2901

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: October 11, 2018, 05:10:33 AM »

I wouldn't want to hit a tower with a 1000 foot ship and so any damage.

Just so you don’t slam into any towers.

Loran-C Coverage (2006):



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loran-C

2902

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 10, 2018, 07:16:57 PM »

I'm more than willing to be wrong, but in this example, it seems the waves had to have been inordinately high, like tsunami high, to obscure 84.26 ft at an observation height of 12.1 ft.

2903

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The use of Polaris for celestial navigation proves a round earth.

« on: October 10, 2018, 12:52:18 AM »

From what I have read, all latitudes on earth were created based on Polaris.

I'm not so sure Polaris was the genesis.

"History of latitude measurements
The Greeks studied the results of the measurements of latitude by the explorer Pytheas who voyaged to Britain and beyond, as far as the Arctic Circle (observing the midnight sun), in 325 BC. They used several methods to measure latitude, including the height of the Sun above the horizon at midday, measured using a gnōmōn (a word that originally meant an interpreter or judge); the length of the day at the summer solstice, and the elevation of the Sun at winter solstice."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_latitude_measurements

I can't find any reference to Polaris as the basis of 'latitude'. Not to say it isn't, but evidence as such is not extent.

2904

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 10, 2018, 12:16:29 AM »

About 8" of resolution creates a horizontal line at seven kilometers.
The waves on the horizon are at eye level.
The waves on the horizon look small, but they are enough to cover a farther building.
The secret lies at a angle.
Our eyes can't sense such a small angle.
That's why it's so hard to believe it.
In addition, the swells is higher than the waves.
Not only the waves, but the swells enough to block the sight.

I totally appreciate the sentiment of waves (swells) being an obstruction. But they don't account for the fact that disappearing ships, hull first, disappear...completely. Unless your swells are, in every instance observed, growing at the rate, suspiciously, in exact occurrence, symbiotically, with the 'sinking' object, I see no reason to entertain the notion that your premise explains the effect.

2905

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: October 09, 2018, 06:48:46 PM »

The fact that NASA wrote an article about it on its own website strongly implicates NASA as being involved with the project. It is no secret that NASA does not employ any engineers at all for its own projects and uses contractors to do its bidding.

Yes, it was a NASA project, that's why they wrote the article. I'm not sure what your point is, but:

Professional, Engineering and Scientific (60% of NASA's positions)

https://nasajobs.nasa.gov/jobs/occupations.htm

"The United States government agency known as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employs engineers in various disciplines."

https://www.degreequery.com/degree-need-work-nasa-engineer/

2906

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 09, 2018, 06:32:57 PM »

Where can we see something which demonstrates that perspective is as it is taught in schools?

2907

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: October 09, 2018, 05:40:58 PM »

Here's three vids of crashed satellites. With a trillion $ budget, you can launch one everyday forever and not put a dent in the budget. People will believe almost anything. Sats are fake. Nothing falls continually or stays stationary in the sky.

Not exactly.

Video - Satellite Crashes in Brazil:



Video - NASA Balloon Satellite:

Hardly a secret:

"NASA Releases Report About Australia Balloon Mishap

NASA was attempting to launch the balloon carrying a gamma-ray telescope belonging to the University of California at Berkeley. The Nuclear Compton Telescope, which was partially destroyed in the accident, was designed to look for distant galaxies from a vantage point high in Earth's upper atmosphere."

https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/oct/HQ_10-269_Balloon_Mishap.html

Video - Flat Earth, Satellite Crashes:

See Google’s Project Loon again.

Lastly, where in the Bible does God say we are not allowed to have satellites, or rockets, or computers, or GPS, or Direct TV, etc.?

2908

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?

« on: October 08, 2018, 09:17:37 PM »

Therefore it seems that it's the responsibility of the supporters of that model to demonstrate what perspective does at long distances.

And when you ask me that question I point to perspective scenes such as railroad tracks and other scenes where things are meeting in the distance.

I don't see them meeting in the distance:

Just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
This could be a faulty track, or a pretend one.
I know my eyes are fooled. But I wouldn't believe it's all stuck together until i got close. You know, skepticism.

Couldn't agree more.

Tom stated:

Only once you prove that the perspective lines never meet, in the setting of a continuous universe, can you use that argument at all.

Conversely, only once you prove that the perspective lines do meet, in the setting of a continuous universe, can you use your argument at all. Rendering the notion of a setting sun and it's relationship to a flat or round earth inconclusive. Therefore how a ‘setting’ sun works in either model is unknown, according to these parameters.

2909

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Deflection of Falling Bodies

« on: October 08, 2018, 08:37:15 PM »

It may be that they themselves were rigging the math to undervalue the situation and salvage their model because such a magnitude of easterly deflection was not being seen, but nonetheless, a minimal southerly deflection is what was predicted.

"It may be"? Perhaps, perhaps not. How is that evidence of anything? What exactly is your point founded on? Seriously?

2910

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?

« on: October 08, 2018, 07:44:54 PM »

Therefore it seems that it's the responsibility of the supporters of that model to demonstrate what perspective does at long distances.

And when you ask me that question I point to perspective scenes such as railroad tracks and other scenes where things are meeting in the distance.

I don't see them meeting in the distance:

2911

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 08, 2018, 05:13:00 PM »

Again, it does not matter that Lady Blount was Catholic or said Catholic things. Zeteticism is simply a method of inquiry and it matters only how the experiment is set up and what is being tested.

It does matter when your 'method of inquiry' is to be “…in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures…”.

2912

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 08, 2018, 07:44:17 AM »

So Tom is right, I clearly don’t understand Zeteticism as defined by Rowbotham and The Universal Zetetic Society because it seems theirs is definitely not at all without bias, assumption, hypothesis and initial theory.

Crediting Rowbotham with defining Zeteticism is off the mark by several millennia. Perhaps this might be where your confusion arises? You're using someone who tried (sometimes with success, sometimes not) to follow an ideology, rebranding him as the creator and ultimate arbiter of the ideology, and finally using the fact that he wasn't perfect to claim that the ideology is flawed.

From the 'Zeteticism' entry in the wiki: "Samuel Rowbotham was the first to use the term in reference to Flat Earth research." We're only talking FET here, nothing else.

I never said he was the creator and ultimate arbiter of the (ancient) ideology. Just pointing out that his brand of it does not adhere to the definition of Zeteticism as stated in your wiki and elsewhere. And quite often he is held up as the gold standard for Zeteticism for which he should not be as evidenced by his writings.

2913

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 08, 2018, 06:29:02 AM »

What would be a zetetic experiment? Can there be one?

I don’t believe there is such a thing, at least within the confines of Rowbotham’s depictions as such. All of ENAG Chapter XV is devoted to the notion that his interpretation of the Bible is that it speaks to a flat earth. And, therefore, those who go against that belief are going against God - Which is to “...declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

How is that not an initial theory, a hypothesis, a bias whereby one’s entering assumption is that any proof of earth’s rotundity through experimentation would defy the words of the scriptures, the teachings of God?

As well, The Universal Zetetic Society’s sole founding objective is "The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical investigation.”

“…in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures…”? Seems like a confirmation bias is clearly stated prior to embarking on any ‘practical investigation’.

So Tom is right, I clearly don’t understand Zeteticism as defined by Rowbotham and The Universal Zetetic Society because it seems theirs is definitely not at all without bias, assumption, hypothesis and initial theory.

2914

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 07, 2018, 07:21:28 PM »

Personal favorite: "Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of our senses and judgment and authority of Scripture?"

Scripture IS an authority. You are ignorant on what it actually represents. It is an authority regardless if one is religious or not. It represents the scientific learning of many ancient civilizations as transmitted in story form from generation to generation, eventually co-opted with spiritual meaning.

The "judgement of scripture" is the judgement of many civilizations who prided themselves on extraordinary cosmology and astronomical predictive ability, and whose members spent entire lives and generations studying such matters.

I think you’re missing the point again. From the wiki regarding Zeteticism:

"For example, in questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment. Many feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.”

According to Rowbotham, "That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” According to his bible interpretation, the scriptures are the hypothesis, the initial theory, that the world is flat. As he continually cites biblical quotes to prove such. That is a preconceived notion, a bias. Seemingly counter to how Zeteticism is described.

2915

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 07, 2018, 06:16:14 PM »

The point is that the father of Zeteticism, Rowbotham, basically undermines his entire ‘method of inquiry’ with the basing of his flat earth belief on the 'holy scriptures’ then going about trying to prove it.

The only place religion is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe is in the final chapter which speculates on the philosophical context, and even then Rowbotham depicts Flat Earth as agreeing with multiple religions and old mythologies, which it does.

I agree with every word of that chapter. We got the nature of the world correct the first time.

You believe that pointing out mentions of religion is an insult, but it just shows someone who is unknowledged and childish. Religon and mythology represents the original science of the world, the deep study of many over thousands of years, and must be respected as such.

Just merely pointing out the obvious that both Rowbotham and Lady Blount & Co predicate their flat earth belief not on observation, but on religious doctrine, specifically, the scriptures. It’s their words that show this quite explicitly.

I’m only about 1/2 way through a reread of ENAG Chapter XV and have yet to find anything about any other religions/mythologies other than that akin to the ‘Scriptures'. Seems pretty downright fundamentalist so far and certainly does not come across as ’speculation’ on philosophical context. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with basing a belief on a religion. I’m just saying it’s clear that they used ‘observation’ to confirm their premise that the scriptures are ‘literally true’. That does not seem Zetetic to me.

You might want to reread it again. Here are just a few quotes to help you along:

“It is this confusion and want of certainty as to the absolute truths of religious teachings which creates a love of display and outward manifestation of religion, instead of that "cheerful solemnity" and quiet, unobtrusive good-will and devotion which solid convictions of the truthfulness of Christianity never fail to produce.”

"To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

"The following language is quoted as an instance of the manner in which the doctrine of the earth's rotundity and the plurality of worlds interferes with Scriptural teachings…”

"That of its diurnal and annual motion, and of its being one of an infinite number of revolving spheres, is equally false; and, therefore, the Scriptures, which negative these notions, and teach expressly the reverse, must in their astronomical philosophy at least be literally true.”

"That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.”

"In the Newtonian astronomy, continents, oceans, seas, and islands, are considered as together forming one vast globe of 25,000 English statute miles in circumference. This assertion has been shown to be entirely fallacious, and that it is contrary to the plain literal teaching of Scripture will be clearly seen from the following quotations.
"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear. And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He seas."--Genesis i., 9-10."[/size]

Followed by a bunch more biblical quotations.

Personal favorite: "Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of our senses and judgment and authority of Scripture?"

2916

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 07, 2018, 05:55:37 AM »

It is not a mistatement in any manner to say that many members of the scientific community have been historically athiest and 'agnostic'.

That’s a meaningless statement. It’s just as equal to say, "It is not a mistatement in any manner to say that many members of the scientific community have not been historically athiest and 'agnostic’.” So I fail to see your point and it’s not the point anyway.

The point is that the father of Zeteticism, Rowbotham, basically undermines his entire ‘method of inquiry’ with the basing of his flat earth belief on the 'holy scriptures’ then going about trying to prove it. Which is the same as having a hypothesis and then performing experiments to prove or disprove said hypothesis. I.e., the scientific method. In his case, psuedo-scientific as it was, but still, certainly not with the supposed purity of the Zetetic method.

In ENAG, he drops the God hammer at the very end - Dozens and dozens of biblical references as the basis for the previous 14 chapters. 14 chapters where the reader is led to believe that all is just Zetetic observation without any preconceived notions. When in fact, it’s all based upon religious doctrine.

Lady Blount and her cronies do no better with their society in this regard. From The Universal Zetetic Society founded in 1892:

OUR MOTTO
For God and His truth, as found in Nature and taught in His Word.

OUR OBJECT

The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical investigation.

RULES

1.  Everything extraneous to “Our Object” to be avoided.

2.  The so-called “sciences,” and especially Modern Astronomy, to be dealt with from practical data in connection with the Divine system of Cosmogony revealed by the Creator.

So how is this anything like what Zeteticism is really about? It is certainly not: “...using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved.”

https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism

For these so-called Zeteticists they operated entirely with an initial theory, that theory being the bible.

2917

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 07, 2018, 12:30:53 AM »

As such, nothing in the Wiki can be Zetetic when you're reading it - it simply can't be. That's because you're reading about it, rather than performing it.

What I find interesting too is that Rowbotham writes extensively regarding scripture as the proper base to the existence of a flat earth. Which, to me, seems like he’s using a theory as a basis for his conclusions, which, in turn, seems decidedly not very Zetetic. So I suppose he was not being Zetetic when reading the scriptures nor doing so when basing a flat earth foundation on such.

In Earth Not A Globe, Chapter XV he writes (among many other references he makes to Christianity, scripture, creator, etc., ):

"The modern or Newtonian astronomy has none of these characteristics. The whole system taken together constitutes a most monstrous absurdity. It is false in its foundation; irregular, unfair, and illogical, in its details; and, in its conclusions, inconsistent and contradictory. Worse than all, it is a prolific source of irreligion and of atheism, of which its advocates are practically supporters. By defending a system which is directly opposed to that which is taught in connection with the Jewish and Christian religion they lead the more critical and daring intellects to question and deride the cosmogony and general philosophy contained in the sacred books."

2918

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Waves without gravity or rotation

« on: October 06, 2018, 09:52:20 PM »

There's the bi-poolar flat earth model. Divided into northern and southern 'hemiplanes', as they are called.

2919

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 06, 2018, 05:55:20 PM »

The zeteticist in you may feel compelled to reproduce this experiment, or a similar one, for your own betterment and satisfaction. Not to convince us, not to painstakingly write it up for a peanut gallery of angry RE'ers/FE'ers, but for yourself.

This is where I've always been confused about Zeteticism. As a Zeteticist, take Rowbotham as an example. He lectured, he debated, seemingly performed experiments to support his lectures and debates, and published books - He even gambled with others to prove his notions. Was he not doing all of those things to convince others? As well, he and his findings are cited quite frequently in debates here as "evidence".

2920

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 05, 2018, 09:37:07 PM »

Can't say that it does exactly, but your 'doubt' is based on nothing and really means nothing.

I said that I have no doubt that is does what it claims to do and can make the calculations that it claims to perform.

"The PAVAM uses the spin of the earth to help the JETS provide accurate targeting information.”

This U.S. Army Artillery Coriolis Table also attempts to provide target information to account for the supposed rotation of the earth. What is your point? Is your point that someone was able to put it onto a computer and sell it to the government for lots of money?

You wrote "I have do doubt..." which I inferred that you meant 'to' doubt. My apologies.

My point is that you claim there is no demonstration or experimentation as to factoring in a rotating earth when it comes to long range artillery. This device does factor in a rotating earth and has been tested buy the military. And is being deployed to troops. Simple as that.