[DuniyaGolHai]

Why do FE'er (Specifically Tom) believe that burden of proof to prove earth is round (And not flat) on RE'er.

If FE'er need to convince the whole world that earth is infact FLAT, then it is them who need to provide convincing proofs to the world, as no one is really bothered to even know what FE'er stand for.

If FEer think that the world is disillusioned like movie 'Matrix', then it is them who are to act like 'Neo'/'Morphous'.. otherwise FEer will be forgotten as non-important entity,

[juner]

Why do FE'er (Specifically Tom) believe that burden of proof to prove earth is round (And not flat) on RE'er.

They don't believe that. They believe that if someone comes here and makes a claim, then the burden of proof is on that person to prove the claim. Just like if I make a claim, the burden is on me to prove that claim. Not that difficult, really.

If FE'er need to convince the whole world that earth is infact FLAT, then it is them who need to provide convincing proofs to the world, as no one is really bothered to even know what FE'er stand for.

I don't know of any flat earth proponent here that is trying to convince the whole world that the earth is flat.

If FEer think that the world is disillusioned like movie 'Matrix', then it is them who are to act like 'Neo'/'Morphous'.. otherwise FEer will be forgotten as non-important entity,

Have you actually seen The Matrix? You keep suggesting that FE "won't last" or will "be forgotten;" good luck with that, let me know how it turns out.

[xenotolerance]

This forum is pretty ripe with the informal fallacy argument from ignorance, which concerns burden of proof. From Wikipedia: It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

But, taking this a step further, flat earthers will insist that the earth has been proven flat (it hasn't) and that the earth cannot be round because it has not been proven to be so (it has). Evidence is refused, arguments ignored, etc., and so it goes. No one possesses the power to dissuade a true believer. So, "proof" in these forums is not the same concept you might find in a more worthy arena: The burden is always on the truth, and nothing can fulfill it.

[Tom Bishop]

As junker has stated, the burden of proof is on the claimant. When you come to this forum and start making claims, we expect that you work to demonstrate your claims.

[xenotolerance]

That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.

The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim. Burden of proof is therefore on those who claim the Earth is flat; we who disagree need only raise enough evidence to warrant our dispute, and it is on our opponents to produce the proof.

Consider: "If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative. If there is no agreeable and adequate proof of evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered an argument from ignorance."

The social narrative in question is that the Earth is round, as measured and observed repeatedly through the ages. When Rowbotham claimed to have evidence the Earth was flat, the burden of proof was on him. He produced the Bedford Level experiment and the laws of perspective, so to speak, as proof. Fair enough! But upon evaluation this proof fails, and so does his claim fail. The evaluation, or disproof, involves repeating his experiment with reproducible methods, or by correcting the faulty geometry which is the premise of his treatise on perspective. These disproofs can be found with evidence supporting them in several of 3DGeek's threads, most recently, and repeated back into antiquity. When you then reject this evidence prima facie, you are engaging in denialism and/or creating an argument from ignorance: There is no "agreeable and adequate proof of evidence" to support your claim that the Earth is flat.

Consider also:

"Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion."

I imagine someone who believes the Earth is flat would interpret this to be about the widespread societal belief that the Earth is round. But consider: If you were told that every image from space is faked, that there is a multinational government conspiracy to pretend to have spaceflight capability, that instead of gravity and relativity and quantum physics being true, there is a force of universal acceleration moving the Earth straight up that, in order to accelerate the mass of just the Earth 9.8m/s^2 continuously, would require energy equal to the mass-energy of the observable universe in a single human lifetime, and that the proof for these things is that the Earth is flat so they must be true, and we are not justified in rejecting the premise unless we can prove all the corollaries false, but no argument against any of them is ever, ever accepted ... the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter!

Or, in brief: Yes, the burden of proof is on the claimant... and in this case, the claimant is you. Imagine a parable...

A chancellor of the court announces that given new observations, it is conclusive that water is less dense than air! A courtier says that it obviously is not. The chancellor says, "When you come to this court and start making claims, I expect that you work to demonstrate your claims."

<3

[Tom Bishop]

That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.

The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.

Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.

[Curious Squirrel]

That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.

The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.

Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.

But it's not. You have yet to present actual, verifiable evidence that cannot possibly be for anything but a flat Earth. None, zero, zilch, nada.

[juner]

That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.

The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.

Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.

But it's not. You have yet to present actual, verifiable evidence that cannot possibly be for anything but a flat Earth. None, zero, zilch, nada.

False.

[Curious Squirrel]

That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.

The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.

Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.

But it's not. You have yet to present actual, verifiable evidence that cannot possibly be for anything but a flat Earth. None, zero, zilch, nada.

False.

Incorrect.

[inquisitive]

That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.

The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.

Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.

I look out of my window and see the sun set knowing my friend to the west of me sees it set later. 

How is your timeanddate.com comparision going?

[xenotolerance]

That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.

The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.

Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.

Anyone reading this discussion can follow the links in my signature to two cases of justifying my beliefs further.

Incidentally, out my window right now is a sunset, evidence of a round earth.

If you wish to continue in good faith, I encourage you to develop a response to the substance of my previous comment.

[Niit476]

As junker has stated, the burden of proof is on the claimant. When you come to this forum and start making claims, we expect that you work to demonstrate your claims.

But Tom, the very website that we are using makes the claim that a FE model is viable.  That's what the wiki is all about.  So the burden of proof actually lies with you to defend it.
And Xeno is right, looking out the window can be evidence for a RE, so I don't know how that can be your go to claim.

[3DGeek]

At this point, we aren't even asking for a defense.  Just an description of where the sun is physically located at sunset - and what path the photons of light from the sun take to get to our eyes.  Your Wiki has pages of math and pretty diagrams - but your principle proponent (and the guy all of that stuff is named after) now tells us that it's incorrect.

This is a request for the simplest information about FET...nothing more...yet NOBODY will give me a straight answer.

What path do the photons from the sun travel along at sunset?

[round boye]

As junker has stated, the burden of proof is on the claimant. When you come to this forum and start making claims, we expect that you work to demonstrate your claims.

Why don't you demonstrate all the absurd claims you're making?

[Obviously]

That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.

The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.

Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.

Sounds like you were staring out of the window instead of paying attention in class.

Sorry flatties, the roundies here are correct: you are the ones making ridiculous claims, so it’s on you to provide evidence. You’ve provided 0 evidence, and this has been pointed out to you guys in pretty much every thread.

[J-Man]

That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.

The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.

Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.

Sounds like you were staring out of the window instead of paying attention in class.

Sorry flatties, the roundies here are correct: you are the ones making ridiculous claims, so it’s on you to provide evidence. You’ve provided 0 evidence, and this has been pointed out to you guys in pretty much every thread.

Rounders continue to throw BS against the wall when in fact their evidence makes no sense at all. If you can't get past Polaris not moving in the sky, then in fact the earth is flat, anchored via foundations as God said. Just because you got a few formulas that can fool the fools doesn't change the fact were living on FLAT.

[Curious Squirrel]

That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.

The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.

Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.

Sounds like you were staring out of the window instead of paying attention in class.

Sorry flatties, the roundies here are correct: you are the ones making ridiculous claims, so it’s on you to provide evidence. You’ve provided 0 evidence, and this has been pointed out to you guys in pretty much every thread.

Rounders continue to throw BS against the wall when in fact their evidence makes no sense at all. If you can't get past Polaris not moving in the sky, then in fact the earth is flat, anchored via foundations as God said. Just because you got a few formulas that can fool the fools doesn't change the fact were living on FLAT.

I think the best part of this post, is you can SEE that Polaris has moved in the thumbnail image for his video. I don't even have to watch it now to know it's going to be a load of bullcrap. XD Thanks J-Man, saved me some time with that one. Just because you can't understand the evidence, doesn't make it less valid. Does a computer stop working for someone because they don't know how something about works? (Anyone in IT knows how terribly untrue that is.) So why should the explanations and evidence not work simply because you can't understand them?

[3DGeek]

That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.

The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.

Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.

Sounds like you were staring out of the window instead of paying attention in class.

Sorry flatties, the roundies here are correct: you are the ones making ridiculous claims, so it’s on you to provide evidence. You’ve provided 0 evidence, and this has been pointed out to you guys in pretty much every thread.

Rounders continue to throw BS against the wall when in fact their evidence makes no sense at all. If you can't get past Polaris not moving in the sky, then in fact the earth is flat, anchored via foundations as God said. Just because you got a few formulas that can fool the fools doesn't change the fact were living on FLAT.

Wow! What a truly crappy video!

"Oh no!  There are really big numbers here!  That can't be true!"

Why not?

The thing is that all motion is relative...even you FE'ers admit this because your Earth has been accelerating at 9.8 meters/sec/sec for a billion years or so - which means that it's moving MUCH faster than the speed described for the RE earth in the video.

Truth is, there is no such thing as "absolute motion" - and both RET and FET must acknowledge this.

Polaris doesn't appear to move significantly through human history (although it does move a TINY bit) in part because it's orbiting around the galactic center just like we are - and in part because it's so insanely far away that the relatively tiny motion of the Earth around the Sun is essentially negligible.   Our orbit is around 200 million miles across and Polaris is 2,500,000,000 MILLION miles away.  So imagine a right triangle with one side being 10 million times longer than the other...what is the angle at the apex?  Like millionths of a degree.

That's how far you'd expect Polaris to wobble in the sky due to the Earth's orbit.

But then, the idiot presenter goes on to berate modern science for a ~30% error bar in our estimate of the distance to Polaris.  Yeah - distances to stars are hard to measure accurately.  But we carefully document where those errors come from and freely admit how big they are.

What about Polaris in the Flat Earth?   Do you guys tell us how far up in the sky Polaris is?   No?   What are your errors like?   Heck you don't even know THAT!

You can't even get this much right...on your "unipolar" map - sure, Polaris is always over the North Pole.  What about Sigma Octanis and the Southern Cross?   Where are they?  We know they are reliably SOUTH of anyplace in the southern hemisphere/hemiplane - but where is that?   It's EVERYWHERE!!!   But the unipolar map is clearly crap.

So on the "bipolar" map, where is the Southern Cross?   Well, it's vertically overhead the center of Antarctica - but that's a problem because there are places on the equator line where the bearing to the Southern Cross and to Polaris are not 180 degrees apart...but we have plenty of photos showing that they are in fact ALWAYS 180 degrees apart.

So that map is busted too.

Honestly - the FE world needs to get it's house in order before it starts launching these kinds of stupid attacks that raise more questions than they answer.

[xenotolerance]

IMO, the simplest way to frame the burden of proof in this debate looks like this:

Everyone: What shape is the Earth?

Eratosthenes et al: It's a sphere, yo
Rowbotham et al: It's flat, dawg
Astronauts et al: We went to space and took pictures, amigos, it's definitely a sphere

Flat earth peeps: Nah those are fake, the Earth is flat

The Flat Earth Society has to prove the Space Travel Conspiracy, or accept that the Earth has been directly observed to be a sphere, by astronauts looking out of windows.

Speculation, like assuming NASA must have started faking space travel around the time of the Apollo 1 fire for a political motivation, is not evidence that space exploration is faked. Suggestion, like asking 'Do you really trust everything your government tells you?', is not evidence that space exploration is faked. Quackery, like pointing out non-intuitive things happening or astronauts saying weird stuff that your favorite youtuber says is proof they are filming on land, is not evidence that space exploration is faked.

No, a good place to start would be to find and demonstrate fakery in the 24/7 livestream from the International Space Station, and the hours of footage of spacewalks, and the amateur videos of shuttle launches and reentry.

Bear in mind that tampering with video is not magic, as it leaves findable, measurable traces. See Captain Disillusion, a youtube channel dedicated to explaining faked videos:
(skip to 4:20 for the point)

This is just one of the more direct ways to find that burden of proof is on the Flat Earth Society. If anyone wants to take up an argument about the conspiracy, I suggest starting another thread so this one can stay on topic, which is only who has burden of proof.

[3DGeek]

Bear in mind that tampering with video is not magic, as it leaves findable, measurable traces. See Captain Disillusion, a youtube channel dedicated to explaining faked videos:
(skip to 4:20 for the point)

This is just one of the more direct ways to find that burden of proof is on the Flat Earth Society. If anyone wants to take up an argument about the conspiracy, I suggest starting another thread so this one can stay on topic, which is only who has burden of proof.

Captain Disillusion is a very skilled debunker of faked video.  He finds stuff I'd never figure out (and I'm in the business of making simulations - which are, in a sense, faked videos).

However, he also very honestly, says when he finds that a video is true.

He did a live talk to some group or other a while back (without his signature makeup) - and he said that he'd studied the Apollo footage and was unable to find any evidence of fakery. 

That hardly constitutes PROOF that it wasn't faked - but this is one of those "can't prove a negative" things that conspiracy theorists just love.

We can, however, comprehensively debunk every single specific claim that this-or-that feature in the videos "proves" a fake ("Oh no!  There are no stars!"..."Cameras...exposure times...yadda yadda...so you wouldn't expect to see stars").   In almost every case, the moron who claims to have found a problem is profoundly ignorant of the conditions on the moon and the nature of transmitting video over a quarter million miles using 1960's technology and with less energy than a light bulb driving a dish that's poorly aimed and only 2 feet across.

So the hypothesis that the moon landings were faked is unfalsifiable - but that doesn't mean it's true.