[stack]

Yes, they "say" all of those things, but they don't show any of those things. All they do is talk about what they are going to do, show a guy setting up a telescope or some other gear then gut to a graphic like this with the 'Yes' box checked...





If I presented the same only the 'No' box was checked on the graphic you would have a fit and fall in it screaming that I didn't show anything and that I was just claiming a whole bunch of stuff without evidence.

Go ahead and post your evidence.

They posted evidence the earth is not spherical.

My point is that they didn't post evidence. If I created the exact same video, showing the same footage and graphic, but had the check in the "SIGHTING: NO" box, you would not agree that I posted evidence the earth is spherical.

And not to mention the head of the experiments and maker of the video is a known UFO cult leader and hoaxer paranormal mentalist. Not really the most credible of sources.

Well, this is just in error, considering the evidence they posted demonstrates the measures taken do not align with the requirements of sphericity.

What you describe is actually a tactic RE'rs do all the time.

THese guys posted, "The measurements were the same..." when it came to the buildings' peaks and bases measured.

Sure, and if I posted a video with a bunch of "scientists" simply saying, "The measurements were not the same..." when it came to the buildings' peaks and bases measured, would you accept that?

[Gonzo]

Yes, they "say" all of those things, but they don't show any of those things. All they do is talk about what they are going to do, show a guy setting up a telescope or some other gear then gut to a graphic like this with the 'Yes' box checked...





If I presented the same only the 'No' box was checked on the graphic you would have a fit and fall in it screaming that I didn't show anything and that I was just claiming a whole bunch of stuff without evidence.

Go ahead and post your evidence.

They posted evidence the earth is not spherical.

My point is that they didn't post evidence. If I created the exact same video, showing the same footage and graphic, but had the check in the "SIGHTING: NO" box, you would not agree that I posted evidence the earth is spherical.

And not to mention the head of the experiments and maker of the video is a known UFO cult leader and hoaxer paranormal mentalist. Not really the most credible of sources.

Well, this is just in error, considering the evidence they posted demonstrates the measures taken do not align with the requirements of sphericity.

What you describe is actually a tactic RE'rs do all the time.

THese guys posted, "The measurements were the same..." when it came to the buildings' peaks and bases measured.

They didn’t provide any evidence of how they calculated that distance between the towers, though.

They seem to have taken two locations from GPS and used a mapping application to calculate it, which will provide a distance at sea level (or possibly ground level). So of course it will be ‘the same’.

.

[SimonC]

didnt watch the video, but in reading the page, the entire thing feels merely like an opening statement at trial - it just summarizes what the evidence (supposedly) WILL SHOW. But without a single actual piece of evidence yet provided. Super weak.

Based on what stack says sounds like the video includes nothing substantive either.

So you are qualified to comment/critique something you didnt watch? That sums up a lot of RE theories. If only they looked at things from another's perspective; but a RE is the one they learned first so it must be true.

[AATW]

So you are qualified to comment/critique something you didnt watch? That sums up a lot of RE theories. If only they looked at things from another's perspective; but a RE is the one they learned first so it must be true.

I watched one of the experiments and have given a thorough commentary on it above.
Why have you ignored that?
They claim to be able to see something at more than 100km, the only clue to where they are and what they're looking at is a very brief shot of a mapping app. If you freeze frame you can see the distance shown on their screen is around 35km, and if you look at where they are and the land mass they're viewing then the height of that land mass means you should easily be able to see most of it on a globe earth, even without any refraction.
Are we supposed to take any of that seriously as evidence?

[stack]

didnt watch the video, but in reading the page, the entire thing feels merely like an opening statement at trial - it just summarizes what the evidence (supposedly) WILL SHOW. But without a single actual piece of evidence yet provided. Super weak.

Based on what stack says sounds like the video includes nothing substantive either.

So you are qualified to comment/critique something you didnt watch? That sums up a lot of RE theories. If only they looked at things from another's perspective; but a RE is the one they learned first so it must be true.

I suggest that you should watch it. Then you might realize that it's nothing but an hour plus of some people saying, "We had some telescopes, frickin' lasers and measured some stuff and we are saying it doesn't add up to a spherical earth...Just believe what we're saying even though all we're doing is just saying stuff..." Flip the script. If you were presented with an hour plus of people just saying the same thing only that it does "add up" to a spherical earth, FE would be screaming, "You're just saying that! You just saying that is proof of nothing!"

You or me just saying something does not equal "results".

[AATW]

it's nothing but an hour plus of some people saying, "We had some telescopes, frickin' lasers and measured some stuff and we are saying it doesn't add up to a spherical earth...Just believe what we're saying even though all we're doing is just saying stuff..."

Yes, but as I've highlighted, it's worse than that. The things they're saying don't even match the fleeting results they do show. In the example I looked into they make claims in the voiceover about being able to see more than 100km, but the screenshot they show of a mapping app shows a line of distance of 35km of points to a landmass of a height which means most of it should be clearly visible from that distance. So they're either lying or the result they show doesn't match that map, in which case why show it?

[stack]

it's nothing but an hour plus of some people saying, "We had some telescopes, frickin' lasers and measured some stuff and we are saying it doesn't add up to a spherical earth...Just believe what we're saying even though all we're doing is just saying stuff..."

Yes, but as I've highlighted, it's worse than that. The things they're saying don't even match the fleeting results they do show. In the example I looked into they make claims in the voiceover about being able to see more than 100km, but the screenshot they show of a mapping app shows a line of distance of 35km of points to a landmass of a height which means most of it should be clearly visible from that distance. So they're either lying or the result they show doesn't match that map, in which case why show it?

To be expected that it's way worse than I described. The leader and maker of the video is a known charlatan.