The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Projects => Topic started by: Spycrab on May 14, 2018, 04:38:24 PM
-
As has been established, for those who did not read up on the previous two, the wiki page "The Place of the Conspiracy" that goes as such:
-The flat earth is an obvious truth
-Any evidence against an obvious truth is fabricated
-Any evidence against the flat earth is fabricated
had peaked my interest. I queried about what lead one to believe it is an 'obvious truth', and Pete informed moi that it was indeed stolen from the other FE wiki.
If this is not what one believes, might I ask, what is the Flat Earth belief based on?
What is the base fact that all flat earthers agree on that makes it seem real? (or at least real-er than the round earth)
A distrust of the government?
An eye for photoshop and seeing discrepancies most of us miss?
Blind faith in Rowbotham?
It looking flat?
I'm stumped.
-
The Bible. And you can't argue with that.
-
The Bible. And you can't argue with that.
Okay great. Can you be a bit more specific? I sincerely doubt the entire bible is about the earth's flatness, or the movement would've surfaced eons ago.
-
If this is not what one believes, might I ask, what is the Flat Earth belief based on?
What is the base fact that all flat earthers agree on that makes it seem real?
Much like with any other belief, this will vary from individual to individual. Any attempt at summing them up would be a misrepresentation.
it was indeed stolen from the other FE wiki.
There is no "other FE wiki" and nothing was "stolen". The state of the Wiki from before the split was used as a basis for the current version of it. Meanwhile, the pre-forked version was destroyed entirely.
-
I wrote the majority of the original Wiki. How did I steal from myself?
-
I wrote the majority of the original Wiki. How did I steal from myself?
Imagine that you believed you had stolen from yourself, and someone told you it wasn't true. How would you answer them?
-
Imagine that you believed you had stolen from yourself, and someone told you it wasn't true. How would you answer them?
Please, let's try to stay on topic. Take it to PR&S.
-
As has been established, for those who did not read up on the previous two, the wiki page "The Place of the Conspiracy" that goes as such:
-The flat earth is an obvious truth
-Any evidence against an obvious truth is fabricated
-Any evidence against the flat earth is fabricated
had peaked my interest. I queried about what lead one to believe it is an 'obvious truth', and Pete informed moi that it was indeed stolen from the other FE wiki.
If this is not what one believes, might I ask, what is the Flat Earth belief based on?
What is the base fact that all flat earthers agree on that makes it seem real? (or at least real-er than the round earth)
A distrust of the government?
An eye for photoshop and seeing discrepancies most of us miss?
Blind faith in Rowbotham?
It looking flat?
I'm stumped.
Your interest was piqued. Not peaked. - the more you know ...
As mentioned we all have our own opinions of why authorities promote a round earth when they must know it to be flat. I have given some of my own reasons as to why this happens here ....
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2635.msg66165#msg66165
But that's my own research. Its nothing officially endorsed by the society.
-
On topic: I didn't write that particular article, but I did put it in the original wiki at user request.
I feel it has a lot to do with empiricism and analysis of what is truly demonstratable. If only certain things can be demonstrated, and there is genuine evidence that is hard to explain against NASA, then the apparent obvious truth becomes clear.
The whole "flat earth is an obvious truth" and "contrary evidence NASA presents is fabricated evidence" bits are simplified conclusions made after talking about the subject for many years and thousands of hours of research.
But this is mostly a journey you will have to make for yourselves. I am exploring such topics in the book we are writing in the lower forums.
-
On topic: I didn't write that particular article, but I did put it in the original wiki at user request.
I feel it has a lot to do with empiricism and analysis of what is truly demonstratable. If only certain things can be demonstrated, and there is genuine evidence that is hard to explain against NASA, then the apparent obvious truth becomes clear.
The whole "flat earth is the obvious truth" and "contrary evidence NASA presents against is fabricated evidence" bits are simplified conclusions made after talking about the subject for many years and thousands of hours of research.
But this is mostly a journey you will have to make for yourselves. I am exploring such topics in the book we are writing in the lower forums.
What are the key parts of thousands of hours of research that show a flat earth? Measurements?
-
Good question. There must be at least one.
-
Why are you asking me to write studies and descriptions for you about what I've read and investigated and my thoughts about this and that and that other thing? I let it out slowly in my posts. But putting it into a book is in order at some point.
The movement is bigger than just a few people now, regardless. Read Earth Not a Globe or YouTube your journey.
-
I think he was just asking for one piece of evidence or measurement that supports a flat earth hypothesis.
Doesn't seem like too much to me.
-
There isn't one thing. There are a lot of things. It is cumulative.
But if I had to point at one thing I would just point at the ENAG experiments.
-
All of them?
Or could you name a couple you think the most compelling?
-
There isn't one thing. There are a lot of things. It is cumulative.
But if I had to point at one thing I would just point at the ENAG experiments.
Yet none are being carried out today, it is clear you are avoiding actual proof of your beliefs, if they truely are. Which we must doubt.
-
There isn't one thing. There are a lot of things. It is cumulative.
But if I had to point at one thing I would just point at the ENAG experiments.
But much of what is in EnaG is not true, accurate or logical, and is full of mistakes, so the “experiments”, almost none of which were actual experiments, more just observations, are not proof of a flat earth or compelling evidence.
-
There isn't one thing. There are a lot of things. It is cumulative.
But if I had to point at one thing I would just point at the ENAG experiments.
But much of what is in EnaG is not true, accurate or logical, and is full of mistakes, so the “experiments”, almost none of which were actual experiments, more just observations, are not proof of a flat earth or compelling evidence.
They are simple observations which show that the earth is flat. The argument of "Rowbotham was just seeing atmospheric refraction [inserts wikipedia link to mirages/refraction]" is a losing argument.
See this post:
The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.
And yet, it fails to account for atmospheric effects that Wallace's experiment mitigates with a booster seat.
If the result were to show that the object were fully visible then one could assert that it is quite the coincidence that a chance mirage occurred at the time of viewing to make the object fully visible. Quite the coincidence that this mirage placed the object at the exact altitude it needed to be if the earth were flat. Quite the coincidence that it is a mirage that gives a solid picture rather than a wavy mess like most mirages. Quite the coincidence if this mirage were to occur again on another trial. A lot of coincidences.
Enough coincidences that it brands the Round Earther a Coincidence Theorist.
Calling Rowbotham a liar won't get you very far, as Rowbotham and Lady Blount had plenty of witnesses for their experiments. The math they were using is correct for the curvature of the earth. Other Flat Earth authors performed water convexity experiments over the years in their books. We also see the water convexity experiments are being conducted on YouTube.
It all adds up. Its all cumulative. Arguing that it was just a situation where light refracted through some warm air does not cut it at all.
-
Many simple experiments, described many times, prove a round earth.
-
The argument of "Rowbotham was just seeing atmospheric refraction [inserts wikipedia link to mirages/refraction]" is a losing argument.
Tom, it's sounds like you're saying "atmostpheric refraction doesn't exist"?
Is that what you are saying?
-
The argument of "Rowbotham was just seeing atmospheric refraction [inserts wikipedia link to mirages/refraction]" is a losing argument.
Tom, it's sounds like you're saying "atmostpheric refraction doesn't exist"?
Is that what you are saying?
This was explained to you. If you are going to claim that Rowbotham experienced an atmospheric refraction effects where light passed through some warm air and a mirage was created then you are going to have to explain the coincidences that argument creates.
It is quite the coincidence that an atmospheric effect occured at the time Rowbotham did the experiment.
It is quite the coincidence that this effect projected the body to the exact height it needed to be if the earth were flat, and no more or no less. The image is not floating in the air or overlayed with the ground. It is an effect which creates perfect positioning!
It is quite the coincidence that this effect produced a solid picture rather than a wavy mess like most mirages produce.
Quite the coincidence that this perfect Flat Earth effect occurred every time Rowbotham and Co. performed the experiment.
That is a bad argument. Any honest person should feel embarrassed to maintain that all of these coincidences happened.
-
It's not a coincidence, Tom: we're saying it happens every time.
Refraction is well studied, and proven. If you can't accept that, then I'm sorry for you.
I do also notice that you've been trotting out the same lines for over a decade now:
I am more than willing to conduct additional experiments demonstrating the validity of my model. I already have conducted the ones outlined in Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which have reinforced the reality of the Flat Earth. I am certainly willing to provide photographic evidence.
My model of telescope does not have camera mounts available. Give me a little time to find a suitable telescope and camera mount and I'd be happy to confirm the claims made in the Flat Earth literature. I'll even have a High School physics teacher there to videotape and/or document and notarize the experiment.
Oct 04, 2007: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17248.30 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17248.30)
So I suppose the chances of getting anything sensible out of you are pretty much nil.
But, anyway, I'm always a man to give another man a chance.
Please explain what is happening in this video, and why creating a layer of cool air above a surface allows light to curve around that surface, exactly as atmospheric refraction predicts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs
Then when you've done with that, please explain why stars "slow down" as they approach the horizon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-xXhrTG3Sk
-
It's not a coincidence, Tom: we're saying it happens every time.
Refraction is well studied, and proven. If you can't accept that, then I'm sorry for you.
I do also notice that you've been trotting out the same lines for over a decade now:
I am more than willing to conduct additional experiments demonstrating the validity of my model. I already have conducted the ones outlined in Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which have reinforced the reality of the Flat Earth. I am certainly willing to provide photographic evidence.
My model of telescope does not have camera mounts available. Give me a little time to find a suitable telescope and camera mount and I'd be happy to confirm the claims made in the Flat Earth literature. I'll even have a High School physics teacher there to videotape and/or document and notarize the experiment.
Gulliver was demanding photographs from us of the water convexity experiment and offered a $250,000 reward. He also demanded science teachers there for verification, video of set up, etc. Dogplatter and I were in the process of taking him up on the offer but he reneged.
That was years ago. I don't even live in the area we were discussing anymore. Today there are plenty of water convexity experiments on YouTube. And Lady Bount did photographic evidence. Go off and explore.
If you want us to travel, order equipment, and perfom any specific experiment, with video of setups and photographs of results, how about funding our efforts?
No one is saying that refraction effects do not happen. That is far from saying that there is a permanent Flat Earth refraction effect which occurs along the surface of the Bedford canal. A permanent density or range of warm air which creates a perfect flat earth effect when viewed? And adjusts itself to suspend the object in the air to the height it needs to be, no higher and no lower, according to the distance looked across? An extremely ridiculous supposition.
Stop trying to theorize strings of increasingly absurd coincidences. You are only embarrassing yourself.
-
Arguing that it was just a situation where light refracted through some warm air does not cut it at all.
That's too bad because that's the explanation. Understanding refraction as but "chance mirage" is a key error on your part.
-
Arguing that it was just a situation where light refracted through some warm air does not cut it at all.
That's too bad because that's the explanation. Understanding refraction as but "chance mirage" is a key error on your part.
A permanent mirage that projects images of objects to the exact height they need to be at per RET curvature according the particular distance looked across in the experiment?
A ridiculous, shameful, explanation.
-
I'll agree, Tom, that arguing about refraction is a little bit pointless.
It's good to hear you say you at least agree that it exists, though: you had me worried there for a while.
So let's break it down: if I go to the Old Bedford River and place six flags in the water, all with their tops 13 feet above the water, as well as a larger target flag with its bottom 13 feet above the water, and I stand looking with a telescope at 13 feet above the water, as per Rowbotham's 'Experiment 2', is this what you predict will occur?
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig04.jpg)
Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm
-
Tom is correct. The assumption that there is permanently no refraction at water level is consistent with FE hypothesis.
-
A permanent mirage that projects images of objects to the exact height they need to be at per RET curvature according the particular distance looked across in the experiment?
A rediculous, shameful, explanation.
Refraction conditions (of which a "mirage" is but one phenomenon) that are permanent and unchanging would be a "rediculous, shameful, explanation" [sic], including discounting the effects of refraction.
-
is this what you predict will occur?
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig04.jpg)
Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm
Not sure what 'this' is. The drawing shows an observation from the side, with the viewer on the left, and the target etc on the right.
The observation we need is what the viewer is seeing, not what is seen by the viewer of the viewer!
-
Arguing that it was just a situation where light refracted through some warm air does not cut it at all.
That's too bad because that's the explanation. Understanding refraction as but "chance mirage" is a key error on your part.
A permanent mirage that projects images of objects to the exact height they need to be at per RET curvature according the particular distance looked across in the experiment?
A rediculous, shameful, explanation.
I'd like to quote this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction):
Although the straight line from your eye to a distant mountain might be blocked by a closer hill, the ray may curve enough to make the distant peak visible. A convenient method to analyze the effect of refraction on visibility is to consider an increased effective radius of the Earth Reff … Under this model the ray can be considered a straight line on an Earth of increased radius.
It is not a "chance mirage" nor is it a "permanent mirage". It is merely "refraction". It is a well-understood effect that must be accounted for in low-altitude surveying.
Oh, and you mispelled "ridiculous".
-
is this what you predict will occur?
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig04.jpg)
Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm
Not sure what 'this' is. The drawing shows an observation from the side, with the viewer on the left, and the target etc on the right.
The observation we need is what the viewer is seeing, not what is seen by the viewer of the viewer!
Tom knows what it means, and what it will look like. It's from Rowbotham. :)
-
is this what you predict will occur?
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig04.jpg)
Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm
Not sure what 'this' is. The drawing shows an observation from the side, with the viewer on the left, and the target etc on the right.
The observation we need is what the viewer is seeing, not what is seen by the viewer of the viewer!
Tom knows what it means, and what it will look like. It's from Rowbotham. :)
I know it's from Rowbotham, but the question is what observation is predicted. The picture above is not the right observation.
-
Rowbotham:
[1] On looking with a good telescope over and along the flags, from A to B, the line of sight fell on the lower part of the larger flag at B. [2] The altitude of the point B above the water at D was 5 feet, and the altitude of the telescope at A above the water at C was 5 feet; and each intervening flag had the same altitude. [3] Hence the surface of the water C, D, was equidistant from the line of sight A, B; [4] and as A B was a right line, C, D, being parallel, was also a right line; or, in other words, the surface of the water, C, D, was for six miles absolutely horizontal.
If you read this carefully, most of it states the conditions of the experiment. All the flags are the same height above the water, hence the surface of the water is equidistant from any line, be it straight or curved, across the tops of the flags.
At [4] he states that the line AB is 'right', i.e. straight. But he does not say how he observed this. The diagram he draws is taken from an impossible position, somewhere in the fens. The diagram we want to see is what he saw through the telescope.
-
[/quote]
Gulliver was demanding photographs from us of the water convexity experiment and offered a $250,000 reward. He also demanded science teachers there for verification, video of set up, etc. Dogplatter and I were in the process of taking him up on the offer but he reneged.
That was years ago. I don't even live in the area we were discussing anymore. Today there are plenty of water convexity experiments on YouTube. And Lady Bount did photographic evidence. Go off and explore.
If you want us to travel, order equipment, and perfom any specific experiment, with video of setups and photographs of results, how about funding our efforts?
No one is saying that refraction effects do not happen. That is far from saying that there is a permanent Flat Earth refraction effect which occurs along the surface of the Bedford canal. A permanent density or range of warm air which creates a perfect flat earth effect when viewed? And adjusts itself to suspend the object in the air to the height it needs to be, no higher and no lower, according to the distance looked across? An extremely ridiculous supposition.
Stop trying to theorize strings of increasingly absurd coincidences. You are only embarrassing yourself.
[/quote]
Any more embarrassing or ridiculous than making out that there is a magic phenomena that magnifies the sun so that it Exactly stays the same size all day, even though the distance is varying by thousands of miles? Or the fact that “waves” make the sun slowly disappear over th horizon?
You are arguing that refraction does not exist, and yet in different chapters of EnaG it says that it should be discounted and does not exist when the object are in the same medium such as air (Exp 9) , yet in others (tangential horizon) argues that refraction will cause the effect seen.
No wonder the FEers are confused and dont know which explanation to use, other than refraction must occur if it supports FE, yet is some sore of Magic mirage to be ridiculed if it does not support the FE!
-
Pointing out what you perceive to be coincidences in other theories unrelated to this is not a valid argument. A typical "well about this.." avoidance tactic. Avoiding the subject matter. In fact, by doing that you are implicitly admitting that your position is an absurd one.
You have lost. How embarrassing. You guys are just throwing a tantrum now.
-
Now now, Tom, don't lump us all in together. ;)
All I'm doing is asking you a simple question about Rowbotham's Bedford Levels experiment.
If we do it, will we see this:
(https://image.ibb.co/bzfLT8/headonflat.jpg)
Or will we see this:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/headoncurve-jpg.32959/)
-
Pointing out what you perceive to be coincidences in other theories unrelated to this is not a valid argument. A typical "well about this.." avoidance tactic. Avoiding the subject matter. In fact, by doing that you are implicitly admitting that your position is an absurd one.
You have lost. How embarrassing. You guys are just throwing a tantrum now.
Not really. Just pointing out hypocrisy where i see it........
As for avoidance tactics, there are numerous ones employed by people on this forum some of which are;
I am bored and dont want to discuss it anymore,
I dont have the time to answer you,
I dont have the money to do research, give me some,
Or the most common one refusing to engage in difficult questions.
I have seen all of these very recently used as avoidance, and are readily seen in the posts. I would be embarrassed if they were posts made by myself.....
-
You're gonna be eating humble pie soon, Tonto - Tom's right on the verge of answering my question thoroughly and thoughtfully, and showing us he can engage after all. :)
-
You're gonna be eating humble pie soon, Tonto - Tom's right on the verge of answering my question thoroughly and thoughtfully, and showing us he can engage after all. :)
I hope he does! He has been avoiding my difficult questions so far, so would be happy for him to respond in a meaningful way, and if he does engage in a meaningful way going forwards i will eat the whole pie, not just a slice....
He still has not answered my questions about Bishop jellybeans. That’s what he ran away from the last time.