1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: August 21, 2017 Solar Eclipse

« on: January 11, 2017, 05:41:34 AM »

So the heliocentrist spherical earth scientists are predicting a solar eclipse on August 21st in 2017.  They have calculated the locations across the world where a full eclipse will be visible and the timing in those locations down to the second.   How can they do this?  Can the flat earth scientists predict an event like this?   Are the scientists who are making these predictions really just flat earth scientists who are really smart?  What is the FES explanation for solar eclipses?

I searched the wiki but couldn't find anything about solar eclipses.

Solar eclipses have been predictable long before anyone thought the Earth was a globe. Ever heard of the Mayans?

I'll try again.

Were they reliably predicted?  Meaning they where able to get it right every time.  They knew exactly when and where they would be visible?  They knew if it was going to be full or partial?

That was not done successfully until the 1700's. It was the result of the work of three mathematicians who used a heliocentric RE model.

I think you are confused about what eclipses they were able to predict got right most times and wrong some times. Lunar eclipses and even then they where only able to predict when they were most likely to happen.  They had a good success rate with lunar eclipses as did other civilizations. 

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The transit of Venus and lunar eclipses need explination

« on: January 10, 2017, 11:55:40 AM »

1.  Planets do not exist and that is just something crossing between us and the Sun.

2. At least two planets exist. Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun so can be observed passing in front of the Sun.

3. Planets exist, are smaller then we are told, but that is something else and not venus transiting the Sun.

4. Any pictures or videos of transits are faked.

FE has trouble with the motion of the planets.  So did astronomers for a long time with transits and retrograde motion until the heliocentric model was accepted.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: August 21, 2017 Solar Eclipse

« on: January 10, 2017, 11:45:56 AM »

I don't understand - why is a Round Earther trying to explain FET/Zeteticism to another Round Earther? You'd think you would have left it to someone who actually knows what they're talking about if you cared so much about truth over starting with a premise and saying whatever it takes to confirm it.

That said, eclipses are cyclical. You can predict future eclipses by following the well-known and documented pattern. This is true for both FET and RET.

Except that that cycle can not be used to predict exactly when and where an solar eclipse will be visible.  Just that it is likely to happen and be visible somewhere.

It is more reliable for lunar eclipses which have been predicted with various amounts of success by different civilizations since antiquity.

It was not until the 18th century when solar eclipses were reliably and accurately predicted. Not only when they would happen, but where they would be observable.  The bad news for FE is the ability to predict solar eclipses reliably and accurately does not just involve keeping track of the last times they happened.  It involves assuming the Moon orbits a spherical Earth which is orbiting the Sun.

You can not just use the Saros Cycle to reliably and accurately predict solar eclipses.  You can use it to determine when it will likely happen.  You also can not use it to reliably and accurately predict if it will be a partial of total eclipse.

4

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items

« on: December 29, 2016, 11:47:53 AM »

This one died from cancer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3173212/Newlywed-shuns-chemotherapy-CARROTS-vows-beat-cancer-alternative-therapies-trying-baby-doctors-warn-s-no-evidence-work.html

Is that evidence it does not work?

Where does it say that she died from cancer?

So is it your belief all doctors and researchers involved with researching a cure are evil and hiding the truth?

The drug companies don't control what gets posted on the internet.

Search her name, sometimes it is easy to find the information sometimes it is not.  This time it was easy.  Just add "death" after her name.  I would also try that every time you see someone saying they have refused treatment. Not the ones after they claim they cured their cancer.

I did not simply dismiss claims about curing cancer with home remedies. I went beyond of just accepting what was being written. My father had cancer and I can tell you garlic, carrots and what ever else being pushed as natural cures did not work.  I spent a lot of time and effort researching and learning about cancer.  End result is he got treatment and died 18 years later due to heart failure.

If you or a loved one ever gets cancer I highly suggest you do not just push garlic or carrots.  Really review and research the people making the claims they have a cure.  At best many are honest and misguided.  At worst some know exactly what they are doing and selling books.  I have even seen one with a hotline that charged $75 an hour.

I have a sister-in-law that writes false testimonials for things.  Her reasoning is she is fighting the pharmaceutical companies and it is justified.  She believes she is right, so believes what she doing is right. I do not agree and she does not care for me much since I tell her I do not.

I can use you as an example of this behavior with the Bishop Experiment. Wrong distance which was finally fixed, the amazing telescope allowing you to see incredible detail at 23 miles, that telescope not being affected by disturbances in the atmosphere, claiming you could see that beach with the naked eye.  I guess the last one could be true depending on how you want to define,"seeing the beach". If seeing the higher ground behind the beach is seeing the beach then I guess it is alright.

TL:DR

Just research the people making the claims by going beyond only reading what they wrote.

5

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items

« on: December 29, 2016, 01:57:07 AM »

So... your proof that garlic cures cancer is "a whole lot of people claim that cancer can be cured with plants like garlic?" Gee golly, you sure have convinced me. Your argument is airtight!

There are people who claim to have been cured by garlic, and there are people who have claimed to have been cured by peppers. Those testimonials are evidence that cancer is treatable by these things.

Sure, but it's extremely weak, self-reported, anecdotal evidence. People claim all sorts of stuff cured their cancer. I just googled the first 6 foods that popped into my head: carrots, lettuce, broccoli, coffee, chocolate, peanuts. Every single one had multiple websites that claimed they cure/prevent/fight cancer.

Self-reported cures are extremely susceptible to all sorts of bias and errors.

When a woman details how she cured her Stage 4 Cancer with "carrot juice, nothing else" that is pretty good evidence that carrot juice cures cancer. Stage 4 Cancer is the stage of cancer which is untreatable and death is certain. Doctors tell you to go home and die at that stage -- you are untreatable.

There is no other explanation for what could of cured that woman's cancer; except that there was something in the 5 pounds of carrot juice she was drinking  day that exhibited cancer fighting properties. Many other people have similar stories of carrot juice curing cancers and various other diseases. It makes sense as well; as carrots are a root vegetable which evolved in an environment not too dissimilar to garlic, and which must contend with a wide host of funguses and parasites, constantly fighting off diseases , including cancer, within itself. It follows that if you put those beneficial substances into the human body, which has evolved in symbiosis with root vegetables, the body will use those substances to fight its own diseases.

If you are claiming that this story and the many stories like it are untrue, you must be delusional. There is really no other explanation for how this woman and others survived, unless you choose to accuse all of these people as being liars.

This one died from cancer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3173212/Newlywed-shuns-chemotherapy-CARROTS-vows-beat-cancer-alternative-therapies-trying-baby-doctors-warn-s-no-evidence-work.html

Is that evidence it does not work?

Are you going to ignore the person in the first link diagnosed himself with stage 4 cancer?  Not only that he used a method that would not detect the type of cancer he claims to have had.

So is it your belief all doctors and researchers involved with researching a cure are evil and hiding the truth?

The problem with that logic is you are able to find stuff supporting garlic can reduce growth or kill cancer from those people.  They did not sweep it under the rug trying to hide it from the masses.  That is why you can find the results and conclusions using an internet search.

6

Technology & Information / Re: Satellite phones

« on: December 27, 2016, 04:06:32 PM »

I'll answer for FE's since none have:

Balloons, stratellites, pseudolites, troposcatter and towers.

Those are all the FE answers I remember.  There seems to be a minority who believe satellites exist.

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: Quantum physics and ....

« on: December 25, 2016, 01:49:59 AM »

Are you claiming special relativity, general relativity, and E=MC² has no evidence supporting it?

I will not list the evidence you are perfectly capable of using a search engine just as myself to find if it is supported or not.

8

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items

« on: December 24, 2016, 06:54:07 AM »

That very specific part of his argument may be logical, if uselessly vague, but his original post that supposes that garlic can cure your malignant cancer is off-the-wall bonkers.

How, exactly, is it off the wall bonkers when there are a number of university studies saying that garlic and peppers kill cancer?

I think it was your claim it cures cancer.

I would research the author.  Like how HE decided he had stage 4 cancer and the description he gave.  This is not someone else saying it, it was his claim he diagnosed himself of having stage 4 cancer. I will leave it to you to decide if his description matches stage 4 cancer.

What is known about garlic is it seems to reduce the risk of cancer, that when compounds making up garlic are added in vitro it arrest development and even kills the cells.  However that does not mean it can cure cancer in vivo.

There has yet been a cure discovered using garlic. As of now it shows only being successful in reducing the risk of getting cancer in the first place.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: December 16, 2016, 05:43:15 PM »

Tom could clear this up easily.  All he has to do is post what to clarify what he was able to see with the naked eye.

One reason I knew right away the distances were wrong when I read the experiment is I sailed to Monterey Bay. I was no further than about a 1/4 n.m. away from where he claimed to lay down and make his observations in my dingy during that trip. 

The 3 days I was there the visibility was good and I could see the shore that Tom claims was visible.  I could not see the waters edge but the higher ground behind it.

I carry a very good pair of binoculars and spotting scope on my boat.  I find them very useful for navigation and consider them very important safety equipment.  I have high standards for the optics I buy.

What I use:

Steiner 7x50 commander binos

Leupold 4 12-40X60Mm Spotting Scope

Every time I anchor I note landmarks and get bearings.  Which allows me to determine if my anchor is dragging more easily and not entirely rely on my GPS.

Using either of those optics I could not see the beach(water's edge) Tom claimed to see so clearly.  I only used the binos as I entered the bay to anchor about 1 n.m. north of Lover's Point.   Both when I anchored East of Wharf II.

Of course I was not actively trying to see the beach nor did I expect to be able to at that distance.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: December 15, 2016, 04:39:15 AM »

IMHO continuing to ask for more to be edited in the wiki is a waste of time.  We could argue the entire wiki should be deleted.  The "100 Proofs" like the reason why a geodetic survey is not needed when building rail lines, roads and canals is a good example.  The reason is very simple.  These things are not being constructed and then set into place.  When you construct these things they follow the curvature of the Earth as you go.  Which means you only need to conduct plane surveys to ensure the relative elevations or what the designs call for.

They changed something that I think no matter your belief in the shape of the Earth could be agreed upon.  A mile is a mile in both models.

I do not see coming to an agreement how far and the amount of details someone should see using optics currently available.  From my point of view during my service in the military and experience sailing Tom has access to some really great optics that are far superior to any I have ever used or aware of.  Somehow he got hold of a telescope that allows clear views and show amazing details at magnifications above 60x despite atmospheric interference. There is a reason astronomers like to avoid making observations near the horizon.

My personal recommendations is keep things vague in the wiki in the future like most already there and these issue will not arise.  The reason myself and others can bring up these issues is Tom gave us too many details.  If you notice other mentions of similar things in the wiki omit at least one or more important detail.  Like height of the observer or general location the observer was at. So if Tom would have left out where he made the observations from there would have be no way to verify the distances to see if they were correct.  No way for anyone to question where and how he was able lay down and place the telescope only 20 inches above the water.  Like the make and specs of the telescope another question he has failed to answer.

Before I hear the claim stuff in the wiki is not meant to mislead people and/or the stuff included is fact checked/scrutinized look at this which is also in the wiki under evidence:

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html

Someone understanding the methodology used would understand the professor had to use math to flatten out Kansas because the assumption it is located on a globe. 

"Barring the acquisition of either a Kansas-sized pancake or a pancake-sized Kansas, mathematical techniques are needed to do a proper comparison"

"One common method of quantifying ‘flatness’ in geodesy is the ‘flattening’ ratio."

"...earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation"

To keep this shorter I just list some words used in the article:

ellipse,  arc,  semi-major axis, semi-minor axis,  global, ellipsoid, polynomial line,  polynomial equations.

So when you look at the methodology the conclusion is the topography of Kansas is flatter than a pancake not that Kansas is sitting on a flat Earth.

That article was either posted as evidence to intentionally mislead people or the person linking it did not understand the methodology used and just saw the word flat in the title.

If we hold the FES to too high of standard for evidence that is allowed in the wiki they would have no wiki.

11

Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites

« on: December 12, 2016, 01:36:36 PM »

If you really want to mess with your head look at the below:



Those lights appearing not to move in the night sky we are told are in geostationary orbits.

They have never been recorded in history despite many civilizations meticulously documenting their observations of the heavens.  Not one mention of them until we are told those satellites were launched.

Then you could google Iridium satellites.  One of the brightest things in the night sky under the right conditions.  Never observed until we are told they were put into orbit.

If anyone is really interested they could take advantage of the doppler effect.  Use it to track satellites and determine altitude and velocity.

The ISS can be observed with binoculars and you will be able to resolve the solar panels.  It will be somewhat blurry, but you will notice it really seems to be a man made object up there.

 

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: New to TFES looking for some guidance

« on: December 09, 2016, 11:00:45 AM »

This is something people involved in this society are aware including tom Bishop of course.  They seem comfortable leaving it as is in the wiki. 

Have you tried reading the article recently? Any valid complaints that you pests had have been fixed.

How about you stay away from introductory threads if all you're interested in is spreading vitriol and misinformation?

My bad.  I did not check it.

I got the impression nobody involved with FES were willing to change it.  Even Tom when he said he would not change it.  So I just assumed it was not changed yet.

So you will not see me mention those distances again.

As for posting in this thread I did so to point out a factual error in your wiki so the OP would be aware and make an informed decision if he reviewed the Bishop Experiment.  10 miles is a very large error for this type of experiment and can greatly influence the conclusion drawn from it.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: December 09, 2016, 10:51:18 AM »

Where are these highly visible stairs?

They're quite visible even in your intentionally zoomed-out screenshot. But let's just cut your deception short. Here, here, and here. I repeat, and I will not continue this conversation until you answer: How are you people so bad at this?

I will also bring up the amount of time it took you to respond to me the wiki could have been edited.

Ah, yes, because a 60-second post typed in on a mobile phone is equivalent to sense-checking and editorialising an Wiki article, both in terms of effort and time. Perhaps you've forgotten who I am and how much free time I have, even though I explained it countless times to you whiners. I have already explained this to you, by the way.

In short: No, thanks, I'll do what I want when I want, because I have a better understanding of the constraints which affect my time management.

I think you may know what the truth is.

I do. The truth is that I'm dealing with a group of worthless whiners who have nothing better to do than whinge about a single typo and pretend that it's somehow an issue. Don't worry, your complaints are being treated with exactly as much attention as they deserve.

If your group/organization is interested in truth correcting the wiki should be a high priority.  If your group is willing to spread disinformation and willing to accept anything without question that supports your belief then of course leave it as is.

Clearly you have never had to deal with the issue of limited resources. Unfortunately, between my managerial job (in which - surprise! - I also have to work around a resources shortage) and my doctoral research, I rarely have time for even things of high priority. I still disagree with you that fixing an insignificant typo is a high-priority task, but I've already explained that to you, and you're just pretending to be stupid in an attempt to get a rise out of me, so I'll carry on ignoring that.

Never did a street view, my bad.  Way to assume to worst and thinking I am trying to actively deceive people.  I have done my best to make sure things I post are correct.  Sometimes I have to be corrected or something pointed out to me.

If you think the distances are a minor thing I would rethink that.  Even for FE the height of the observer and distance of what is being seen is a very important part of an experiment like this.

If I recall This issue with the incorrect distances has been known for years now.  That suggest FES is willing to distort the truth.  Tom said he provided an addendum and asked for the distance to be corrected. Unless everyone over the years with the ability to edit the wiki only access the site with phones there is really no excuse.  A day absolutely, week sure, month or two maybe, over a year not so much.   

Then of course there is those amazing optics.  Research why astronomers usually do not make observations when what they want to look at is near the horizon.  Then research why telescopes designated as spotting scopes are designed with less magnification then ones designed to observe the heavens.

I posted examples you can do it yourself if you have a telescope.  Go out and see if disturbances in the atmosphere hinder what you can see if the magnification is too great. Tom needed a lot of magnification to see what he claimed to see.

The FES is claiming to be spreading the truth.  It hurts your cause to have something that is easily verified as being wrong in your wiki.  Whether you believe the Earth is flat or round if all the distances are wrong in this type of experiment it surely should not be offered as conclusive proof.  I think we can all agree a mile is a mile regardless of the shape of the Earth.

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: New to TFES looking for some guidance

« on: December 09, 2016, 06:22:05 AM »

Here are something to consider when reading the wiki:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5431.0#lastPost

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4520.msg88112#msg88112

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5366.msg104834#msg104834

This is something people involved in this society are aware including tom Bishop of course.  They seem comfortable leaving it as is in the wiki. 

I would ask yourself why that is.

15

Flat Earth Community / Re: How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?

« on: November 27, 2016, 11:26:25 PM »

Hello? Hello-oooo... Yoo-hoo... Anyone? 

As far as I know the "moohshramp" have been dropped and I usually only see RE's mention them now.  John Davis adopted them as an explanation for phases of the Moon and included it in the wiki under his model.  He has since removed it, also he did not call them moonshramp.

The explanation is simple.  These life forms migrate on a regular predictable schedule causing the phases of the Moon.  Shadows like near crater rims are just areas these creatures avoided.

One thing I have not seen brought up is weather on the Moon causing the phases.  If I recall I have seen John Davis bring this up.  So basically clouds moving over the surface of the Moon cause the phases.

Intikam I have seen mention the Moon is a lens of some sort.  Did not see any explanation for the phases.

I have seen people mention the Moon is a reflection and is actually on Earth somewhere. Only once on this site if I am recalling correctly.

Things I have seen not on this site:

It is a hologram so the phases are programmed to happen to fool us.

The Moon has a rotating shell that is partially opaque and clear.  So as it rotates it causes the phases.

I have not seen it mentioned , but I imagine the shadow object could cause the phases. Not sure if I just missed it as an explanation or it has never been mentioned here.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let do an experiment with certain rules

« on: November 26, 2016, 05:40:29 AM »

Plenty of years sailing, using charts based on the Earth being round, celestial navigation, seeing further from the mast than on the deck, seeing stuff appear from the top down or disappear from the bottom up.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: November 26, 2016, 05:35:29 AM »

If you didn't start 5 threads on the same subject, you wouldn't have to ask the same questions over and over.

I saw somewhere where Tom asked for access to edit the wiki and the reply was they would give him access.  Not sure if they did or not.

Yes, "they" did.

Does bring up the question why Tom feels comfortable with his experiment offered as evidence in the wiki and not pester someone to change it. If he is asking for it to be edited the same question can be asked why who ever he is asking is not changing it.

He never asked, but it's on my to-do list anyway. The simple answer is that people have lives and have more important things to do than correct the repercussions of a couple of inconsequential typos online. We'll fix it when we fix it, complaining about it over and over again will not change that.

Another very important distance is the height of the telescope above the water.

He claimed the telescope was 20 inches above the water.  As the picture in the OP shows on the north side of the park has a steep drop off of at least 3 feet.

Very very sloppy work if it was not intentional.

Have you considered walking down the extremely visible set of stairs to overcome the steep drop? How are you people so bad at this?

Where are these highly visible stairs?



Also there is the optics he used.  They were really, really impressive.  I served in the military in long range surveillance.  Optics were a very important part of that job.  We did not have access to as good as optics as Tom had.  He saw an amazing amount of detail at a 23 mile distance.  He avoids answering the optics he used.  There is probably a good reason for that.

The distances are very important in this experiment.  Both the height of the observer and the distance to the target determine what can be seen.  If those are wrong then the conclusion can be considered wrong.

I will also bring up the amount of time it took you to respond to me the wiki could have been edited.  You then will no longer need to respond or see post about the distances. Then it will just be the incredible optics he used.

I think you may know what the truth is.  At best he was mistaken and observed from the beach on the east of Lover's Point facing the shore only about 3 miles away.

If your group/organization is interested in truth correcting the wiki should be a high priority.  If your group is willing to spread disinformation and willing to accept anything without question that supports your belief then of course leave it as is.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: October 22, 2016, 03:41:24 AM »

Another very important distance is the height of the telescope above the water.

He claimed the telescope was 20 inches above the water.  As the picture in the OP shows on the north side of the park has a steep drop off of at least 3 feet.

Very very sloppy work if it was not intentional.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: October 22, 2016, 03:37:19 AM »

To help move along the conversation here is stuff from the topic I started on the subject.







https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4520.msg88149#msg88149

Yes, we are aware. The Wiki does not entirely follow the progression of the threads the content is based on. A corrected addendum was provided after the experiment was posted. It was found that ~23 miles should produce noticeable curvature as well.

An additional test was made in the same area, over a smaller portion of the bay, showing that the Monterey Bay is flat:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4520.msg88796#msg88796

Then this is going to be addressed and the wiki edited?  You have to admit leaving it as is and having under supporting evidence in both wikis can be misleading to people who read the distances and take it at face value.

No, I will not be editing the Wiki. I do not even have write access to it. If I ever get access, I'll fix it.

When I first reviewed the experiment I took the stated 33.4 mile as what the actual distance was into consideration while reading your conclusions.  It was only when I looked at the linked map that it clicked for me that I was in the area before charted a course in that bay and realized the distance given maybe an error.

If it remains up as evidence in the wiki without at least noting the distance of about 23 miles then how can people trust the information in the wiki?  It is being offered as evidence of the truth. 

How is this different then NASA trying to mislead people by releasing fake images of the Earth?

Mistake != Lie

I saw somewhere where Tom asked for access to edit the wiki and the reply was they would give him access.  Not sure if they did or not.

Does bring up the question why Tom feels comfortable with his experiment offered as evidence in the wiki and not pester someone to change it. If he is asking for it to be edited the same question can be asked why who ever he is asking is not changing it.

On the other site the only answer I got is even if the distances are wrong it is still evidence the Earth is flat.

20

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: October 09, 2016, 08:34:21 PM »

[quote author=Nostra link=topic=5366.msg104831#msg104831 date=147556173
- Very good atmospheric condition are extremelly rare, particularly when doing "horizontal" observation. This is why any astronomer will prefer to observe object not to close to the horizon, because of the atmospheric turbulence. This leads to a real bad degradation of the image quality

Which is why they build the space observatories in remote spots away from air and light pollution, often on top of mountains. But then again, every single image of space taken, all the millions of them, have also been produced by NASA and other agents of evil to support the globe theory!
If Tom has such a fine telescopic lens, can he take some non-NASA pictures of the sky for us please!
[/quote]

So many people would be interested in how Tom achieved what he did.  He should release his method and telescope specs. Both amateurs and professionals would be very interested in learning how to achieve the results he did.

It would be much cheaper than having to do something like build an observatory in a remote location or put a telescope in orbit.