21

Flat Earth Media / Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation

« on: May 08, 2018, 08:16:29 PM »

I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

How did you cme by this infomation? Have you conducted a survey that gave you this data?

Does it matter? It's still not enough to see an oval rather than a circle.

Mr. Bishop from what I have read on this site claims he is an empiricist relying on information he himself has gathered.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8288.0
I was asking him how he came by that particular data set. If you quote figures or facts in a debate you should be able to present data to back any claims up.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If there are supposedly thousands of satellites orbiting earth, why hasn't the

« on: May 08, 2018, 04:01:31 PM »

...ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?

Have you any idea of how many satellites are in space, the distances between them and the speeds they are traveling at? The very fact you are asking the question demonstrates your severe lack of knowledge of that area.

23

Flat Earth Media / Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation

« on: May 08, 2018, 03:54:53 PM »

I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

How did you cme by this infomation? Have you conducted a survey that gave you this data?

24

Flat Earth Community / Re: What Makes conspiracy Theorists believe.

« on: May 08, 2018, 03:52:53 PM »

Just found this on BBC, rather interesting, and certainly tries to explain why some are rather entrenched in their beliefs of TFE and the bconspiracy.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180124-the-enduring-appeal-of-conspiracy-theories

It is indeed a complex one, the whole topic of conspiracies. Some say it makes the believer feel superior in that they know something that the masses dont, and are smart enough to see through they lies that ‘they’ generate. They, flat earth believers, often see themselves as open minded free thinkers, which in reality is quite far from the truth. Their open mindedness that rejects space travel and satellites, requires a conspiracy that spans not only nations but an incerdibly diverse set of people possibly numbering tens it not hundreds of millions who works in all the related industries; space, telecommunications, design and development, aerospace along with the world of academia. It it were true the numbers required to falsify all the infomation generated would be collosal. Yet free thinking flat earth believers are somehow able to gloss over this, their belief transcending all form of logic. Yet has any evidence ever been produced to support their conspiracy? I for one have never seen any.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Observation of Sun Size During the Day

« on: May 07, 2018, 09:14:34 PM »

Maybe a bit off-topic, but a neat alignment of sunset with the Scripps pier (La Jolla) that occurs 2x a year...

Nice photo, like it.

26

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream

« on: May 07, 2018, 09:13:36 PM »

mislead

If you're going to nitpick over words, can you please at least spell them correctly?

Look - I get it. You don't like that I used the word "fake", and I did use it somewhat facetiously. I also provided ample clarification of what was meant. If your only issue is that you'd rather use a different word, rest assured that I won't stop you from using it - but I'll also disregard your preference in my own writing.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37778973

Nasa has confirmed to the BBC that this is not live video from the International Space Station and said it must be old spacewalk video footage.

It appears that at least part of the the video broadcast on Viral USA was filmed by astronaut Terry Virts during a spacewalk in February 2015.

While the footage on the Unilad Facebook page appears to come from a spacewalk by Russian cosmonauts in 2013.

"NASA said so" is a particularly low standard of evidence.

I think thats a bit unnecessary pointing out his spelling mistakes, when your own mistakes of logic are far more serious. While Im not a great fan of the bible i really like the story of the plank and the grain of sawdust as it perfectly desccribey your own situation quite nicely.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A few questions that I want answered by Flat Earthers

« on: May 06, 2018, 07:22:47 PM »

MeGusta,

Why is the southern jet stream so similar to the northern one, speed and shapes?

How does this debunk a flat earth?

There are many space agencies in the world. Do they all lie?

Yes. Space agencies are used as a cover to embezzle tax money.

Why does Antarctica get twenty-four hours of sunlight during December if the earth is flat?

Can you verify this? Have you actually gone to Antarctica and observed this? Or are you simply accepting what is told to you?

If the earth is flat then why would the Australians and South Africans get an entirely different set of stars in their night sky like they do in a round Earth, and which can be demonstrated to be the case simply by flying there?

The "stars" are much closer to us. So, the distances that they can be seen is limited. If a plane flies above los Angeles, California, it won't be seen from Sacramento, California because of the plane's close proximity to the earth.

Looking at the model of the world which you folks present would indicate that every star in the night sky would be in line of sight to nearly everyone on Earth, no matter where they stand.

No. The stars aren't as far away from us as is claimed by round earthers.

Do you believe in electricity?
Do you actually think electrons exist?
Do you think you have a brain inside your head that conrols all your functions?
Do you belive your mobilephone works as youve been told?

You have never seen any of the above, so how do you know they exist?
That kind of readoning, youve never seen it so how do you know its real, is the kind of reasoning used by those stuck for anything else to say, its a clasic flat earth fall back. There are many things we accept based on 3rd hand authority, there are many things you accept on 3rd hand authority. The only difference is anything that may conflict with your beliefs, you then trot out that very lame argument. The funny thing is you claim to be a free thinker while use of that lame flat earth argument is proof you are not.

How do you know the distance to the stars? Have you measured it? If not then you cannot claim to know. In fact using your line of readoning you should s5op making cclaims @bout thongs you have no actual 1st h@nd knowledge or experience of.
Have you been to Antartica?
How do you know all the 30 plus space agencies are all involved in fraud?
How do you know the jet stream exists have you flown that high @nd experienced it?

28

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream

« on: May 06, 2018, 07:12:20 AM »

In case of OP's particular stream, it's fake. Not in the usual "ooh, conspiracy" sense, but rather a simple matter-of-fact "this is not a live stream" sense.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37778973

Now, it would be very unfair from me to try to leap from that to saying that all live feeds from space must therefore be fake. However, it's an excellent illustrative device. You can look at "live streams" all you want without finding much reason to doubt them. They might be pre-recorded, or they might be procedurally generated. Acknowledging that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference is an important first step.

It may also be worth noting that the supposedly real live stream is much simpler in content, and of much lower quality:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload

I think if you are going to call anything fake you must have sound corroborating evidence to support your claim. It strikes me that crying fake, is the default reaction for many flat earth believers if the point at issue conflicts with their beliefs. It’s a regular contradiction shown by many flat earthers who are quite willing to believe ideas that have no scientific basis or evidence if it bolsters their own beliefs, while at the same time cry fake to anything that is counter to what they believe.
The NASA live stream is just one of possibly hundreds of items that could be posted that you would automatically cry fake for without any evidence to support your claim. Example in case was the recent launch of the latest Mars mission.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/science/nasa-mars-insight-launch.html
I could possibly come up with one new reference every day that you would automatically call out fake to without having any solid evidence to back up your claim. It’s all very well having a different belief but for it to be taken seriously it really has to have more substance than just calling whatever the opposition does is fake.

29

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth UK Convention

« on: May 06, 2018, 06:53:34 AM »

It seems to have been a very productive convention. I wish I could've gone. I would've liked to hear Dave Marsh's scientific research in person and to hear about the proposed Pac man theory.

I think calling what Dave March does “scientific research” is rather misleading. Have you ever been involved in actual scientific research and know what’s actually involved? Has Mr. Marsh published any scientific papers on his work so that his results and methadoligy can be checked and possibly verified?  Saying you’re doing scientific research, and actually doing it are two very different things. Coming out with an idea such as his PAC Man Earth! is not evidence that he has conducted any research, rather it sounds like the product from a random daydream.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Observation of Sun Size During the Day

« on: May 06, 2018, 06:41:25 AM »

Very interesting, thank you for doing this work.

Our knowledge increases by seeing and observing and it seems you have done fair share amount of that. An explanation must be seen or observed in order to be real. Seems you want to show us that sun does not change in size (except for apparent size) during it's path across the sky.

You know that flat earth theory says the same? "This is how the sun's diameter is maintained throughout the day."

While Mr. Shafto has indeed put in a great deal of effort into producing his evidence, he has not increased our knowledge of the sun by one iota. He has just demonstrated a feature of the sun that has always been know about, and that is its unchanging apparent size. The dimensions of the sun along with other aspects of its structure and inner workings are very accurately known and are freely available. The fact that the information we have available regarding the sun is produced by multiple third hand authority does in no way diminish its validity. Most of the information we require in our day to day lives is not self derived rather it has been produced by a wide range of third party authorities . Selectively checking individual pieces of third hand authority derived information is in the end futile as the vast majority of people have neither the means nor the technical knowhow to perform the required corobarative experiments. In the end we rely on the way in which authority derived information is checked by multiple agencies to ensure its accuracy.

31

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How do we see inner planets at night in the Round Earth model?

« on: May 05, 2018, 09:57:26 PM »

"I give up, astronomy is wrong."

Is that the answer we are hearing?

I’m sorry Mr. Bishop but the problem here is not with astronomy, it’s more to do with your lack of understanding of the subject. Your initial question is clear proof of that. If you knew and understood that the solar system is 3D and not 2D, like your diagrams, and you actually knew and understood about the nature of the orbits of the inner planets then you would never have asked the question.

Where ,can I ask, have you gleaned your knowledge of astronomy from? As I understand that there are no flat earth run observatories here on the earth. If you were series and really wanted to expand your knowledge of the inner planets and their orbits then a visit to your nearest observatory would have accomplished that.

The orbits,particularly of those planets that are visible with the naked eye, have been known about and understood for many hundreds of years.