The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: kasai on March 30, 2018, 04:05:39 PM
-
Now I myself am a Flat-Earther, and as this being my first post on the forums, I would like to debunk curvature since every round-earther says, "The Earth is too big to notice a curvature", which makes no since. If the Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference there must exist a curvature drop of 8 inches, times the mile when you square the mile. 1 mile should equal an 8 inch curvature drop, which would be 1 squared times 8 which would equal 8. 2 miles for instance, 2 miles squared (2x2) equals 4 then times 8 would equal 32 inches of curvature. 3 miles, 3 squared times 8 would equal 72 inches in curvature and so on. So yes you should be able to notice a curvature within our horizon, which is indeed flat. Bill Nye in a video has said, the bottom of a ship will disappear first meaning there is a curvature, but if you go to a beach and watch a ship disappear than pull of you binoculars and zoom in past the horizon you should see the ship. If there was a curvature, you shouldn't be able to see the ship because the curve would have already gone over it. Ladies and Gentleman its all about perspective. I rest my case. The curvature has been debunked.
Why they would keep this a secret?
Boom Antarctic Treaty
The Antarctic Treaty
The Antarctic Treaty and related agreements, collectively known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), regulate international relations with respect to Antarctica, Earth's only continent without a native human population. For the purposes of the treaty system, Antarctica is defined as all of the land and ice shelves south of 60°S latitude. The treaty entered into force in 1961 and currently has 53 parties.[2] The treaty sets aside Antarctica as a scientific preserve, establishes freedom of scientific investigation and bans military activity on the continent. The treaty was the first arms control agreement established during the Cold War. Since September 2004, the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat headquarters has been located in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Articles of Treaty
Article 1 – The area is to be used for peaceful purposes only; military activity, such as weapons testing, is prohibited but military personnel and equipment may be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose;
Article 2 – Freedom of scientific investigations and cooperation shall continue;
Article 3 – Free exchange of information and personnel in cooperation with the United Nations and other international agencies;
Article 4 – The treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;
Article 5 – The treaty prohibits nuclear explosions or disposal of radioactive wastes;
Article 6 – Includes under the treaty all land and ice shelves but not the surrounding waters south of 60 degrees 00 minutes south;
Article 7 – Treaty-state observers have free access, including aerial observation, to any area and may inspect all stations, installations, and equipment; advance notice of all activities and of the introduction of military personnel must be given;
Article 8 – Allows for good jurisdiction over observers and scientists by their own states;
Article 9 – Frequent consultative meetings take place among member nations;
Article 10 – All treaty states will discourage activities by any country in Antarctica that are contrary to the treaty;
Article 11 – All disputes to be settled peacefully by the parties concerned or, ultimately, by the International Court of Justice;
Articles 12, 13, 14 – Deal with upholding, interpreting, and amending the treaty among involved nations.
The main objective of the ATS is to ensure in the interests of all humankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord. Pursuant to Article 1, the treaty forbids any measures of a military nature, but not the presence of military personnel or equipment for the purposes of scientific research.
Legal System
Antarctica currently has no permanent population and therefore it has no citizenship nor government. All personnel present on Antarctica at any time are citizens or nationals of some sovereignty outside Antarctica, as there is no Antarctic sovereignty. The majority of Antarctica is claimed by one or more countries, but most countries do not explicitly recognize those claims. The area on the mainland between 90 degrees west and 150 degrees west is the only major land on Earth not claimed by any country.[19] Until 2015 the interior of the Norwegian Sector, the extent of which had never been officially defined,[20] was considered to be unclaimed. That year, Norway formally laid claim to the area between its Queen Maud Land and the South Pole.[21]
Governments that are party to the Antarctic Treaty and its Protocol on Environmental Protection implement the articles of these agreements, and decisions taken under them, through national laws. These laws generally apply only to their own citizens, wherever they are in Antarctica, and serve to enforce the consensus decisions of the consultative parties: about which activities are acceptable, which areas require permits to enter, what processes of environmental impact assessment must precede activities, and so on. The Antarctic Treaty is often considered to represent an example of the common heritage of mankind principle.
United States Law
The law of the United States, including certain criminal offences by or against U.S. nationals, such as murder, may apply to areas not under jurisdiction of other countries. To this end, the United States now stations special deputy U.S. Marshals in Antarctica to provide a law enforcement presence.[24]
Some U.S. laws directly apply to Antarctica. For example, the Antarctic Conservation Act, Public Law 95-541, 16 U.S.C. § 2401 et seq., provides civil and criminal penalties for the following activities, unless authorized by regulation or statute:
the taking of native Antarctic mammals or birds
the introduction into Antarctica of non-indigenous plants and animals
entry into specially protected or scientific areas
the discharge or disposal of pollutants into Antarctica or Antarctic waters
the importation into the U.S. of certain items from Antarctica
And with all of these facts, your gonna trust these random guys you don’t know that are walking around with a PHD and listen to people from an American Space Agency tell you the Earth is flat yet all they have is composited images of Earth that is changed like every year. No.
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
Agreed.
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
Agreed.
It's funny actually, round d earth heretics say that the ship's hull disappearing 'proves' that earth is flat, but look through binoculars, like you've said and... there is the hull. If earth was round and you looked through binoculars, you wouldn't be able to see the hull.
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
Agreed.
It's funny actually, round d earth heretics say that the ship's hull disappearing 'proves' that earth is flat, but look through binoculars, like you've said and... there is the hull. If earth was round and you looked through binoculars, you wouldn't be able to see the hull.
I find it very funny that schools show Bill Nye, and Bill Nye's claim was that the hull disappears due to curvature, but when doing this experiment it doesn't, because it's all perspective. Another reason round-earthers are being brainwashed through media.
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
Agreed.
It's funny actually, round d earth heretics say that the ship's hull disappearing 'proves' that earth is flat, but look through binoculars, like you've said and... there is the hull. If earth was round and you looked through binoculars, you wouldn't be able to see the hull.
Nah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOZd6t9uzhY
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
And by actual Doctors, no less!
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
Agreed.
It's funny actually, round d earth heretics say that the ship's hull disappearing 'proves' that earth is flat, but look through binoculars, like you've said and... there is the hull. If earth was round and you looked through binoculars, you wouldn't be able to see the hull.
Nah.
It's called a vanishing point. Obviously you are unaware that the further something gets, the smaller it is.
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
Who has? Corrupt governments hiding the truth? NASA keeping stock of its massive yearly budget? There is no proof, its flat. The maths don't add up to a round world.
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
And by actual Doctors, no less!
You keep saying that, Dr Rowbothams work was revolutionary, proved by the fact people like you are debating it now rather than ignoring what you are claiming to be a load of rubbish.
-
Now I myself am a Flat-Earther, and as this being my first post on the forums, I would like to debunk curvature since every round-earther says, "The Earth is too big to notice a curvature", which makes no since. If the Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference there must exist a curvature drop of 8 inches, times the mile when you square the mile. 1 mile should equal an 8 inch curvature drop, which would be 1 squared times 8 which would equal 8. 2 miles for instance, 2 miles squared (2x2) equals 4 then times 8 would equal 32 inches of curvature. 3 miles, 3 squared times 8 would equal 72 inches in curvature and so on. So yes you should be able to notice a curvature within our horizon, which is indeed flat. Bill Nye in a video has said, the bottom of a ship will disappear first meaning there is a curvature, but if you go to a beach and watch a ship disappear than pull of you binoculars and zoom in past the horizon you should see the ship. If there was a curvature, you shouldn't be able to see the ship because the curve would have already gone over it. Ladies and Gentleman its all about perspective. I rest my case. The curvature has been debunked.
You are right about some RE-ers being wrong.
One can see the curvature, but not the curvature of horizon.
Horizon is at the same distance all the way around, and looks like horizontal hula-hoop around your head at the eye level.
Curve can be seen not in the horizon, but in the line that connects you with the horizon.
After the horizon that line drops below it.
About "8 inch per number of miles squared", what it calculates is drop below observer's local horizontal, not below the line of sight.
Line of sight is going lower, unless your eye is directly at the sea level.
If your eye is 6 feet above, your horizon will be at 3 miles away.
Your 32*8 inch will only be below horizontal line drawn from your standing point, not below your line of sight.
And it is only "accurate enough" for distances less than some 100-ish miles.
See the diagram at the bottom of this page:
https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/)
There you can see the difference between "drop" and "hidden".
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
"Dr" Rowbotham did it few times, but each time he waited for convenient refraction, based on temperature distribution on air layers.
When Wallace circumvent that with poles above the water, Rowbotham's "proof" fell apart.
Henry Yule Oldham later repeated the experiment, showing that on Old Bedford there is curve.
The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor's training and knowledge of physics,
avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and won the bet. The crucial steps were to (1) set a sight line 13 feet (4 m) above the water, and thereby reduce the effects
of atmospheric refraction and (2) add a pole in the middle that could be used to see the "bump" caused by the curvature of the earth between the two end points.
(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment))
It's funny actually, round earth heretics say that the ship's hull disappearing 'proves'
Yes. The word "heretics" is the key here. Some people try to return the Dogma.
And some don't even understand the difference between three models:
1 - Flat model - abandoned 2500 years ago
2 - Geocentrism - Biblical model (ask priests in church), abandoned 400 years ago
3 - Heloicentrism
that earth is flat, but look through binoculars, like you've said and... there is the hull. If earth was round and you looked through binoculars, you wouldn't be able to see the hull.
To bring hull back, the boat has to be small enough to look like disappearing behind horizon while still being close enough.
Big ocean liner can't be brought back into view this way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6SGmZomWtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NTqAUgoD9g
-
It's called a vanishing point. Obviously you are unaware that the further something gets, the smaller it is.
One time I did wonder why a frisbee kept getting bigger, then it hit me...
Amazingly, I have managed to work out by now that objects get smaller as they go away from me.
What they don't do, on a flat plane, is disappear from the bottom first.
Your claim was that a ship's hull can be restored, the video I posted shows that to be bunk. The sailing boat disappears hull first over the curve of the earth till you can only see the top of the sail.
-
It's called a vanishing point. Obviously you are unaware that the further something gets, the smaller it is.
You should just stop - you are destroying flat Earthism. A vanishing point is a term used in art, but you are obviously unaware of that. Tell me, if it is so far away that it is starting to vanish, why does it only vanish in one dimension? Shouldn't it also vanish horizontally? lol, this is too easy.
You keep saying that, Dr Rowbothams work was revolutionary, proved by the fact people like you are debating it now rather than ignoring what you are claiming to be salad of rubbish.
You are aware Rowbotham wasn't a Dr., right? He was, however, a conman since he called himself a Dr. and ran some life-extending gimmick.
-
It's called a vanishing point. Obviously you are unaware that the further something gets, the smaller it is.
One time I did wonder why a frisbee kept getting bigger, then it hit me...
Amazingly, I have managed to work out by now that objects get smaller as they go away from me.
What they don't do, on a flat plane, is disappear from the bottom first.
Your claim was that a ship's hull can be restored, the video I posted shows that to be bunk. The sailing boat disappears hull first over the curve of the earth till you can only see the top of the sail.
Read the chapter from Dr Rowbothams book, he does experiments to prove that the earth is flat. I'd explain it here, but you need the diagrams. And it would do you some good to read the work of a revolutionary figure.
-
It's called a vanishing point. Obviously you are unaware that the further something gets, the smaller it is.
You should just stop - you are destroying flat Earthism. A vanishing point is a term used in art, but you are obviously unaware of that. Tell me, if it is so far away that it is starting to vanish, why does it only vanish in one dimension? Shouldn't it also vanish horizontally? lol, this is too easy.
You keep saying that, Dr Rowbothams work was revolutionary, proved by the fact people like you are debating it now rather than ignoring what you are claiming to be salad of rubbish.
You are aware Rowbotham wasn't a Dr., right? He was, however, a conman since he called himself a Dr. and ran some life-extending gimmick.
So your saying one needs to be a doctor and they're automatically right? I don't need someone with a PHD walking on this Earth telling me that the Earth is round. A PHD is not needed to see a flat earth. I don't know about you but mainstream science has been brain washing us for years telling our children we travel around a ball, and there is this magical force call gravity pulling us down. I don't need to be a Dr., and neither does Dr. Rowbotham need to be a doctor to understand that the Earth is flat. Doctor is a title, it doesn't make you a god. Stop treating doctors and people with PHDS like gods, they're regular human beings. Mainstream science has brainwashed you.
-
I don't know about you but mainstream science has been brain washing us for years telling our children we travel around a ball, and there is this magical force call gravity pulling us down.
Why? Why would they do that?
And I think the point about Rowbotham is Parallax - who is clearly a troll - keeps calling calling Rowbothan "Dr" presumably to give him some credibility when he has none.
-
Now I myself am a Flat-Earther, and as this being my first post on the forums, I would like to debunk curvature since every round-earther says, "The Earth is too big to notice a curvature", which makes no since. If the Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference there must exist a curvature drop of 8 inches, times the mile when you square the mile. 1 mile should equal an 8 inch curvature drop, which would be 1 squared times 8 which would equal 8. 2 miles for instance, 2 miles squared (2x2) equals 4 then times 8 would equal 32 inches of curvature. 3 miles, 3 squared times 8 would equal 72 inches in curvature and so on. So yes you should be able to notice a curvature within our horizon, which is indeed flat. Bill Nye in a video has said, the bottom of a ship will disappear first meaning there is a curvature, but if you go to a beach and watch a ship disappear than pull of you binoculars and zoom in past the horizon you should see the ship. If there was a curvature, you shouldn't be able to see the ship because the curve would have already gone over it. Ladies and Gentleman its all about perspective. I rest my case. The curvature has been debunked.
You are right about some RE-ers being wrong.
One can see the curvature, but not the curvature of horizon.
Horizon is at the same distance all the way around, and looks like horizontal hula-hoop around your head at the eye level.
Curve can be seen not in the horizon, but in the line that connects you with the horizon.
After the horizon that line drops below it.
About "8 inch per number of miles squared", what it calculates is drop below observer's local horizontal, not below the line of sight.
Line of sight is going lower, unless your eye is directly at the sea level.
If your eye is 6 feet above, your horizon will be at 3 miles away.
Your 32*8 inch will only be below horizontal line drawn from your standing point, not below your line of sight.
And it is only "accurate enough" for distances less than some 100-ish miles.
See the diagram at the bottom of this page:
https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/)
There you can see the difference between "drop" and "hidden".
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
"Dr" Rowbotham did it few times, but each time he waited for convenient refraction, based on temperature distribution on air layers.
When Wallace circumvent that with poles above the water, Rowbotham's "proof" fell apart.
Henry Yule Oldham later repeated the experiment, showing that on Old Bedford there is curve.
The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor's training and knowledge of physics,
avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and won the bet. The crucial steps were to (1) set a sight line 13 feet (4 m) above the water, and thereby reduce the effects
of atmospheric refraction and (2) add a pole in the middle that could be used to see the "bump" caused by the curvature of the earth between the two end points.
(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment))
It's funny actually, round earth heretics say that the ship's hull disappearing 'proves'
Yes. The word "heretics" is the key here. Some people try to return the Dogma.
And some don't even understand the difference between three models:
1 - Flat model - abandoned 2500 years ago
2 - Geocentrism - Biblical model (ask priests in church), abandoned 400 years ago
3 - Heloicentrism
that earth is flat, but look through binoculars, like you've said and... there is the hull. If earth was round and you looked through binoculars, you wouldn't be able to see the hull.
To bring hull back, the boat has to be small enough to look like disappearing behind horizon while still being close enough.
Big ocean liner can't be brought back into view this way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6SGmZomWtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NTqAUgoD9g
Your link shows a dip in the horizon, the horizon is clearly flat when looking at it. 3 miles say 10 feet of VISIBLE curvature or your link, It's clearly not there though when looking at the horizon.
-
I don't know about you but mainstream science has been brain washing us for years telling our children we travel around a ball, and there is this magical force call gravity pulling us down.
Why? Why would they do that?
And I think the point about Rowbotham is Parallax - who is clearly a troll - keeps calling calling Rowbothan "Dr" presumably to give him some credibility when he has none.
I don't know why, but I do know that the same people that are telling you that the Earth is round are also the same people telling you that Climate Change is real.
-
I don't know about you but mainstream science has been brain washing us for years telling our children we travel around a ball, and there is this magical force call gravity pulling us down.
Why? Why would they do that?
And I think the point about Rowbotham is Parallax - who is clearly a troll - keeps calling calling Rowbothan "Dr" presumably to give him some credibility when he has none.
I don't know why, but I do know that the same people that are telling you that the Earth is round are also the same people telling you that Climate Change is real.
And why would they be lying about Climate Change?
Maybe you should stop reading "Tin Foil Hat Monthly", fella.
-
Pretty sure kasai and parallax are alts, possibly the same person as Treep, who I had suspected was SexPlanet. Not super important
Anyway the OP is incorrect; as stated already, curvature is observed in the line from a person to the horizon, and in the fact that the horizon appears at all. The rest is waste
I refer anyone who hasn't read it to the Burden of Proof thread linked to in my signature. Kasai and parallax illustrate the problem super well: after a brief disagreement about curvature, the argument tilts towards science being untrustworthy and people being brainwashed, but none of it actually matters, at all. It's a pointless diversion from the actual problem: We have photos of the planet that show its true shape, and these cats deny the photos are real.
Discussing curvature and perspective is neat and fun, but if you want to talk brainwashing, let's get to the point
-
Your link shows a dip in the horizon, the horizon is clearly flat when looking at it. 3 miles say 10 feet of VISIBLE curvature or your link, It's clearly not there though when looking at the horizon.
Nope.
Diagram shows curvature in the line from observer to horizon and beyond.
One horizontal is "eye level" from eye towards target.
Another horizontal is "surface level" from observer's standing point towards the target.
Third line is not horizontal, it is line of sight from eye towards horizon and beyond, tilted little down.
Horizon itself is not seen in the picture as line, it is perpendicular to the screen at the marking "X", labeled with "horizon".
It is the place where line of sight meets the top of the bulge all around the observer.
EDIT: Drag the "eye" dot up and down and see for yourself.
-
Pretty sure kasai and parallax are alts, possibly the same person as Treep, who I had suspected was SexPlanet. Not super important
I did notice that Treep Ravisaras is an anagram of "as Pete Svarriar"
Which is a misspelling of Pete's surname, but close enough to make me think it's not a coincidence...
-
Pretty sure kasai and parallax are alts, possibly the same person as Treep, who I had suspected was SexPlanet. Not super important
Anyway the OP is incorrect; as stated already, curvature is observed in the line from a person to the horizon, and in the fact that the horizon appears at all. The rest is waste
I refer anyone who hasn't read it to the Burden of Proof thread linked to in my signature. Kasai and parallax illustrate the problem super well: after a brief disagreement about curvature, the argument tilts towards science being untrustworthy and people being brainwashed, but none of it actually matters, at all. It's a pointless diversion from the actual problem: We have photos of the planet that show its true shape, and these cats deny the photos are real.
Discussing curvature and perspective is neat and fun, but if you want to talk brainwashing, let's get to the point
IMO, the simplest way to frame the burden of proof in this debate looks like this:
Everyone: What shape is the Earth?
Eratosthenes et al: It's a sphere, yo
Rowbotham et al: It's flat, dawg
Astronauts et al: We went to space and took pictures (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1576&bih=979&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=earth), amigos, it's definitely a sphere
Flat earth peeps: Nah those are fake, the Earth is flat
The Flat Earth Society has to prove the Space Travel Conspiracy (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy), or accept that the Earth has been directly observed to be a sphere, by astronauts looking out of windows.
Speculation, like assuming NASA must have started faking space travel around the time of the Apollo 1 fire for a political motivation, is not evidence that space exploration is faked. Suggestion, like asking 'Do you really trust everything your government tells you?', is not evidence that space exploration is faked. Quackery, like pointing out non-intuitive things happening or astronauts saying weird stuff that your favorite youtuber says is proof they are filming on land, is not evidence that space exploration is faked.
No, a good place to start would be to find and demonstrate fakery in the 24/7 livestream from the International Space Station (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload), and the hours of footage of spacewalks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip77GoiF7f8), and the amateur videos of shuttle launches and reentry (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=home+video+space+shuttle).
Bear in mind that tampering with video is not magic, as it leaves findable, measurable traces. See Captain Disillusion, a youtube channel dedicated to explaining faked videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCtgI2lkFw
(skip to 4:20 for the point)
This is just one of the more direct ways to find that burden of proof is on the Flat Earth Society. If anyone wants to take up an argument about the conspiracy, I suggest starting another thread so this one can stay on topic, which is only who has burden of proof.
Got this quote from your "burden of proof", it says, NASA: We got images from space. Um no they made composites.
-
Got this quote from your "burden of proof", it says, NASA: We got images from space. Um no they made composites.
OK. Two things there:
1) Composite != Fake.
If you take a panoramic photo with your smart phone that is a composite, your phone effectively takes a load of different photos and stitches them together. That's what NASA do sometimes. That doesn't mean that the photo is fake any more than your lovely panoramas are.
2) There are plenty of photos from space by multiple space agencies around the world which are not composites.
-
Encourage everyone to read new info at top.
-
Got this quote from your "burden of proof", it says, NASA: We got images from space. Um no they made composites.
OK. Two things there:
1) Composite != Fake.
If you take a panoramic photo with your smart phone that is a composite, your phone effectively takes a load of different photos and stitches them together. That's what NASA do sometimes. That doesn't mean that the photo is fake any more than your lovely panoramas are.
2) There are plenty of photos from space by multiple space agencies around the world which are not composites.
Yes and those non composite images, its called fish eyed cameras.
-
Encourage everyone to read new info at top.
Thanks.
All those people saw (and some recorded) midnight sun in Antarctica.
They also saw Aurora Australis.
Could someone tell them they didn't?
How?
-
Yes and those non composite images, its called fish eyed cameras.
Wow. OK, now you're mixing up two more different things.
1) Fish eye lenses which do sometimes show flat lines as curves - these can distort some photos, but do not account for all photos showing the earth's curve at high enough altitude.
2) Space craft which are far enough away to take a picture of the whole earth without the need for compositing.
-
Encourage everyone to read new info at top.
Thanks.
All those people saw (and some recorded) midnight sun in Antarctica.
They also saw Aurora Australis.
Could someone tell them they didn't?
How?
There is some quack who says that the Antarctic has a midnight sun and he has a video to “prove” it. As flat earthers, we know that the antartic has NO midnight sun, but if a person believes in the globe earth, he wouldn’t know this and believe that the video is true.
Then, there are other differences between the North Pole and South Pole and that is covered below. The difference is because the antartic does NOT get the sun that the center part of the earth (what others call the Northern Hemisphere).
About the video what was show about the “Midnight sun in the antartic” it’s very easy to take a video taken of the North Pole and say in the naration “South Pole.” In other words, you are completely at the mercy of the narator of the editor, as the case may be.
“If the earth be a globe, at midnight the eye would have to penetrate thousands of miles of land and water even at 65 degrees North latitude, in order to see the sun at midnight. That the sun can be seen for days together in the Far North during the Northern summer, proves that there is something very seriously wrong with the globular hypothesis. Besides this how is it that the midnight sun is never seen in the south during the southern summer? Cook penetrated as far South as 71 degrees, Weddell in 1893 reached as far as 74 degrees, and Sir James C. Ross in 1841 and 1842 reached the 78th parallel, but I am not aware that any of these navigators have left it on record that the sun was seen at midnight in the south.” –Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny”
Heliocentrists also cannot explain why the Midnight Sun phenomenon is not experienced anywhere in the Southern hemisphere at any time of year. Quite to the contrary, it has been recorded by the Royal Belgian Geographical Society in “Expedition Antarctique Belge,” that during the most severe part of the Antarctic winter, from 71 degrees South latitude onwards, the sun sets on May 17th and is not seen above the horizon again until July 21st! This is completely at odds with the ball-Earth theory, but easily explained by the flat-Earth model. The Midnight Sun is seen from high altitudes in extreme Northern latitudes during Arctic summer because the Sun, at its inner-most cycle, is circling tightly enough around the polar center that it remains visible above the horizon for someone at such a vantage point. Likewise, in extreme Southern latitudes during Arctic summer, the Sun completely disappears from view for over 2 months because there at the Northern Tropic, at the inner-most arc of its boomerang journey, the Sun is circling the Northern center too tightly to be seen from the Southern circumference.
“It is evident that in the great encircling oceans of the south, and the numerous islands and parts of continents, which exist beyond that part of the earth where the sun is vertical, cannot have their days and nights, seasons, etc., precisely like those in the northern region. The north is a centre, and the south is that centre radiated or thrown out to a vast oceanic circumference, terminating in circular walls of ice, which form an impenetrable frozen barrier. Hence the phenomena referred to as existing in the north must be considerably modified in the south, For instance, the north being central, the light of the sun advancing and receding, gives long periods of alternate light and darkness at the actual centre; but in the far south, the sun, even when moving in his outer path, can only throw its light to a certain distance, beyond which there must be perpetual darkness. No evidence exists of there being long periods of light and darkness regularly alternating, as in the north. In the north, in summer-time, when the sun is moving in its inner path, the light shines continually for months together over the central region, and rapidly develops numerous forms of animal and vegetable life.” – Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!”
“The supposition that the seasons are caused by the Earth’s annual motion round the Sun at a mean distance of 92,500,000 of miles, is grotesque. According to Piazzi the size of the Sun is in proportion to the Earth, as 329,360 to 1, the diameter exceeds that of the Earth 112 times. The Earth appears, as Biot says, by this statement, ‘a mere grain of sand, as compared to the Sun.’ This enormous expanse of light focused on a rotating ‘grain of sand,’ at the distance of 93 millions of miles, would cause the same season throughout it. The paltry few miles, in comparison that separates London from Cape Town could never cause diverse seasons, neither would the distance from London to the Riviera justify the difference in the climate that characterizes the two places.” –E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations”
“The theory of the rotation of the earth may once and for all be definitely disposed of as impracticable by pointing out the following inadvertence. It is said that the rotation takes twenty-four hours and that its speed is uniform, in which case, necessarily, days and nights should have an identical duration of twelve hours each all the year round. The sun should invariably rise in the morning and set in the evening at the same hours, with the result that it would be the equinox every day from the 1st of January to the 31st of December. One should stop and reflect on this before saying that the earth has a movement of rotation. How does the system of gravitation account for the seasonal variations in the lengths of days and nights if the earth rotates at a uniform speed in twenty-four hours!?” –Gabrielle Henriet, “Heaven and Earth”
“Another thing is certain, that from within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south – pole star included – sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis, a south pole star, and the Southern Cross, a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is not the case.” –Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!”
They also had to add a “wobble” to the “tilt” to try and make their make-shift “seasons” model work. Unfortunately for them, you can prove in your backyard the Earth does not wobble (or rotate around the Sun for that matter) by keeping track of the meridian lines/times of stars and seeing that they do not accordingly change throughout the year due to Earth’s supposed wobbling and spinning around the Sun.
“Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results–the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth’s surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion.” –Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy”
Another thing to consider is that the amount of vegetation that goes in the far North, such as Canada is more than what is grown in equal latitude south of the equator – the reason being is that the North gets more sun in their summer time than what the South gets in its summer time. Another proof that the southern hemisphere doesn’t get as much sun as the norther hemesphere. (I should use Eric Dubay’s wording [I think he coined it] and call it “hemisflat!”
-
I ask that if you're going to edit the OP and change the topic like that, please start a new thread instead of muddling the one.
There exist full-disc photographs of the Earth that are not composites. E.g. https://gizmodo.com/5909215/this-is-the-definitive-photograph-of-planet-earth
In the meantime, I'm abstaining from further participation in this thread.
-
The difference is because the antartic does NOT get the sun that the center part of the earth (what others call the Northern Hemisphere).
hehehe
Try to tell that to all the people inside Antarctic Circle in December, including tourists.
And to all the people in Ushuaia and Punta Arenas while they watch Aurora Australis. :)
The summer solstice in Antarctica, December 21:
(http://science-at-home.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/summer-solstice-antarctic.jpg) (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/summer-solstice-sunset-antarctic-circle-12981089.jpg)
-
The difference is because the antartic does NOT get the sun that the center part of the earth (what others call the Northern Hemisphere).
hehehe
Try to tell that to all the people inside Antarctic Circle in December, including tourists.
And to all the people in Ushuaia and Punta Arenas while they watch Aurora Australis. :)
The summer solstice in Antarctica, December 21:
(http://science-at-home.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/summer-solstice-antarctic.jpg) (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/summer-solstice-sunset-antarctic-circle-12981089.jpg)
The way the sun orbits the earth does not allow for the Antarctic to get the sun that the northern hemisphere does. Besides, after so long beyond the ice wall light is lost to perpetual darkness, because the sun only orbits the earth in a specific way.
-
The difference is because the antartic does NOT get the sun that the center part of the earth (what others call the Northern Hemisphere).
hehehe
Try to tell that to all the people inside Antarctic Circle in December, including tourists.
And to all the people in Ushuaia and Punta Arenas while they watch Aurora Australis. :)
The summer solstice in Antarctica, December 21:
(http://science-at-home.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/summer-solstice-antarctic.jpg) (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/summer-solstice-sunset-antarctic-circle-12981089.jpg)
The way the sun orbits the earth does not allow for the Antarctic to get the sun that the northern hemisphere does. Besides, after so long beyond the ice wall light is lost to perpetual darkness, because the sun only orbits the earth in a specific way.
Exactly.
That is one more example where Flat model doesn't describe real life observations.
-
The difference is because the antartic does NOT get the sun that the center part of the earth (what others call the Northern Hemisphere).
hehehe
Try to tell that to all the people inside Antarctic Circle in December, including tourists.
And to all the people in Ushuaia and Punta Arenas while they watch Aurora Australis. :)
The summer solstice in Antarctica, December 21:
(http://science-at-home.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/summer-solstice-antarctic.jpg) (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/summer-solstice-sunset-antarctic-circle-12981089.jpg)
The way the sun orbits the earth does not allow for the Antarctic to get the sun that the northern hemisphere does. Besides, after so long beyond the ice wall light is lost to perpetual darkness, because the sun only orbits the earth in a specific way.
Exactly.
That is one more example where Flat model doesn't describe real life observations.
Those pictures are not legit. The sun does not orbit the earth in a way it can orbit Antarctic in that way. The Antarctic is lucky it even gets any light at all.
-
The difference is because the antartic does NOT get the sun that the center part of the earth (what others call the Northern Hemisphere).
hehehe
Try to tell that to all the people inside Antarctic Circle in December, including tourists.
And to all the people in Ushuaia and Punta Arenas while they watch Aurora Australis. :)
The summer solstice in Antarctica, December 21:
(http://science-at-home.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/summer-solstice-antarctic.jpg) (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/summer-solstice-sunset-antarctic-circle-12981089.jpg)
The way the sun orbits the earth does not allow for the Antarctic to get the sun that the northern hemisphere does. Besides, after so long beyond the ice wall light is lost to perpetual darkness, because the sun only orbits the earth in a specific way.
Exactly.
That is one more example where Flat model doesn't describe real life observations.
Those pictures are not legit. The sun does not orbit the earth in a way it can orbit Antarctic in that way. The Antarctic is lucky it even gets any light at all.
Can you provide us with a "legit" picture?
-
Why talk of what you 'should see' if a certain math calc of 'curvature' is correct, when we have 50+ years of orbital flight to pick from, with numerous photos, films, videos and images of what IS actually seen?
-
Why talk of what you 'should see' if a certain math calc of 'curvature' is correct, when we have 50+ years of orbital flight to pick from, with numerous photos, films, videos and images of what IS actually seen?
Images you have seen, all CGI, videos you've seen either filmed in a studio or have a fish eye lens.
-
prove it
-
So your saying one needs to be a doctor and they're automatically right? I don't need someone with a PHD walking on this Earth telling me that the Earth is round. A PHD is not needed to see a flat earth. I don't know about you but mainstream science has been brain washing us for years telling our children we travel around a ball, and there is this magical force call gravity pulling us down. I don't need to be a Dr., and neither does Dr. Rowbotham need to be a doctor to understand that the Earth is flat. Doctor is a title, it doesn't make you a god. Stop treating doctors and people with PHDS like gods, they're regular human beings. Mainstream science has brainwashed you.
Reading not your strong suit? I never said that. However, people walking this Earth with PHds is EXACTLY what we need. It's called being an expert. I'm not going to my car mechanic for heart surgery. This notion that everyone's theories are equally valid is BS. Did you know that the least intelligent people overestimate their intelligence the most. Something to think about.
-
Why talk of what you 'should see' if a certain math calc of 'curvature' is correct, when we have 50+ years of orbital flight to pick from, with numerous photos, films, videos and images of what IS actually seen?
Then can you please explain to me why all the footage from 1969 has been 'lost'? Surely we are talking about a massive point in human history here, with footage and data that would be archived for centuries, and NASA says they have 'lost' everything. Wonder why that is.
-
Why talk of what you 'should see' if a certain math calc of 'curvature' is correct, when we have 50+ years of orbital flight to pick from, with numerous photos, films, videos and images of what IS actually seen?
Then can you please explain to me why all the footage from 1969 has been 'lost'? Surely we are talking about a massive point in human history here, with footage and data that would be archived for centuries, and NASA says they have 'lost' everything. Wonder why that is.
NASA has not lost "everything" nor have they said they have.
Some tapes were lost or re-used but other versions of the footage is not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
Although the researchers never found the telemetry tapes they were looking for, they did discover the best visual quality NTSC videotapes as well as super 8 movie film taken of a video monitor in Australia, showing the SSTV transmission before it was converted. These visual elements were processed in 2009, as part of a NASA approved restoration project of the first moonwalk. At a 2009 news conference in Washington, D.C., the research team released its findings regarding the tapes' disappearance. They also partially released newly enhanced footage obtained during the search. Lowry Digital completed the full moonwalk restoration project in late 2009.
-
So the ship disappeared from the naked eye but then was made visible again with a telescope, OK that's how telescopes work however......
This only works over relatively short distances doesn't it?
My telescope can see the moon which is either 3,000 or some 240,000 ish miles away, importantly we all agree it is not less than 3,000 miles away so why can I not see the beaches of France with it from the UK? Why can I not view the ferry all the way across the channel?
I think the curve of the globe prevents it, can anyone offer other reasons?
-
So the ship disappeared from the naked eye but then was made visible again with a telescope, OK that's how telescopes work however......
This only works over relatively short distances doesn't it?
My telescope can see the moon which is either 3,000 or some 240,000 ish miles away, importantly we all agree it is not less than 3,000 miles away so why can I not see the beaches of France with it from the UK? Why can I not view the ferry all the way across the channel?
I think the curve of the globe prevents it, can anyone offer other reasons?
You can though, they have telescope's at Dover and Normandy so you can see across. And even see any ferry's.
-
So the ship disappeared from the naked eye but then was made visible again with a telescope, OK that's how telescopes work however......
This only works over relatively short distances doesn't it?
My telescope can see the moon which is either 3,000 or some 240,000 ish miles away, importantly we all agree it is not less than 3,000 miles away so why can I not see the beaches of France with it from the UK? Why can I not view the ferry all the way across the channel?
I think the curve of the globe prevents it, can anyone offer other reasons?
You can though, they have telescope's at Dover and Normandy so you can see across. And even see any ferry's.
On top of the cliffs, maybe. At ground level, not so much.
-
So the ship disappeared from the naked eye but then was made visible again with a telescope, OK that's how telescopes work however......
This only works over relatively short distances doesn't it?
My telescope can see the moon which is either 3,000 or some 240,000 ish miles away, importantly we all agree it is not less than 3,000 miles away so why can I not see the beaches of France with it from the UK? Why can I not view the ferry all the way across the channel?
I think the curve of the globe prevents it, can anyone offer other reasons?
You can though, they have telescope's at Dover and Normandy so you can see across. And even see any ferry's.
The path of the sun and measured distances proves a round earth.
-
You can though, they have telescope's at Dover and Normandy so you can see across. And even see any ferry's.
The telescope is 350 feet above sea level amigo. When viewed from the beach such observations do not work
-
Images you have seen, all CGI, videos you've seen either filmed in a studio or have a fish eye lens.
How can you claim this when you don't actually know what I've seen ...?
-
Then can you please explain to me why all the footage from 1969 has been 'lost'?
= = =
It hasn't been lost. All the still photos are in the Apollo 11 Image Gallery, easily found with a google search.
I have a DVD on the shelf in front of me with the BBC's broadcast of the Apollo 11 landing and EVA. It was published in 2009. If I and others can watch it from a DVD still available today, it's not 'lost'.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sky-Night-Apollo11-DVD/dp/B00264GAZM
Footage from the cameras the crew used in the Command Module can be found on the compil DVD "For All Mankind". It's more cinematic, sometimes out of sequence, but still intact.
= = =
Surely we are talking about a massive point in human history here, with footage and data that would be archived for centuries, and NASA says they have 'lost' everything. Wonder why that is.
They didn't say that.
-
Then can you please explain to me why all the footage from 1969 has been 'lost'?
= = =
It hasn't been lost. All the still photos are in the Apollo 11 Image Gallery, easily found with a google search.
I have a DVD on the shelf in front of me with the BBC's broadcast of the Apollo 11 landing and EVA. It was published in 2009. If I and others can watch it from a DVD still available today, it's not 'lost'.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sky-Night-Apollo11-DVD/dp/B00264GAZM
Footage from the cameras the crew used in the Command Module can be found on the compil DVD "For All Mankind". It's more cinematic, sometimes out of sequence, but still intact.
= = =
Surely we are talking about a massive point in human history here, with footage and data that would be archived for centuries, and NASA says they have 'lost' everything. Wonder why that is.
They didn't say that.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716
Pretty sure they admitted to taping over them.
-
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716
Pretty sure they admitted to taping over them.
Dude! Did you even read the whole first sentence of that page?
The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better, NASA officials said on Thursday.
Your initial post claimed they lost "everything". That is not true and your own post backs that up.
-
Now I myself am a Flat-Earther, and as this being my first post on the forums, I would like to debunk curvature since every round-earther says, "The Earth is too big to notice a curvature", which makes no since. If the Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference there must exist a curvature drop of 8 inches, times the mile when you square the mile. 1 mile should equal an 8 inch curvature drop, which would be 1 squared times 8 which would equal 8. 2 miles for instance, 2 miles squared (2x2) equals 4 then times 8 would equal 32 inches of curvature. 3 miles, 3 squared times 8 would equal 72 inches in curvature and so on. So yes you should be able to notice a curvature within our horizon, which is indeed flat. Bill Nye in a video has said, the bottom of a ship will disappear first meaning there is a curvature, but if you go to a beach and watch a ship disappear than pull of you binoculars and zoom in past the horizon you should see the ship. If there was a curvature, you shouldn't be able to see the ship because the curve would have already gone over it. Ladies and Gentleman its all about perspective. I rest my case. The curvature has been debunked.
Why they would keep this a secret?
Boom Antarctic Treaty
The Antarctic Treaty
The Antarctic Treaty and related agreements, collectively known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), regulate international relations with respect to Antarctica, Earth's only continent without a native human population. For the purposes of the treaty system, Antarctica is defined as all of the land and ice shelves south of 60°S latitude. The treaty entered into force in 1961 and currently has 53 parties.[2] The treaty sets aside Antarctica as a scientific preserve, establishes freedom of scientific investigation and bans military activity on the continent. The treaty was the first arms control agreement established during the Cold War. Since September 2004, the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat headquarters has been located in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Articles of Treaty
Article 1 – The area is to be used for peaceful purposes only; military activity, such as weapons testing, is prohibited but military personnel and equipment may be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose;
Article 2 – Freedom of scientific investigations and cooperation shall continue;
Article 3 – Free exchange of information and personnel in cooperation with the United Nations and other international agencies;
Article 4 – The treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;
Article 5 – The treaty prohibits nuclear explosions or disposal of radioactive wastes;
Article 6 – Includes under the treaty all land and ice shelves but not the surrounding waters south of 60 degrees 00 minutes south;
Article 7 – Treaty-state observers have free access, including aerial observation, to any area and may inspect all stations, installations, and equipment; advance notice of all activities and of the introduction of military personnel must be given;
Article 8 – Allows for good jurisdiction over observers and scientists by their own states;
Article 9 – Frequent consultative meetings take place among member nations;
Article 10 – All treaty states will discourage activities by any country in Antarctica that are contrary to the treaty;
Article 11 – All disputes to be settled peacefully by the parties concerned or, ultimately, by the International Court of Justice;
Articles 12, 13, 14 – Deal with upholding, interpreting, and amending the treaty among involved nations.
The main objective of the ATS is to ensure in the interests of all humankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord. Pursuant to Article 1, the treaty forbids any measures of a military nature, but not the presence of military personnel or equipment for the purposes of scientific research.
Legal System
Antarctica currently has no permanent population and therefore it has no citizenship nor government. All personnel present on Antarctica at any time are citizens or nationals of some sovereignty outside Antarctica, as there is no Antarctic sovereignty. The majority of Antarctica is claimed by one or more countries, but most countries do not explicitly recognize those claims. The area on the mainland between 90 degrees west and 150 degrees west is the only major land on Earth not claimed by any country.[19] Until 2015 the interior of the Norwegian Sector, the extent of which had never been officially defined,[20] was considered to be unclaimed. That year, Norway formally laid claim to the area between its Queen Maud Land and the South Pole.[21]
Governments that are party to the Antarctic Treaty and its Protocol on Environmental Protection implement the articles of these agreements, and decisions taken under them, through national laws. These laws generally apply only to their own citizens, wherever they are in Antarctica, and serve to enforce the consensus decisions of the consultative parties: about which activities are acceptable, which areas require permits to enter, what processes of environmental impact assessment must precede activities, and so on. The Antarctic Treaty is often considered to represent an example of the common heritage of mankind principle.
United States Law
The law of the United States, including certain criminal offences by or against U.S. nationals, such as murder, may apply to areas not under jurisdiction of other countries. To this end, the United States now stations special deputy U.S. Marshals in Antarctica to provide a law enforcement presence.[24]
Some U.S. laws directly apply to Antarctica. For example, the Antarctic Conservation Act, Public Law 95-541, 16 U.S.C. § 2401 et seq., provides civil and criminal penalties for the following activities, unless authorized by regulation or statute:
the taking of native Antarctic mammals or birds
the introduction into Antarctica of non-indigenous plants and animals
entry into specially protected or scientific areas
the discharge or disposal of pollutants into Antarctica or Antarctic waters
the importation into the U.S. of certain items from Antarctica
And with all of these facts, your gonna trust these random guys you don’t know that are walking around with a PHD and listen to people from an American Space Agency tell you the Earth is flat yet all they have is composited images of Earth that is changed like every year. No.
I worked this out for another thread but it is also relevent here so here is the link to calculation and formula https://pasteboard.co/Her0ToJ.jpg (https://pasteboard.co/Her0ToJ.jpg)
-
Pretty sure they admitted to taping over them.
"NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing."
The subtext to that is that no one WITHIN NASA could find them AT NASA.
The broadcast went out live to the whole world, and numerous TV companies receiving said broadcast kept their own copies, as they recorded the broadcast.
It's like Live Aid in 1985. The BBC didn't keep all of what they broadcast, but there's thousands of VHS owners out in the general public who recorded it live off the broadcast. So, whilst someone looking within the BBC would say the footage was 'lost', there's still plenty of copies out there.
-
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716
Pretty sure they admitted to taping over them.
Dude! Did you even read the whole first sentence of that page?
The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better, NASA officials said on Thursday.
Your initial post claimed they lost "everything". That is not true and your own post backs that up.
'Newly restored' copies. I noticed that, but the thing is that just means they used modern technology to brush stuff up. Face facts, NASA is the most corrupt organization on the face of the earth, they have everything to gain from hiding the truth.
Unless you don't believe that there is no way NASA is hiding so much as a single thing?
-
'Newly restored' copies. I noticed that, but the thing is that just means they used modern technology to brush stuff up.
So, the fact that they had SOMETHING to 'brush up' shows that it wasn't all 'lost', then....?
-
'Newly restored' copies. I noticed that, but the thing is that just means they used modern technology to brush stuff up.
So, the fact that they had SOMETHING to 'brush up' shows that it wasn't all 'lost', then....?
Yet they admitted they lost it.
-
'Newly restored' copies. I noticed that, but the thing is that just means they used modern technology to brush stuff up.
So, the fact that they had SOMETHING to 'brush up' shows that it wasn't all 'lost', then....?
Yet they admitted they lost it.
They lost or taped over the original version of a certain format of the footage.
Other formats exist. Lots of other copies exist.
I honestly have no idea what point you think you're making.
-
'Newly restored' copies. I noticed that, but the thing is that just means they used modern technology to brush stuff up.
So, the fact that they had SOMETHING to 'brush up' shows that it wasn't all 'lost', then....?
Yet they admitted they lost it.
They lost or taped over the original version of a certain format of the footage.
Other formats exist. Lots of other copies exist.
I honestly have no idea what point you think you're making.
My point is I claimed NASA said they lost footage, someone said they didn't, so I got a link to them saying they did.
The fact they didn't go to the moon in 1969 is totally irrelevant, the technology was far too primitive to achieve that goal.
-
The fact they didn't go to the moon in 1969 is totally irrelevant, the technology was far too primitive to achieve that goal.
Can you prove this or is it another baseless claim?
-
My point is I claimed NASA said they lost footage, someone said they didn't, so I got a link to them saying they did.
No, you said:
Then can you please explain to me why all the footage from 1969 has been 'lost'?
My emphasis, but that word is quite an important part of your claim. NASA haven't lost all the footage and they never said they had, your own link backs that up.
-
... explain to me why all the footage from 1969 has been 'lost'? ... NASA says they have 'lost' everything.
Contradicted by your own statement that they "brushed it up" (i.e. the footage which had evidently not been lost, since it was available to brush up .....)
-
“If the earth be a globe, at midnight the eye would have to penetrate thousands of miles of land and water even at 65 degrees North latitude, in order to see the sun at midnight. That the sun can be seen for days together in the Far North during the Northern summer, proves that there is something very seriously wrong with the globular hypothesis. Besides this how is it that the midnight sun is never seen in the south during the southern summer? Cook penetrated as far South as 71 degrees, Weddell in 1893 reached as far as 74 degrees, and Sir James C. Ross in 1841 and 1842 reached the 78th parallel, but I am not aware that any of these navigators have left it on record that the sun was seen at midnight in the south.” –Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny”
From the book written by James Cook himself, published in 1777:
https://books.google.com/books?id=qZtYAAAAcAAJ&dq=voyages%20of%20captain%20james%20cook%20second%20voyage&pg=PA265#v=onepage&q&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=qZtYAAAAcAAJ&dq=voyages%20of%20captain%20james%20cook%20second%20voyage&pg=PA265#v=onepage&q&f=false)
From the entry for Thursday, 27 January 1774
Thus we spent the night, or rather that part of the twenty-four hours which answered to night; for we had no darkness but what was occasioned by fogs.
Heliocentrists also cannot explain why the Midnight Sun phenomenon is not experienced anywhere in the Southern hemisphere at any time of year. Quite to the contrary, it has been recorded by the Royal Belgian Geographical Society in “Expedition Antarctique Belge,” that during the most severe part of the Antarctic winter, from 71 degrees South latitude onwards, the sun sets on May 17th and is not seen above the horizon again until July 21st!
What the hell?
The same thing happens in the northern hemisphere - Barrow Alaska is dark from November to January. The flip side is it has midnight sun the summer.
Why do you take from the Belgian expedition the reports of winter darkness but ignore the reports of midnight sun from the same expedition?
From Through the first Antarctic night, 1898-1899 : a narrative of the voyage of the "Belgica" among newly discovered lands and over an unknown sea about the South pole written by the expedition's surgeon and anthropologist, chapter XXVIII:
The sea-ice appeared blue
under the midnight sun, for it was nearly mid-
night before we reached our destination.
It's like you don't even want to verify these things you hear. Google is not that hard, people.
-
Pretty sure kasai and parallax are alts, possibly the same person as Treep, who I had suspected was SexPlanet. Not super important
I did notice that Treep Ravisaras is an anagram of "as Pete Svarriar"
Which is a misspelling of Pete's surname, but close enough to make me think it's not a coincidence...
Oh yeah lol I forgot to comment on that, I'm not an alt, I found the flat earth society when researching about flat earth. Parallax is a pseudonym of Rowbotham, which shows you Parallax is just a really close follower of Rowbotham, which btw the dude is dead. My name is Japanese for fire, I think. But yeah, I'm not an alt, but you're probably not gonna believe that, so it's whatever.
-
Can you please retract your false statements about there being no midnight sun in the southern hemisphere? You referred to both Cook and the Belgian Antarctic Expedition, and I linked you to first hand accounts from both expeditions demonstrating observations of midnight sun.
-
Isn't this math just following a y=x^2 rule. This will assume that the world takes on more of U shape than an O shape. If you're doing the curvature of the earth, assuming it is round, it would better to follow a (y-h)^2+(x-k)^2=r^2 rule. This will account for the circular nature of the earth rather than a parabolic model. Therefore, the curvature of the earth will come out to be (y-h)^2=r^2-(x-k)^2 and the rate of curvature will be approximately dy/dx=-x/y, I haven't actually put in the numbers and have no stance whatsoever. I'm not a professional at this stuff though I'm just a dumb mechatronics engineer so my mathematical skills are more CENTRED around programing (pun intended :D)
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
And by actual Doctors, no less!
Exactly, Rowbotham was no doctor but was a known con man.
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
And by actual Doctors, no less!
Exactly, Rowbotham was no doctor but was a known con man.
This is false. Rowbotham held an MD and conducted himself honestly.
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
And by actual Doctors, no less!
Exactly, Rowbotham was no doctor but was a known con man.
This is false. Rowbotham held an MD and conducted himself honestly.
There is zero evidence he held an actual degree or PhD. In fact:
1. The UK at the time did not offer the PhD at any of its Universities.
2. There is no record that he attended the University of Edinburgh during the years in which he was alive.
3. Only the Universities in Germany and in the United States did offer the PhD, and there is no evidence that Parallax ever left the UK at any point in his life.
4. There is no evidence that he ever received an MD from any institution granting that degree.
5a. This is NOT to say that he didn't have knowledge of Medicine. It is very possible that he did. In those days, many medical professionals obtained their experience through doing, and appended the term "MD" to their names informally.
5b. In further explanation of 5a above, it should be noted that Medicine, Barbering, and Dentistry were all considered one profession at this time. The Barber's Pole that you see today is Red for Medicine, Blue for Dentistry, and White for Barbering. When the professions went from one to three, the Barbers kept the pole. Rowbotham worked at a time when he would have pulled a tooth at one appointment, cut hair the next hour, and performed minor surgery the following.
Unless you have evidence beyond a gravestone, or letters appended to his name under patents, that he actually held such a degree, the only conclusion is that he was lying. This is not the behavior of a man who conducts them self honestly.
-
And let's Remember that in Rowbothams day medicine was far less advanced than today. Before bacteria or viruses were known for example. And Tom- Conning people into questioning the accepted shape of the earth to flog a few bogus books is not conducting oneself honestly is it?!
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
And by actual Doctors, no less!
Exactly, Rowbotham was no doctor but was a known con man.
This is false. Rowbotham held an MD and conducted himself honestly.
There is zero evidence he held an actual degree or PhD. In fact:
1. The UK at the time did not offer the PhD at any of its Universities.
2. There is no record that he attended the University of Edinburgh during the years in which he was alive.
3. Only the Universities in Germany and in the United States did offer the PhD, and there is no evidence that Parallax ever left the UK at any point in his life.
4. There is no evidence that he ever received an MD from any institution granting that degree.
5a. This is NOT to say that he didn't have knowledge of Medicine. It is very possible that he did. In those days, many medical professionals obtained their experience through doing, and appended the term "MD" to their names informally.
5b. In further explanation of 5a above, it should be noted that Medicine, Barbering, and Dentistry were all considered one profession at this time. The Barber's Pole that you see today is Red for Medicine, Blue for Dentistry, and White for Barbering. When the professions went from one to three, the Barbers kept the pole. Rowbotham worked at a time when he would have pulled a tooth at one appointment, cut hair the next hour, and performed minor surgery the following.
Unless you have evidence beyond a gravestone, or letters appended to his name under patents, that he actually held such a degree, the only conclusion is that he was lying. This is not the behavior of a man who conducts them self honestly.
There are records of his contemporaries referring to him as a doctor. It is pretty absurd to claim that he fraudulently practiced medicine for decades without detection.
See this old thread on the topic: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php%3Ftopic%3D61409.0+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b
-
That link is giving me a 404.
Compelling evidence as always.
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
And by actual Doctors, no less!
Exactly, Rowbotham was no doctor but was a known con man.
This is false. Rowbotham held an MD and conducted himself honestly.
There is zero evidence he held an actual degree or PhD. In fact:
1. The UK at the time did not offer the PhD at any of its Universities.
2. There is no record that he attended the University of Edinburgh during the years in which he was alive.
3. Only the Universities in Germany and in the United States did offer the PhD, and there is no evidence that Parallax ever left the UK at any point in his life.
4. There is no evidence that he ever received an MD from any institution granting that degree.
5a. This is NOT to say that he didn't have knowledge of Medicine. It is very possible that he did. In those days, many medical professionals obtained their experience through doing, and appended the term "MD" to their names informally.
5b. In further explanation of 5a above, it should be noted that Medicine, Barbering, and Dentistry were all considered one profession at this time. The Barber's Pole that you see today is Red for Medicine, Blue for Dentistry, and White for Barbering. When the professions went from one to three, the Barbers kept the pole. Rowbotham worked at a time when he would have pulled a tooth at one appointment, cut hair the next hour, and performed minor surgery the following.
Unless you have evidence beyond a gravestone, or letters appended to his name under patents, that he actually held such a degree, the only conclusion is that he was lying. This is not the behavior of a man who conducts them self honestly.
There are records of his contemporaries referring to him as a doctor. It is pretty absurd to claim that he fraudulently practiced medicine for decades without detection.
See this old thread on the topic: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php%3Ftopic%3D61409.0+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b
As noted, adding MD to your name in that period was not uncommon even if one did not have a degree. Medicine was frequently done without formal education. Where are the records of him actually getting a degree though? Do you have any or not? Not something that should be difficult to acquire, but I have found no records of such.
As well I'm also getting a 404 from your link.
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
And by actual Doctors, no less!
Exactly, Rowbotham was no doctor but was a known con man.
This is false. Rowbotham held an MD and conducted himself honestly.
Again just your claim. The burden of proof is upon you. Please supply.
-
So the ship disappeared from the naked eye but then was made visible again with a telescope, OK that's how telescopes work however......
This only works over relatively short distances doesn't it?
My telescope can see the moon which is either 3,000 or some 240,000 ish miles away, importantly we all agree it is not less than 3,000 miles away so why can I not see the beaches of France with it from the UK? Why can I not view the ferry all the way across the channel?
I think the curve of the globe prevents it, can anyone offer other reasons?
You can though, they have telescope's at Dover and Normandy so you can see across. And even see any ferry's.
Extreme distance tables from Norris’s nautical tables gives the following;
with the observers hieght of 361 feet that the top of an object 3 feet high can be seen at 24.1 miles. Dover to Calais is 23 miles, therefore you can see pretty much everything that is more than a foot or so high. (That includes Ferries!) you can see the ferries with you own eyes as well as telescopes.
-
The link Tom meant to supply appears to be:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61409.0+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
And by actual Doctors, no less!
Exactly, Rowbotham was no doctor but was a known con man.
This is false. Rowbotham held an MD and conducted himself honestly.
There is zero evidence he held an actual degree or PhD. In fact:
1. The UK at the time did not offer the PhD at any of its Universities.
2. There is no record that he attended the University of Edinburgh during the years in which he was alive.
3. Only the Universities in Germany and in the United States did offer the PhD, and there is no evidence that Parallax ever left the UK at any point in his life.
4. There is no evidence that he ever received an MD from any institution granting that degree.
5a. This is NOT to say that he didn't have knowledge of Medicine. It is very possible that he did. In those days, many medical professionals obtained their experience through doing, and appended the term "MD" to their names informally.
5b. In further explanation of 5a above, it should be noted that Medicine, Barbering, and Dentistry were all considered one profession at this time. The Barber's Pole that you see today is Red for Medicine, Blue for Dentistry, and White for Barbering. When the professions went from one to three, the Barbers kept the pole. Rowbotham worked at a time when he would have pulled a tooth at one appointment, cut hair the next hour, and performed minor surgery the following.
Unless you have evidence beyond a gravestone, or letters appended to his name under patents, that he actually held such a degree, the only conclusion is that he was lying. This is not the behavior of a man who conducts them self honestly.
What you said about the barbers pole... You would be right, if Dr Rowbotham lived in the middle ages. What you mentioned was only in medieval times, not Victorian. The quacks then we're not barbers.
1 and 2 don't make sense... You are aware Edinburgh is in Britain, right?
And how do you know he never left Britain? You found his passport did you?
You have no evidence that he wasn't an educated doctor. His followers even referenced him as Dr Rowbotham in their books, and they knew him. If he was fraudulently claiming he was a doctor, someone would have found out about it, but they didn't. I know you guys dislike Dr Rowbotham but you can't find anything on him so therefore it must be true he was a fraud, despite living in an era where plenty of documents have been lost since it was all written on paper. The only ones we have now are those that have been archived.
-
This thread from the other site (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56814.0) is relevant, and features our very own Tommy B in a mid-career cameo. See also, this one (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2682.0).
read the evidence presented for yourself. my take is, don't trust snake oil advertisements as primary sources, especially when actual primary sources exist (https://collections.ed.ac.uk/alumni/search/birley)
I will add, my take is also, who cares, the dude sucked
-
Parallax, you are asking someone to prove a negative, which i have been told one should not expect.
Please supply proof that Rowbotham had gained a doctorate.
You are correct, Edinburgh is in Great Britain, and is also a part of the UK. And as such no PHDs were awarded until the 20th century.
https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/blogs/history-of-phd.pdf/@@download/file/History%20of%20PhD.pdf
He might have travelled outside of the UK, but if he did in fact actually obtain a doctorate, do you not think he would have proclaimed this very loud to try to give credence to his arguments? It has been said that he was very forcefull, often “steamrollering” and even bullying his opponents. A person with a Doctorate would have used that information to back up his claims.
If he was a medical doctor, how in any way does that qualify him to look at the physics that he claimed to have disproved?
-
Parallax, you are asking someone to prove a negative, which i have been told one should not expect.
Please supply proof that Rowbotham had gained a doctorate.
You are correct, Edinburgh is in Great Britain, and is also a part of the UK. And as such no PHDs were awarded until the 20th century.
https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/blogs/history-of-phd.pdf/@@download/file/History%20of%20PhD.pdf
He might have travelled outside of the UK, but if he did in fact actually obtain a doctorate, do you not think he would have proclaimed this very loud to try to give credence to his arguments? It has been said that he was very forcefull, often “steamrollering” and even bullying his opponents. A person with a Doctorate would have used that information to back up his claims.
If he was a medical doctor, how in any way does that qualify him to look at the physics that he claimed to have disproved?
I would add on to this, there has been no presented evidence he ever left the UK. The two locations that offered PhD's (Germany and the US) have no records of someone by his name entering them during the time period he was most likely to have visited. As well feel free to peruse this thread as well https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62919.0
-
Parallax, you are asking someone to prove a negative, which i have been told one should not expect.
Please supply proof that Rowbotham had gained a doctorate.
You are correct, Edinburgh is in Great Britain, and is also a part of the UK. And as such no PHDs were awarded until the 20th century.
https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/blogs/history-of-phd.pdf/@@download/file/History%20of%20PhD.pdf
He might have travelled outside of the UK, but if he did in fact actually obtain a doctorate, do you not think he would have proclaimed this very loud to try to give credence to his arguments? It has been said that he was very forcefull, often “steamrollering” and even bullying his opponents. A person with a Doctorate would have used that information to back up his claims.
If he was a medical doctor, how in any way does that qualify him to look at the physics that he claimed to have disproved?
I would add on to this, there has been no presented evidence he ever left the UK. The two locations that offered PhD's (Germany and the US) have no records of someone by his name entering them during the time period he was most likely to have visited. As well feel free to peruse this thread as well https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62919.0
Read through that thread. When Ski contacted Rowbotham's university they said that without his dates of attendance or major it would be unfeasible to look through the records because of lack of manpower.
When the university was contacted again there was a woman who claimed to have looked at the records in the same day and proclaimed that there were no records. She did not reply to later queries on whether she was looking at the limited online digitized records, or was going through the archive Ski was told was not feasible to go though without more specific information.
There are numerous references (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2682.0) to Rowbotham being a doctor. To claim that he is not a doctor is pretty absurd.
-
There are numerous references to Rowbotham CLAIMING to be a doctor. That isn’t quite the same thing.
Fun fact: Dr. Dre doesn’t have a PHd either.
I don’t know or care whether Rowbotham really had one, but he was clearly a conman, seems quite plausible that he would like about this to give some authority to his crazy claims.
-
Parallax, you are asking someone to prove a negative, which i have been told one should not expect.
Please supply proof that Rowbotham had gained a doctorate.
You are correct, Edinburgh is in Great Britain, and is also a part of the UK. And as such no PHDs were awarded until the 20th century.
https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/blogs/history-of-phd.pdf/@@download/file/History%20of%20PhD.pdf
He might have travelled outside of the UK, but if he did in fact actually obtain a doctorate, do you not think he would have proclaimed this very loud to try to give credence to his arguments? It has been said that he was very forcefull, often “steamrollering” and even bullying his opponents. A person with a Doctorate would have used that information to back up his claims.
If he was a medical doctor, how in any way does that qualify him to look at the physics that he claimed to have disproved?
I would add on to this, there has been no presented evidence he ever left the UK. The two locations that offered PhD's (Germany and the US) have no records of someone by his name entering them during the time period he was most likely to have visited. As well feel free to peruse this thread as well https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62919.0
Read through that thread. When Ski contacted Rowbotham's university they said that without his dates of attendance or major it would be unfeasible to look through the records because of lack of manpower.
When the university was contacted again there was a woman who claimed to have looked at the records in the same day and proclaimed that there were no records. She did not reply to later queries on whether she was looking at the limited online digitized records, or was going through the archive Ski was told was not feasible to go though without more specific information.
There are numerous references (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2682.0) to Rowbotham being a doctor. To claim that he is not a doctor is pretty absurd.
So the gist of your second hand knowledge is this, The search was done too quick?
To prove a negative, as you have told me before is absurd.
I would hope you have proof that he was a doctor? This is relevant, as I am reading the EnaG at present. Nowhere in the title pages or preface is there a mention of the studies being carried out by a doctor, and i see quickly there are many many mistakes in his reasoning and his Assumptions. A real doctor would not make so many obvious assumptions and glaring errors
-
Parallax, you are asking someone to prove a negative, which i have been told one should not expect.
Please supply proof that Rowbotham had gained a doctorate.
You are correct, Edinburgh is in Great Britain, and is also a part of the UK. And as such no PHDs were awarded until the 20th century.
https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/blogs/history-of-phd.pdf/@@download/file/History%20of%20PhD.pdf
He might have travelled outside of the UK, but if he did in fact actually obtain a doctorate, do you not think he would have proclaimed this very loud to try to give credence to his arguments? It has been said that he was very forcefull, often “steamrollering” and even bullying his opponents. A person with a Doctorate would have used that information to back up his claims.
If he was a medical doctor, how in any way does that qualify him to look at the physics that he claimed to have disproved?
Why? You are the ones who keep saying he wasn't a real doctor yet are unable to provide proof. You are the ones claiming it to us, yet asking us to prove he was, but actually it's on you to prove he wasn't.
The very fact his grave references it is good enough. As is the fact the books of the day by his followers referenced him to being a doctor. Also if he was faking it, surely his opponents of the day would have shouted it from the rooftops instead of, well, not doing that at all. What better way to discredit a man than to announce he wasn't a real doctor. But they didn't.
I also don't know where this rubbish about him not leaving the country comes from. You are trying to find a needle in a haystack with that one. You have no passport, and no records to back up that claim. Did he leave Britain? It's quite possible he did not. That doesn't mean he wasn't a doctor, but can you find records that show him leaving the country and entering another one? You think the records of every single person from those days are still around? Bearing in mind there was no restriction of travel across the British empire and Britain's population grew from 10 million in 1800 to 40 million by the end of the century, you really are grasping at straws trying to find a record of him leaving here.
Besides, doctors didn't have to leave the country. Many of them trained in Britain. Dr Rowbotham would have been registered with the royal college of physicians most likely, quacks didn't all leave Britain to get training. In those days they certainly didn't need to.
And no, he wasn't someone who 'steamrolled' his opponents. On the contrary, it is well recorded in the papers of the day that he conducted himself with dignity and respect yet showed up those in the scientific community to be poor at handling a man well versed in his arguments.
You are correct though, being a medical doctor would not qualify him to look at what he wrote, but you don't need to be a scientist to do scientific research and experiments. Besides, what was he supposed to do?
"I do say, my good fellows, I am a medical doctor, so who better to prove the flatness of the earth than I?"
I think not. What would he have to gain by bragging about himself being a doctor? As you have mentioned, a doctor isn't qualified in physics, so he had no need to do that. He let his facts and experiments speak for themselves.
-
It doesn’t work like that, and you know it. It is not expected to prove a negative, as your mentor Tom pointed out to me. You claim he was a doctor, then the burden of proof is on you.
Please supply proof that Rowbotham had gained a doctorate.
As for the references to him being called a doctor by other authors, i am willing to bet they were the likes of Blount, Smith, Holden, Dowie, Hampden, Winship eat al, lackeys and blindly following his unscientific and poorly done experiments, and no doubt also bringing in the coin by selling books, and charging people to attend lectures, as Charlatan Rowbotham did.
I mention that his experiments were poor;lay done, and made massive jumps to conclusions, as i am in the process of reading EnaG and have yet to see any evidence of real experiments, other than a series of annecdotal third hand eye witness accounts, or a series of observations (i cant call them experiments, as experiments are scientific, repeatable and produce results, not wildly inaccurate observations) that come to some wild conclusions as the very basis of them are wrong. He mixes Nautical miles with Sttute miles, he does not adequately account for refraction, knows little about magnetism, yet makes wild claims about each, all with one aim. To prove his theory.
He starts of with a closed mind, ie the earth is flat, and not a globe, and makes up a series of observations to give credence to his already formed opinion, the very thing that he talks about in Chapter 1
“None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence. “. ( Ref Charlatan Rowbotham 1881)
How can one look at his observations on magnetic fields, and explanation of a “dipping needle” on the horizon and give any any credence to what he says when he gets a very fundamental basic proinciple of magnetism wrong, and then extrapolate that exponentially to disprove the world is round, when if you in fact use the correct magnetic flux lines on his diagram it proves the world MUST BE round!
When you suggest he might be a MD, then you are right to acknowledge that he has no knowledge of the physics, navigation, or magnetism, and are you referring to the Rowbotham who claimed he could cure everything, and sold an abundance of snake oil, and fake cures, for profit? Certainly no MD, but as you pointy out records were not well kept and any quack could call himself an M.D., and gullible, uneducated and desperate people would bear suckeered into his web!
-
Parallax, you are asking someone to prove a negative, which i have been told one should not expect.
Please supply proof that Rowbotham had gained a doctorate.
You are correct, Edinburgh is in Great Britain, and is also a part of the UK. And as such no PHDs were awarded until the 20th century.
https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/blogs/history-of-phd.pdf/@@download/file/History%20of%20PhD.pdf
He might have travelled outside of the UK, but if he did in fact actually obtain a doctorate, do you not think he would have proclaimed this very loud to try to give credence to his arguments? It has been said that he was very forcefull, often “steamrollering” and even bullying his opponents. A person with a Doctorate would have used that information to back up his claims.
If he was a medical doctor, how in any way does that qualify him to look at the physics that he claimed to have disproved?
I would add on to this, there has been no presented evidence he ever left the UK. The two locations that offered PhD's (Germany and the US) have no records of someone by his name entering them during the time period he was most likely to have visited. As well feel free to peruse this thread as well https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62919.0
Read through that thread. When Ski contacted Rowbotham's university they said that without his dates of attendance or major it would be unfeasible to look through the records because of lack of manpower.
When the university was contacted again there was a woman who claimed to have looked at the records in the same day and proclaimed that there were no records. She did not reply to later queries on whether she was looking at the limited online digitized records, or was going through the archive Ski was told was not feasible to go though without more specific information.
There are numerous references (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2682.0) to Rowbotham being a doctor. To claim that he is not a doctor is pretty absurd.
It wasn't just the woman (Rona). There was this as well:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61409.msg1606905#msg1606905
That's two people who have searched and came up with no results. There's also the fact that PhDs were not granted until 1917, and the only other places that offered them before then were Germany and the United States.
-
It wasn't just the woman (Rona). There was this as well:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61409.msg1606905#msg1606905
That's two people who have searched and came up with no results.
Recall, Ski had contacted the university and was told that only a portion of the records were digitized. The majority were in paper archives. The university denied the request to search for Rowbotham due to not knowing the dates of attendance or major, and that it would require a lot of manpower to look through all of the documents.
The person you linked claims that Rowbotham does not exist in the records, nor variants of that name. The fact that he mentions "variants" of the name suggests that he did not look through the paper records and it was a digital search.
There's also the fact that PhDs were not granted until 1917, and the only other places that offered them before then were Germany and the United States.
MDs were offered before 1917; it is not the same thing as a PhD.
-
It wasn't just the woman (Rona). There was this as well:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61409.msg1606905#msg1606905
That's two people who have searched and came up with no results.
Recall, Ski had contacted the university and was told that only a portion of the records were digitized. The majority were in paper archives. The university denied the request to search for Rowbotham due to not knowing the dates of attendance or major, and that it would require a lot of manpower to look through all of the documents.
The person you linked claims that Rowbotham does not exist in the records, nor variants of that name. The fact that he mentions "variants" of the name suggests that he did not look through the paper records and it was a digital search.
There's also the fact that PhDs were not granted until 1917, and the only other places that offered them before then were Germany and the United States.
MDs were offered before 1917; it is not the same thing as a PhD.
He also mentions " in the period concerned" which suggests whatever records were being searched were relevant to any PhDs awarded ast that time. If he needed to search paper records for that information I imagine he would have done so.
Also I didn't mention MDs because I am specifically following the claim of him holding a doctorate.
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
And by actual Doctors, no less!
Exactly, Rowbotham was no doctor but was a known con man.
This is false. Rowbotham held an MD and conducted himself honestly.
Then you should have no problem providing proof.
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
And by actual Doctors, no less!
Exactly, Rowbotham was no doctor but was a known con man.
This is false. Rowbotham held an MD and conducted himself honestly.
Then you should have no problem providing proof.
If you look through the other threads linked, the proof boils down to other people calling him doctor. No records of his graduation or acquisition of said degree have been found/located however. It however does seem plausible that he had some medical knowledge, and the title was self bestowed or similar to reflect this, rather than having an actual MD or PhD.
-
Amazingly, I have managed to work out by now that objects get smaller as they go away from me.
Ahem, objects don't get smaller as they go away from you. Unless bits are dropping off them.
I am not sure they even look smaller.
I agree that the projection of the object onto the retina, or a camera, gets smaller.
-
I would like to mention that he wasn't the most trustworthy guy. He proposed that moonlight was cold and translucent, said that he could cure every disease, and that he could prolong human life. Once he was defeated in the realm of science, he started a new hobby of conning people. Not a nice guy.
-
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
Agreed.
It's funny actually, round d earth heretics say that the ship's hull disappearing 'proves' that earth is flat, but look through binoculars, like you've said and... there is the hull. If earth was round and you looked through binoculars, you wouldn't be able to see the hull.
Nah.
It's called a vanishing point. Obviously you are unaware that the further something gets, the smaller it is.
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
Who has? Corrupt governments hiding the truth? NASA keeping stock of its massive yearly budget? There is no proof, its flat. The maths don't add up to a round world.
Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.
More recently we have proved the earth is round.
And by actual Doctors, no less!
You keep saying that, Dr Rowbothams work was revolutionary, proved by the fact people like you are debating it now rather than ignoring what you are claiming to be a load of rubbish.
Yes, It gets smaller, but how do you explain why it sinks into the horizon.
-
I would like to mention that he wasn't the most trustworthy guy. He proposed that moonlight was cold and translucent, said that he could cure every disease, and that he could prolong human life. Once he was defeated in the realm of science, he started a new hobby of conning people. Not a nice guy.
Totally wrong.
Rowbotham didn't propose the concept of moonlight having a cooling effect upon bodies. He quoted conventional sources. There is a following of people who are performing those type of experiments. Do a search for "cold moonlight" on YouTube.
Rowbotham listed about 8 or 9 diseases Phosphorous could help with. Hardly "every disease". There are thousands of diseases known to medicine. Nor was it only Rowbotham who promoted the health benefits of Phospherous.
-
if you go to a beach and watch a ship disappear than pull of you binoculars and zoom in past the horizon you should see the ship. If there was a curvature, you shouldn't be able to see the ship because the curve would have already gone over it. Ladies and Gentleman its all about perspective. I rest my case. The curvature has been debunked.
that is a mighty big leap to make there. i have been following this forum for a number of months and i live near the ocean. I have heard this line quite a few times about using a telescope to see the ship again. so, last time i was at the beach i brought my 4" telescope with the most powerful eyepiece i had. guess what....the portion of the sailboat that you couldnt see...still couldnt see. i find it interesting that you say "it should" which implies you have never tried. this is a very simple exercise to do. and before you ask, i have tried this on a second trip as well.