[Pseudonym]

Hi, I'm Pseudonym, and I was wondering what made you believe in the Flat Earth.

I'm interested in your favorite pieces of evidence, most interesting theories or points that are just too good to ignore. Whatever it is, let me know! I'd love to know what it was that convinced you!

Thanks,
Nym

[titidam]

This kind of post seldom receives any answer. Flat Earthers aren't keen on presenting their facts.

They'd rather wait for someone to criticize it so they can criticize the globe in return. But Flat Earth itself is rarely defended. Nobody's working on improving the model or anything.

So what started this belief? Without attacking anyone, I think boredom, paranoia and being raised Christian are often contributing factors.

[Tom Bishop]

The main reason I support Flat Earth research is because of the dishonesty of the scientific community. They are dishonest liberals who will say and do anything to justify their cause, including changing the entire nature of space and time to justify experiments which show a motionless earth.

[titidam]

Thanks Tom. Exactly what I said.

[juner]

This kind of post seldom receives any answer. Flat Earthers aren't keen on presenting their facts.

They'd rather wait for someone to criticize it so they can criticize the globe in return. But Flat Earth itself is rarely defended. Nobody's working on improving the model or anything.

So what started this belief? Without attacking anyone, I think boredom, paranoia and being raised Christian are often contributing factors.

This kind of post doesn't get answer because people ask it on a regular basis. A vast majority of the time the post is made by someone who won't ever return to discuss it, so people stopped wasting their time. Also, it is obvious you are incredibly ignorant regarding the model, and seem to have made up some strawman based on watching YouTube videos. Good luck with that.

Thanks Tom. Exactly what I said.

That isn't what you said at all. If you have nothing to contribute, then refrain from posting in the upper fora. Warned.

[stack]

The main reason I support Flat Earth research is because of the dishonesty of the scientific community. They are dishonest liberals who will say any do anything to justify their cause, including changing the entire nature of space and time to justify experiments which show a motionless earth.

Can you define your use of the word 'liberals' in this context? It would be helpful to better understand what you mean in terms of the founding of your belief system.

[titidam]

This kind of post seldom receives any answer. Flat Earthers aren't keen on presenting their facts.

They'd rather wait for someone to criticize it so they can criticize the globe in return. But Flat Earth itself is rarely defended. Nobody's working on improving the model or anything.

So what started this belief? Without attacking anyone, I think boredom, paranoia and being raised Christian are often contributing factors.

This kind of post doesn't get answer because people ask it on a regular basis. A vast majority of the time the post is made by someone who won't ever return to discuss it, so people stopped wasting their time. Also, it is obvious you are incredibly ignorant regarding the model, and seem to have made up some strawman based on watching YouTube videos. Good luck with that.

Well if I'm ignorant, you're welcome to try and define the model more precisely. But I have yet to see you do it. All those threads in the upper fora about the Flat Earth model remain unanswered. Which was my point in the previous message, nobody ever tries.

That isn't what you said at all. If you have nothing to contribute, then refrain from posting in the upper fora. Warned.

That's exactly what I said. Flat Earthers prefer to attack the globe rather than defend FE. Which is exactly what Tom did:

The main reason I support Flat Earth research is because of the dishonesty of the scientific community.

In this kind of answer, you don't see any argument building trust in the Flat Earth model. Only distrust towards the globe. So I think my contribution to this post was pretty spot on.

[Earthman]

Hi, I'm Pseudonym, and I was wondering what made you believe in the Flat Earth.

I'm interested in your favorite pieces of evidence, most interesting theories or points that are just too good to ignore. Whatever it is, let me know! I'd love to know what it was that convinced you!

Thanks,
Nym

At random the idea of Flat Earth passed in front of my computer screen a few months back. I am an inventor and I love a challenge, so this intrigued me. I thought, “I can debunk this.”

I started with the Blueprint of the Globe Earth theory, the curvature chart. If anything will prove Earth is a Ball, this will. If it doesn't, I will find I have been deceived.

I picked the (width) landmass of Florida to see if the surface curvature matched the Earth curvature chart of a 3959 mile radius.

Florida is 360 miles wide.

The highest surface point (of Florida) above the coast line of the gulf and ocean is 340'  The Globies’ curvature chart dictates there should be a high surface point of 21,586' at center, which is short 21,246' of surface curvature. 

I then applied the curvature chart to many other larger landmasses using two bodies of water as references points and found them to be a part of a plane Earth too. 

I now understand why Globies will not use their own Blueprint to prove Earth has curvature; it’s because it proves the opposite. It's quite ironic that the Globe Earth theory is destroyed by their own curvature chart. Hahahahaha

If you want to know how flat Earth is, use a curvature chart as a reference along with widths and elevations of land masses between two bodies of water.  If you do this you will see that even intelligent people are deceived with this fake Globe Earth crap.

[stack]

Hi, I'm Pseudonym, and I was wondering what made you believe in the Flat Earth.

I'm interested in your favorite pieces of evidence, most interesting theories or points that are just too good to ignore. Whatever it is, let me know! I'd love to know what it was that convinced you!

Thanks,
Nym

At random the idea of Flat Earth passed in front of my computer screen a few months back. I am an inventor and I love a challenge, so this intrigued me. I thought, “I can debunk this.”

I started with the Blueprint of the Globe Earth theory, the curvature chart. If anything will prove Earth is a Ball, this will. If it doesn't, I will find I have been deceived.

I picked the (width) landmass of Florida to see if the surface curvature matched the Earth curvature chart of a 3959 mile radius.

Florida is 360 miles wide.

The highest surface point (of Florida) above the coast line of the gulf and ocean is 340'  The Globies’ curvature chart dictates there should be a high surface point of 21,586' at center, which is short 21,246' of surface curvature. 

I then applied the curvature chart to many other larger landmasses using two bodies of water as references points and found them to be a part of a plane Earth too. 

I now understand why Globies will not use their own Blueprint to prove Earth has curvature; it’s because it proves the opposite. It's quite ironic that the Globe Earth theory is destroyed by their own curvature chart. Hahahahaha

If you want to know how flat Earth is, use a curvature chart as a reference along with widths and elevations of land masses between two bodies of water.  If you do this you will see that even intelligent people are deceived with this fake Globe Earth crap.

Just a point of clarification requested. Not meant as a debate, wrong forum, but based upon your answers, I'll make a post in the appropriate place. I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Are you saying if you stood on the shoreline west of say, Pensacola, and looked straight across a very flat FLA to the shoreline east of Jacksonville, about 360 miles away, that earth curve calcs say there should be a 21,600' bulge obscuring your view? Kind of like as if you were standing at the base of a 22,000' tall 360 mile wide mountain and trying to look straight through it to the other side?

And what is the significance of the landmasses being between two bodies of water, the latter as reference points?

[rabinoz]

I picked the (width) landmass of Florida to see if the surface curvature matched the Earth curvature chart of a 3959 mile radius.

Florida is 360 miles wide.

The highest surface point (of Florida) above the coast line of the gulf and ocean is 340'  The Globies’ curvature chart dictates there should be a high surface point of 21,586' at center, which is short 21,246' of surface curvature. 

Now please describe how you determined that "The highest surface point (of Florida) above the coast line of the gulf and ocean is 340'".

[disputeone]

I picked the (width) landmass of Florida to see if the surface curvature matched the Earth curvature chart of a 3959 mile radius.

Florida is 360 miles wide.

The highest surface point (of Florida) above the coast line of the gulf and ocean is 340'  The Globies’ curvature chart dictates there should be a high surface point of 21,586' at center, which is short 21,246' of surface curvature. 

Now please describe how you determined that "The highest surface point (of Florida) above the coast line of the gulf and ocean is 340'".

It's quite simple, draw any shape you like on a sphere, put it on the ground with the shape you drew facing up and measure the highest point of the shape. (It will be the middle of the shape.)

This is actually an interesting argument.

[disputeone]

Are you saying if you stood on the shoreline west of say, Pensacola, and looked straight across a very flat FLA to the shoreline east of Jacksonville, about 360 miles away, that earth curve calcs say there should be a 21,600' bulge obscuring your view? Kind of like as if you were standing at the base of a 22,000' tall 360 mile wide mountain and trying to look straight through it to the other side?

Of course not, grab a basketball, do an experiment, draw a dot on it and face the dot up. The dot is always the highest point of the sphere.

And what is the significance of the landmasses being between two bodies of water, the latter as reference points?

Height above sea level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metres_above_sea_level

[stack]

I picked the (width) landmass of Florida to see if the surface curvature matched the Earth curvature chart of a 3959 mile radius.

Florida is 360 miles wide.

The highest surface point (of Florida) above the coast line of the gulf and ocean is 340'  The Globies’ curvature chart dictates there should be a high surface point of 21,586' at center, which is short 21,246' of surface curvature. 

Now please describe how you determined that "The highest surface point (of Florida) above the coast line of the gulf and ocean is 340'".

It's quite simple, draw any shape you like on a sphere, put it on the ground with the shape you drew facing up and measure the highest point of the shape. (It will be the middle of the shape.)

This is actually an interesting argument.

It's surprisingly not so simple. That's my point. In order to discuss the complexity I think exists, that shouldn't be done here in the Community forum. I think you answered my question as to why a discussion is warranted. I'll start one in the proper forum.

[disputeone]

Happy to help.

being raised Christian are often contributing factors.

I'm sure you have a source for that aside from your ass.

[stack]

Happy to help.

being raised Christian are often contributing factors.

I'm sure you have a source for that aside from your ass.

You can start poking through here which is really just an examination of one source.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11131.0

But there are many more sources in the 1860-ish to today modern FE movement. That thread is just scratching the surface.

[disputeone]

Happy to help.

being raised Christian are often contributing factors.

I'm sure you have a source for that aside from your ass.

You can start poking through here which is really just an examination of one source.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11131.0

But there are many more sources in the 1860-ish to today modern FE movement. That thread is just scratching the surface.

I'm not saying that flat earthers can't be christians. I'm saying that nothing in the new testament gives any instruction on the shape of the earth.

Also this always helps to display bigotry you wouldn't otherwise see. Something about changing just one word does something special to these statements.

Check it out.

Flat Earthers aren't keen on presenting their facts.

They'd rather wait for someone to criticize it so they can criticize the globe in return. But Flat Earth itself is rarely defended. Nobody's working on improving the model or anything.

So what started this belief? Without attacking anyone, I think boredom, paranoia and being raised Jewish are often contributing factors.

[stack]

Happy to help.

being raised Christian are often contributing factors.

I'm sure you have a source for that aside from your ass.

You can start poking through here which is really just an examination of one source.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11131.0

But there are many more sources in the 1860-ish to today modern FE movement. That thread is just scratching the surface.

I'm not saying that flat earthers can't be christians. I'm saying that nothing in the new testament gives any instruction on the shape of the earth.

I would agree with that. The point is that certain founding and continuing proponents of the modern FET movement, from 1860-ish on, were dedicated in the main pursuit of 'proving' their interpretation of the entirety of the 'Scriptures' (old and new testament) through the derived evidence of a planar earth. We can discuss further in the thread I referenced above. I'm pretty sure Community is not the forum for counter arguments/debate of FET v RET.

[disputeone]

Happy to help.

being raised Christian are often contributing factors.

I'm sure you have a source for that aside from your ass.

You can start poking through here which is really just an examination of one source.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11131.0

But there are many more sources in the 1860-ish to today modern FE movement. That thread is just scratching the surface.

I'm not saying that flat earthers can't be christians. I'm saying that nothing in the new testament gives any instruction on the shape of the earth.

I would agree with that.

Thanks.

The point is that certain founding and continuing proponents of the modern FET movement, from 1860-ish on, were dedicated in the main pursuit of 'proving' their interpretation of the entirety of the 'Scriptures' (old and new testament) through the derived evidence of a planar earth.

That's fair enough. To me the idea that we live in an infinite universe isn't evidence against God, its evidence for God. If we discovered a dome and the earth is flat I would take simulation theory a lot more seriously.

We can discuss further in the thread I referenced above. I'm pretty sure Community is not the forum for counter arguments/debate of FET v RET.

Agreed, I usually try to stay out of the FE discussion boards. I'll check out your new thread.