I agree, he would have decided the world was, in fact, round. It makes no logical sense that gov'ts are lying to us about the shape of the planet nor does it make sense that NASA has pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. Thanks for setting that one up for me.  ;)
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #54 on: March 27, 2018, 08:47:01 AM »
I see words, not demonstration.

How should someone 'demonstrate' something within these forums? What format of demonstration would you find acceptable?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #55 on: March 27, 2018, 08:50:15 AM »


I see words, not demonstration.

Sorry - I thought I'd save you the time of looking for the flights yourself. Can't you be bothered to do the most basic research? I can demonstrate how you can book one here: https://www.expedia.co.uk/Flights-Search?mode=search&paandi=true&trip=roundtrip&options=cabinclass%3Aeconomy%2Cnopenalty%3AN%2Csortby%3Aprice&passengers=children%3A0%2Cadults%3A1%2Cseniors%3A0%2Cinfantinlap%3AY&leg1=from%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cto%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cdeparture%3A28%2F3%2F2018TANYT&leg2=from%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cto%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cdeparture%3A4%2F4%2F2018TANYT

If I did not know better, I'd suspect you were a top class troll who does this just for giggles. I have to commend your stamina to keep this up day-in day-out. Anyway, I refuse to waste any more time on you. Ta' rah!
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 08:55:43 AM by pablozablo »

Offline jimbob

  • *
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #56 on: March 27, 2018, 12:46:04 PM »


I see words, not demonstration.

Sorry - I thought I'd save you the time of looking for the flights yourself. Can't you be bothered to do the most basic research? I can demonstrate how you can book one here: https://www.expedia.co.uk/Flights-Search?mode=search&paandi=true&trip=roundtrip&options=cabinclass%3Aeconomy%2Cnopenalty%3AN%2Csortby%3Aprice&passengers=children%3A0%2Cadults%3A1%2Cseniors%3A0%2Cinfantinlap%3AY&leg1=from%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cto%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cdeparture%3A28%2F3%2F2018TANYT&leg2=from%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cto%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cdeparture%3A4%2F4%2F2018TANYT

If I did not know better, I'd suspect you were a top class troll who does this just for giggles. I have to commend your stamina to keep this up day-in day-out. Anyway, I refuse to waste any more time on you. Ta' rah!

I have come to the conclusion, looking at the discussion, threads, lack of replies and when threads are abandoned, that Tom, Pete, Baby thork etc have, in reality, just set themselves a challenge to defend what is a very "undefendable" point regarding the shape of the earth. They dont really believe it, they are just messing with you, deliberately obfuscating the science facts and deliberatley being obtuse. They didnt come foreward when asked to clarify the reasons they believe in a flat earth and obviously wont own up to what I have just said as this will blow there personal challenge. You have to admit they have done a good job at fooling everyone.

*

Offline Spycrab

  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Wait what's going on I fell asleep.
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #57 on: March 27, 2018, 01:47:40 PM »


I see words, not demonstration.

Sorry - I thought I'd save you the time of looking for the flights yourself. Can't you be bothered to do the most basic research? I can demonstrate how you can book one here: https://www.expedia.co.uk/Flights-Search?mode=search&paandi=true&trip=roundtrip&options=cabinclass%3Aeconomy%2Cnopenalty%3AN%2Csortby%3Aprice&passengers=children%3A0%2Cadults%3A1%2Cseniors%3A0%2Cinfantinlap%3AY&leg1=from%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cto%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cdeparture%3A28%2F3%2F2018TANYT&leg2=from%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cto%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cdeparture%3A4%2F4%2F2018TANYT

If I did not know better, I'd suspect you were a top class troll who does this just for giggles. I have to commend your stamina to keep this up day-in day-out. Anyway, I refuse to waste any more time on you. Ta' rah!

I have come to the conclusion, looking at the discussion, threads, lack of replies and when threads are abandoned, that Tom, Pete, Baby thork etc have, in reality, just set themselves a challenge to defend what is a very "undefendable" point regarding the shape of the earth. They dont really believe it, they are just messing with you, deliberately obfuscating the science facts and deliberatley being obtuse. They didnt come foreward when asked to clarify the reasons they believe in a flat earth and obviously wont own up to what I have just said as this will blow there personal challenge. You have to admit they have done a good job at fooling everyone.
Finally someone brought this up. I love debating as much as the next guy, and I'm somewhat active on these forums, but until we get some changes there's no real progress to make. The round earthers don't have a leg to stand on considering that the proof the flat earthers demand is restricted:
-no nasa, they're liars
-no photos or videos, they're liars
-no astronauts, they're liars
-no satellite tracking, those are weather balloons
-no sunsets, because perspective reasons
-no inconsistencies of the map, it's just a guess
-no math, that's rationalizing and we hate that
-no plane travel times, those are inaccurate
-no showing things disappearing over the curve, that's just waves
-no GPS because eLoran
(though actually I think they have caved on this issue, despite not attempting to explain how it works without satellites)
-no constellation related things, because "aetheric vortex"
-no eclipses, because "shadow object"
-no gravity, because "universal accelerator"
And even if you manage to squeeze your shred of credibility through all that, it's stated right there in the wiki, that you're still a liar:

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an
    obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
   
    P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
   
    P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that
    contradicts the FET
   
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
   
    C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
    is fabricated evidence

Bravo. This isn't empiricism.
The espionage crustacean strikes again.
Spycrab, you're the best memeber on the fora. Thank you for being born.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #58 on: March 27, 2018, 02:16:31 PM »
I don't find issues with the conclusions he makes based on the evidence he presented. He is very logical in his determinations.
The bit in bold is key here.
Based on the evidence he presented.
And mostly that's him just saying "this is what I saw". It's all words and not demonstration.

But he does draw some strange conclusions. Let's take the thing about ship hulls being "restored". He mixes up two things.
If a ship is a long way away and has a dark hull and a light top then you can probably not easily distinguish the hull from the sea.
So yes, optical zoom will "restore" it in the sense that it will make things clearer so you can distinguish them. But it doesn't make a ship which was behind the horizon "whole" again.

If object A (the horizon in this case, but someone going over a hill gives you the same effect, so the hill) is in front of object B (a ship or the person going over the hill) then you will only see the top part of object B. Optical zoom will do nothing about that because B is physically behind A and if A is opaque then it will occlude it.

He uses the first of these to conclude that ships are not disappearing behind a "hill of water" but then because ships do exactly that he then says that's caused by "waves". There's a lot of this "heads I win, tails you lose" reasoning.

As someone else noted, I'm not 100% sure you really believe this stuff.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline jimbob

  • *
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #59 on: March 27, 2018, 04:42:30 PM »


I see words, not demonstration.

Sorry - I thought I'd save you the time of looking for the flights yourself. Can't you be bothered to do the most basic research? I can demonstrate how you can book one here: https://www.expedia.co.uk/Flights-Search?mode=search&paandi=true&trip=roundtrip&options=cabinclass%3Aeconomy%2Cnopenalty%3AN%2Csortby%3Aprice&passengers=children%3A0%2Cadults%3A1%2Cseniors%3A0%2Cinfantinlap%3AY&leg1=from%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cto%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cdeparture%3A28%2F3%2F2018TANYT&leg2=from%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cto%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cdeparture%3A4%2F4%2F2018TANYT

If I did not know better, I'd suspect you were a top class troll who does this just for giggles. I have to commend your stamina to keep this up day-in day-out. Anyway, I refuse to waste any more time on you. Ta' rah!

I have come to the conclusion, looking at the discussion, threads, lack of replies and when threads are abandoned, that Tom, Pete, Baby thork etc have, in reality, just set themselves a challenge to defend what is a very "undefendable" point regarding the shape of the earth. They dont really believe it, they are just messing with you, deliberately obfuscating the science facts and deliberatley being obtuse. They didnt come foreward when asked to clarify the reasons they believe in a flat earth and obviously wont own up to what I have just said as this will blow there personal challenge. You have to admit they have done a good job at fooling everyone.
Finally someone brought this up. I love debating as much as the next guy, and I'm somewhat active on these forums, but until we get some changes there's no real progress to make. The round earthers don't have a leg to stand on considering that the proof the flat earthers demand is restricted:
-no nasa, they're liars
-no photos or videos, they're liars
-no astronauts, they're liars
-no satellite tracking, those are weather balloons
-no sunsets, because perspective reasons
-no inconsistencies of the map, it's just a guess
-no math, that's rationalizing and we hate that
-no plane travel times, those are inaccurate
-no showing things disappearing over the curve, that's just waves
-no GPS because eLoran
(though actually I think they have caved on this issue, despite not attempting to explain how it works without satellites)
-no constellation related things, because "aetheric vortex"
-no eclipses, because "shadow object"
-no gravity, because "universal accelerator"
And even if you manage to squeeze your shred of credibility through all that, it's stated right there in the wiki, that you're still a liar:

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an
    obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
   
    P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
   
    P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that
    contradicts the FET
   
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
   
    C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
    is fabricated evidence

Bravo. This isn't empiricism.

Dont forget, that if we were to know this was a ride we were all being taken on, then it would end. End discussions, end the forum and the FE society. A conspiracy theory? The conspiracy that the tongue in cheek flat earthers have been pulling the round earthers plonkers....step forward and take a bow.


Who is Tom Bishop?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFgo2gQSdtg

Author of the video, the one and only Tom Bishop!.....you got us Tom....hats off to you!
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 04:45:02 PM by jimbob »