It's funny, you'd almost think these ardent adherents to FET would have these answers ready to point out to all skeptics. I read the Wiki and it is full of very obvious errors and omissions. Nothing new in the last 100 years, but real science keeps marching on as we learn new things about the universe. Anyone that believes this stuff when it is so very easily falsifiable is beyond help. FET doesn't even have a map of their flat Earth. I mean c'mon, at least come up with a freaking map!

The problem for the FE'ers (and I'm sure they are acutely aware of it) is that whenever they come up with a concrete statement of an FE

**fact** the RE'ers come along and concretely disprove it.

So throwing doubt and uncertainty in the face of disproof is the best tactic for them.

The point is that ANY FE map is disprovable by trivial means...so their way to avoid disproof until the last few weeks has always been to handwave and say "We don't know the exact map" whenever it's disputed - and tell you to "READ THE WIKI" (which contains a concrete map) whenever it's not.

The way I've found to prevent this tactic is to come up with proofs like the city quadrilateral thing - or the compass versus pole star thing - that don't just prove that some particular map is incorrect - that prove that ALL POSSIBLE FE maps must be incorrect.

That ends this tactic - and it's proving quite effective right now. The FE community have largely gone silent - and only Tom seems to be frantically trying to keep things nailed down.

But this tactic happens EVERYWHERE here:

Q: "How do FET sunsets work?"

A: "Read the Wiki!"

Q: "The 'Bishop equation' on the Wiki page about how sunsets work...what's the value of that "Bishop constant'?"

A: "We don't know the exact value."

Q: "Hang on - I've just figured out that the equation is wrong no matter what the constant is! What is going on here?"

A: "It's only an approximation for the 'real' equation."

Q: "Could you please show me the 'real' equation?"

A: ...silence...

Q: "Here is a proof the no such equation that predicts non-straight light beams can EVER work. What about that?"

A: "We don't believe in that light bending stuff anymore"

Q: "But you told me to read the wiki! What *DO* you believe in?"

A: "Light travels in straight lines - but 'perspective' is weird".

Q: "But doesn't this very simple diagram show that perspective isn't weird?"

A: ...random handwaving...appeals to confusing videos...no actual on-point discussion of the very simple diagram...

Just about every thread which raises a serious concern about FET fizzles out before an FE'er can come up with a viable explanation. Conversations are continually derailed in an effort to throw people off of the logical path.

Clearly the answer is to keep on-topic with the FE'ers. Insist on answers.

There are now at least a dozen threads out there with dangling ends...we have proof after proof that FET doesn't work - and zero efforts to repair them. Our proofs are super-simple and rely on very little (if any) external fact.

This approach is making serious inroads here...leaving Tom stuck out on a limb with no supporters cheering him on...so let's keep that up - it's really not very difficult.