9261

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: January 04, 2015, 06:02:40 AM »

As you can clearly see, this is primarily dealing with just the A9 stage, except when noted as the second stage of an A9/A10 configuration. 

Then again, since none of this ever went into production, the argument is moot.

Then what is the range? If the America rocket only needed the A9 and A10 stages to hit america, what were the much bigger A11 and A12 stages for?

If you had bothered reading the link that I provided, you would have learned that using the A11 in a 3 stage stack would have would have allowed Germany to put about 300 Kg into orbit and adding an A12 stage would have allowed for 10 tonne orbital payloads.

The intent was, clearly, to get into orbit and create an ICBM capable of hitting America. Ballistic missiles don't cut it.

Again, the A9/A10 stack was intended to hit America.  Adding A11 and A12 would have allowed for orbital payloads.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Then again, that is what they were intended to do.  Since nothing past the A4 (V2) ever got built, we'll never know how successful any of those designs might have been.

So the A9 has a listed operational range of 500 miles, and the A10, a second stage rocket which is only slightly bigger has, according to you, an operational range of over 3600 miles? And the A11 and A12 third and fourth stages were actually unnecessary?

9262

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is this website a strange form of satire?

« on: January 04, 2015, 12:11:18 AM »

Have any of you went mountain climbing or at the very least skydiving? You can easily see the curvature the Horizon.
Hell, you can even see it from high-flying airplanes.

I've been on mountains and I've been in planes. I did not see curvature to the earth's horizon.

9263

Flat Earth Community / Re: Annotated ENAG

« on: January 04, 2015, 12:04:35 AM »

This isn't going to be popular but I'm going to have my say on this.

This is akin to the Catholic church saying "the bible seems a bit out of date, lets rewrite it".

There are a number of reasons why they don't. Any ambiguities are already there. They aren't creating new ones. And "This is the Word of God".

ENaG is the same. It is written by an FES prophet. Someone dead and unable to be held to account. Someone revered and delivering first hand their thoughts on their findings. Not someone 150 years later reinterpreting the text for their own good.

By placing your thoughts of what the text may be saying into an annotated or updated version, you narrow that level of ambiguity and give your enemies specific things to target. Its then harder for you to say, well maybe I misread Rowbotham. I fear all that will come of this, is a narrowed selection of topics around ENaG, focussing on your misinterpretations, not the theory as a whole.

ENaG is a holy book for the flat earth society. There is nothing else like it. We are its guardians, not its editors.

If you have the energy to write a whole new book, write a whole new book ... but distance yourself from replacing the text that founds the society.

I don't need ambiguity to argue my points. I give my opinion to the best of my ability, with the best evidence we have available. If something is unknown, then I state that the matter is presently unknown, no big deal. I don't like situations where we are being invaded on all fronts by swarms of  globularists and we are leaving our less learned planists out cold to fend for themselves because of ambiguity. We must supply them with the ammunition of evidence and specificity to properly combat our relentless foes. We need a totem of knowledge to fall back on for our modern Flat Earth Theory. It's going to take an effort of all of us to construct such a work.

9264

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: January 03, 2015, 10:43:30 PM »

As you can clearly see, this is primarily dealing with just the A9 stage, except when noted as the second stage of an A9/A10 configuration. 

Then again, since none of this ever went into production, the argument is moot.

Then what is the range? If the America rocket only needed the A9 and A10 stages to hit america, what were the much bigger A11 and A12 stages for?

The intent was, clearly, to get into orbit and create an ICBM capable of hitting America. Ballistic missiles don't cut it.

9265

Flat Earth Theory / Re: g is not homogeneous

« on: January 03, 2015, 10:35:19 PM »

A computer generated visualization of the data is not an experiment which tests to see if the hypothesis can find oil under the earth.

It is when you use that simulation data to decide where to drill for oil.

It's not a simulation of the hypothesis. It's a simulation of the data used to make the hypothesis. And even if it were a simulation of the hypothesis, which it is not, a computer simulation does not test the hypothesis that oil will be found if such tactics are used.

Are you saying that the organizers of the experiment don't think to include procedural instructions on how to properly make the measurements and submit the results?

Correct.

9266

Flat Earth Projects / Reorganizing the Zetetic Council

« on: January 03, 2015, 08:55:15 PM »

I've been kicking ideas around in my head for how we can make the Zetetic Council better. I had a few ideas. My conclusion is as follows:

1. We open up Flat Earth Society membership to all who want it. As a member of the Flat Earth Society your name goes onto a roster, you agree to fight globularist heresy in all its forms, and you will receive a certificate reflecting this (virtual or printed TBD).

2. As a official member of the Flat Earth Society you receive standing recognition and access to in the Zetetic Council Board

3. Zeteic Council members are elected and are tasked with creating and putting proposals to a vote. Zetetic Council members provide organizational guidance, but are not considered the workhorses.

4. Official members of the Flat Earth Society vote and comment on the proposals, and in doing so self motivate themselves to begin the project and see it to completion.

We may want to rename the Zetetic Council Board to another name, but I believe this idea has a lot of merit. I welcome comments on this idea.

Public comments may go here.

9267

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal

« on: January 03, 2015, 08:34:25 PM »

Yes

9268

Flat Earth Media / Re: Charles Johnson Video

« on: January 03, 2015, 08:02:02 PM »

I liked the part where he called the astronauts a bunch of carnies.

9269

Flat Earth Projects / Do we need re-elections?

« on: January 03, 2015, 07:59:01 PM »

Thork and Roundy have stepped down, which is unfortunate since all we required were their votes and opinions, not any massive investment of time. I don't see the concept of a Zetetic Council as the backbone workhorse of the society, but an organ which provides the structure and guidance we were not receiving on the other forum.

If we want to work on a project we should reach out to the community for ideas and assistance, help put together some guidelines and structure, but not expected to do the entire project ourselves.

Do we need a re-election?

9270

Flat Earth Community / Re: Focusing conversation on an Annonated Earth Not a Globe

« on: January 03, 2015, 07:51:43 PM »

We should probably run new elections if you want to do that, Dave.

Roundy is long gone. I'd also like to step down. I don't have the time necessary to drive the society forward. Its been this way for some time. If you'd like to run elections for two new council members, go for it. I don't have the time, which is why I am stepping down.

That's unfortunate.

9271

Flat Earth Theory / Re: g is not homogeneous

« on: January 03, 2015, 07:40:42 PM »

An ancient computer generated plot graph from a time when excel-type graphics and visualizations were notable enough to mention is hardly an experiment. It does not test the hypothesis. We expect more from you.

Do tell us how you determined that "excel graphics and visualizations" were notable enough to mention in 1964,

Why would the selection of tools impugn a result anyway? It's not like he's lying about using binoculars to discern children running into the water across 40 miles of a bay like you do.

On what basis do you claim that it does not test the hypothesis? He went all the way to the third order residuals. Has an FEer ever published results with statistics that found the first order residuals properly handled?

A computer generated visualization of the data is not an experiment which tests to see if the hypothesis can find oil under the earth.

They send the gnome around the word with a scale, and the scale reads out different values wherever it is. Ignoring the uncontrolled nature of this incredibly sensitive experiment which is conducted by the pubic in inside and outside conditions, under who knows what kinds of pressure, wind, and static forces, we see that those locations are also at different altitudes.

Are you saying that the people weighing the gnome can't also measure the pressure, wind, miscellaneous static forces and altitude at the time of the weighing?

They're not measuring those things. The people they are sending the scale and gnome to are members of the public.

9272

Flat Earth Community / Re: Annotated ENAG

« on: January 03, 2015, 04:42:31 AM »

Yes, the wiki was supposed to be a community project. But, while I appreciate the contributions that have been made, no significant content has been added since I wrote it. This is because it is a community project that lacks direction. A decision that we are writing a modern edition of Earth Not a Globe and a official rule that we should somewhat focus our debates to contribute towards that, provides the direction we need.

If we all work towards creating a modern version of Earth Not a Globe in the manner I described it will fulfill several goals:

1. Content will be created for the Wiki (which we may eventually abolish or merge)
2. Flat Earth Theory will be further fleshed out
3. The debates on this forum would actually have purpose
4. Kill many birds with one stone (create debates, write the wiki, publish a book, and push the theory to new levels)

Anyway, I believe it to be impossible to provide short explanations for Earth Not a Globe and properly represent modern FET. We have entirely different theories now. We've expanded topics touched on in ENAG that a significant amount of content and a whole rewrite of the chapter is in order.

Adding a simple explanatory paragraph to the existing ENAG chapters doesn't really further Flat Earth Theory. But rewriting it as a community and  exploring new discussions does. That is far more exciting.

9273

Flat Earth Community / Re: Annotated ENAG

« on: January 03, 2015, 03:25:16 AM »

I'm not sure I understand why a completely rewritten ENaG would be different or superior to an improved Wiki.

Eventually it could all become one large living encyclopedia of Flat Earth knowledge. There is no sense maintaining two works which cover the same content.

Incorrect.  It makes perfect sense to package the same or similar content in different works for different purposes and different audiences.  For example, an encyclopedia (or a wiki) may have content similar to a text book, but they each serve different functions.

How many Tom Bishops are there to perform research for, write and maintain material for these various projects?

9274

Flat Earth Community / Re: Annotated ENAG

« on: January 02, 2015, 10:25:51 PM »

I'm not sure I understand why a completely rewritten ENaG would be different or superior to an improved Wiki.

Eventually it could all become one large living encyclopedia of Flat Earth knowledge. There is no sense maintaining two works which cover the same content.

9275

Flat Earth Community / Re: Focusing conversation on an Annonated Earth Not a Globe

« on: January 02, 2015, 07:14:20 PM »

Well, basically what you're asking is:

1. Enforce the rules more strictly in the upper forum.
2. All ZC members should do extra work when posting.  (or everyone who posts for FET)

If #2 is All ZC people only, then I've no issues.

I actually meant everybody, RE'ers included. They could help in their own little way. Not everything will be about FET. An RE'er can say "That's a bad background, Newton never said that," or maybe even provide a paragraph with their own twisted RET astronomy, if so desired (if we decide to do a background section in chapters which goes over what RET says). RE'ers can provide critiques, questions, it's not so out of the ordinary for RE'ers to frame FET arguments as well. No hard rules. No one will be forced to write anything. Short answers and thoughts are fine, to get ideas flowing, for others to build off of. It all contributes. Normal every day questions will still be answered, and we will still be talking about the same things we've been talking about for years, but the goal is to focus the mindset of the forum on the general idea that the contents of the threads will eventually be compiled into a book. It would be our first project as a community.

9276

Flat Earth Community / Re: Annotated ENAG

« on: January 02, 2015, 08:03:47 AM »

I would prefer an entire rewrite which explains the theories presented in Earth Not a Globe from the ground up with its modern adjustments.

If pertinent, the background section can mention any notable differences between the modern theory and the theory in the original Earth Not a Globe. Such as "It was originally believed that.." Additionally, we could always cross-link to the corresponding Earth Not a Globe chapter(s) in a notes or references section at the bottom of our chapter.

The entire written chapter as I've described it can be the "added explanation". I just don't see how adding an explanatory paragraph or illustration to the original chapter can do the subject matter justice. This should be a larger project.

9277

Flat Earth Community / Re: Focusing conversation on an Annonated Earth Not a Globe

« on: January 02, 2015, 03:48:30 AM »

Personally, I don't really have the time to both research and write explanations for the debates on the forum and do research and write explanations for a book. I'm sure others feel the same. These discussions take a lot of time and effort. Since the book and the forum will be answering the same questions, it makes sense to create temporary rules to focus the forum's discussions on the creation of the book. It's killing two birds with one stone. We will still debate and respond to questions, but we will do so with the understanding that what we are writing will be going into a book.

9278

Flat Earth Projects / Re: All forum topics focused on completing an Annonated Earth Not a Globe

« on: January 01, 2015, 10:52:36 PM »

Done

9279

Flat Earth Community / Focusing conversation on an Annonated Earth Not a Globe

« on: January 01, 2015, 10:51:21 PM »

I made a post in the Council forum and we are inviting public discussion of this idea:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2211.msg55512#msg55512

I propose that a temporary rule in the upper foura be put in place announcing that we are trying to create a modern edition of Earth Not a Globe as a community and that all conversations should be focused around this idea. A similar announcement should be made on the main page. It's going to take a monumental amount of effort to create a modern edition of Earth Not a Globe

When questions are posted for us to answer about FET the discussion should be centered on sticking to an agreed upon format and contributing to the work. RE'ers can provide challenge questions as desired, but two rules would need to be followed:

Rule 1: Stay on topic - All threads should keep on topic. If a question is asked about sinking ships, and the poster asks about the Apollo missions, his question will be ignored and redirected to the rules page.

Rule 2: All conversations must contribute to writing a modern edition of Earth Not a Globe. That doesn't mean we should finish one chapter per thread, but it does mean that we should focus our conversations on providing comprehensive answers, referencing supporting evidence, creating professional sentence and paragraph structure, and finding holes in explanations.

While not part of this vote proposal, I gave a suggestion for how this book should be formatted here: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1258.msg55509#msg55509

9280

Flat Earth Projects / Re: All forum topics focused on completing an Annonated Earth Not a Globe

« on: January 01, 2015, 10:21:33 PM »

I'm not against this, necessarily, but we don't have the power to make or enforce rules on the forum. That's something to bring up with PP.

Also, it might be better to have a temporary board dedicated to ENaG, rather than the entire forum. That would be a little stilting.

I can write an announcement for the main page, once we figure out what we're doing.

It's not like we wouldn't be answering questions and engaging in debate . We would simply be doing so with the understanding that what we are writing will be included into a book. I don't really have the time to do research and write explanations for the various debates in the forum and do research and write explanations for a book. I don't think anyone else does, either. Since both the book and the forum will be asking and answering the same questions, this is a good compromise.