[Ghost of V]

Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.

I already have. Please do reread my posts if necessary.

So you have nothing. Got it. Thanks anyway,

You asked if you made an unsupported claim. You implied that Mr. Murray, a pilot, said that he saw the curvature of the Earth. This is untrue. The article made this claim, the pilot did not. You made an unsupported claim... now, support it with evidence or stop wasting our time.

I make no assurances that you've inferred correctly. The reference documents Murray as seeing the curvature of the Earth. That is the counterexample to your outlandish claim that pilots admit otherwise. I've cited my reference. That supports my claim.  That's simple, straightforward, and easy to understand.

You, on the other hand, provide no evidence to support your outlandish claim.

Where did Murray say he saw the curvature of the Earth? I don't see it in the article. "He saw the curvature of the Earth" is a common rhetorical statement regarding flight, especially in this context where there is no source given to the fact that he actually saw the curvature. Can you not differentiate between these two things?? You're reaching here, Gulliver.

[Tau]

Gulliver, you've provided evidence. Your evidence has been rejected on grounds of being flimsy and logically unlikely. Now you have to try again.

[Gulliver]

Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.

I already have. Please do reread my posts if necessary.

So you have nothing. Got it. Thanks anyway,

You asked if you made an unsupported claim. You implied that Mr. Murray, a pilot, said that he saw the curvature of the Earth. This is untrue. The article made this claim, the pilot did not. You made an unsupported claim... now, support it with evidence or stop wasting our time.

I make no assurances that you've inferred correctly. The reference documents Murray as seeing the curvature of the Earth. That is the counterexample to your outlandish claim that pilots admit otherwise. I've cited my reference. That supports my claim.  That's simple, straightforward, and easy to understand.

You, on the other hand, provide no evidence to support your outlandish claim.

Where did Murray say he saw the curvature of the Earth? I don't see it in the article. "He saw the curvature of the Earth" is a common rhetorical statement regarding flight, especially in this context where there is no source given to the fact that he actually saw the curvature. Can you not differentiate between these two things?? You're reaching here, Gulliver.

Again, I never claimed that Murray said he saw the curvature of the Earth. He saw it, as reported in the reference. He was the only person on the test flight. Are you claiming that he admitted that he could not see the curvature, even though he did?

Gulliver, you've provided evidence. Your evidence has been rejected on grounds of being flimsy and logically unlikely. Now you have to try again.

Why would I have to provide evidence to counter Vaux's outlandish claim? Who are you to reject the reference? Do tell me how it is "logically unlikely". Please do support your claims better. Thanks.

[Ghost of V]

Then what was the article for, Gulliver? Just to show us that someone can type "he saw the curvature of the Earth"? There's no source or citation for this claim. It's not evidence or counter-evidence to anything anyone in this entire thread has said. If you weren't trying to prove a point with the article, then why do you waste our time? Just to raise your post count?

[Pete Svarrior]

Jumble is a good word. First it's a ether now it's perspective.

Unsurprisingly, this is also addressed by the FAQ.

Some of the questions here have multiple answers due to differing views of flat earth theory among some of our members.

You really should try reading it.

[Gulliver]

Then what was the article for, Gulliver? Just to show us that someone can type "he saw the curvature of the Earth"? There's no source or citation for this claim. It's not evidence or counter-evidence to anything anyone in this entire thread has said. If you weren't trying to prove a point with the article, then why do you waste our time? Just to raise your post count?

I claim that he saw the curvature. I can point to various other citations (and other pilots) if you want me to prove that Google still works for me.

I claim that he would not admit as you claim that he could not see what he did see. Your outlandish claim is 1) unsupported and 2) invalidated by the citation. You claim that he admitted that he could not see the curvature during flight, but have produced no evidence.

Some of the questions here have multiple answers due to differing views of flat earth theory among some of our members.

So you've documented in the FAQ that it's a jumble. That's for clarifying that. How's that "Zetetic Process" working for you now? Are you still producing results beyond contradiction?

[Ghost of V]

I claim that he saw the curvature. I can point to various other citations (and other pilots) if you want me to prove that Google still works for me.

I claim that he would not admit as you claim that he could not see what he did see. Your outlandish claim is 1) unsupported and 2) invalidated by the citation. You claim that he admitted that he could not see the curvature during flight, but have produced no evidence.

I never claimed that. Don't put words in my mouth. I am simply trying to point out that an article that says "he saw the curvature of the Earth" is not evidence of anything. The pilot didn't even say those words, so how the hell are you deeming this as proof that he saw the curvature of the Earth? I can't believe that I have to explain this to you again but, "he/I/they/it saw the curvature of the Earth" is a common rhetorical statement referencing flight. It comes from round Earth ideology, yes, but it is still not grounded in reality. It's like someone saying "looks like the cat got your tongue". It doesn't literally mean that a cat has latched on to your tongue.

Are you telling me that if I created my own article and said "Earth is flat", that would be irrefutable proof? Because by your logic, it seems like it would.

[Pete Svarrior]

So you've documented in the FAQ that it's a jumble.

No.

That's for clarifying that.

No problem! How kind of you to thank me in advance of the actual clarification.

How's that "Zetetic Process" working for you now?

Rather well. Unfortunately, not all Flat Earthers are Zeteticists, and we do have to represent the views of all most.

It's okay, CT, one day you'll get it.

[Gulliver]

I am simply trying to point out that an article that says "he saw the curvature of the Earth" is not evidence of anything.

Here is probably the place you fail the worst. A reference from an accredited source is evidence.

[Ghost of V]

I am simply trying to point out that an article that says "he saw the curvature of the Earth" is not evidence of anything.

Here is probably the place you fail the worst. A reference from an accredited source is evidence.

Excuse me while I regain my composure, because I really thought you were a bit smarter than this.

Until next time.

[Gulliver]

I am simply trying to point out that an article that says "he saw the curvature of the Earth" is not evidence of anything.

Here is probably the place you fail the worst. A reference from an accredited source is evidence.

Excuse me while I regain my composure, because I really thought you were a bit smarter than this.

Until next time.

So can you produce any reference to support your claim that an article is not evidence of anything? (I love the Escher.)

[james_zombob]

You know what's funny? All these different flat earth theories. You know why there's so many (one might say a "jumble") of them? Because none of them stand up by themselves. One gets shot down "well that's just ONE of the theories".and you try to keep it going. Could you point to one that DOESNT have any holes, your best one so to speak? Because I got a theory that stands up to it all: the planet we are on is round and spins and there is not a global conspiracy that's lasted for centuries upon centuries upon centuries and managed to fool the smartest people in existence.

[Pete Svarrior]

But your model is flawed. It doesn't "stand up to it all" in the slightest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

By your own logic, a flawed model must be completely wrong, and thus the Earth simply can't be round. (Of course, that logic is completely messed up, but hey, your claims, not mine)

[Gulliver]

But your model is flawed. It doesn't "stand up to it all" in the slightest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

By your own logic, a flawed model must be completely wrong, and thus the Earth simply can't be round. (Of course, that logic is completely messed up, but hey, your claims, not mine)

Sorry please do explain how RET doesn't stand up to it all. His point was clear. Each FE model, like a a game of whack-a-mole, falls only to have another try (and fail) to take its place. RET, in contrast, makes no special pleading, accepts the elimination of a hypothesis, or theory, or even fact, based on evidence. RET scours for the discrepancies, as you so kindly documented, and stands up to each, yielding when the evidence, obtained through the Scientific Method, demands.

[Pete Svarrior]

RET, in contrast, makes no special pleading, accepts the elimination of a hypothesis, or theory, or even fact, based on evidence.

So the theory of gravitation has been eliminated? How curious.

No, what I'm saying is that we're aware that some aspects of FET require further investigation. That's why we currently have a number of competing ideas, each attempting to explain the observed phenomena as well as possible. We're not going to eliminate them just because someone raised a misconstrued or insignificant issue with them unless we find an explanation that better fits the evidence.

[Ghost of V]

You know what's funny? All these different flat earth theories. You know why there's so many (one might say a "jumble") of them? Because none of them stand up by themselves. One gets shot down "well that's just ONE of the theories".and you try to keep it going. Could you point to one that DOESNT have any holes, your best one so to speak? Because I got a theory that stands up to it all: the planet we are on is round and spins and there is not a global conspiracy that's lasted for centuries upon centuries upon centuries and managed to fool the smartest people in existence.

FET is like any other science trying to explain the origins of the universe and life around us. Here's a list of different theories attempting to explain how the universe formed.

Naturally, there are several theories, and that's a good thing because someone is bound to get it right eventually. It's trial and error. That's how most forms of science work. Before you start criticizing us look at your own science, because it's doing the same thing.

[Gulliver]

RET, in contrast, makes no special pleading, accepts the elimination of a hypothesis, or theory, or even fact, based on evidence.

So the theory of gravitation has been eliminated? How curious.

No, what I'm saying is that we're aware that some aspects of FET require further investigation. That's why we currently have a number of competing ideas, each attempting to explain the observed phenomena as well as possible. We're not going to eliminate them just because someone raised a misconstrued or insignificant issue with them unless we find an explanation that better fits the evidence.

I made no such claim. Unless you're claiming that you have evidence that the theory of gravitation should be eliminated based on that evidence. If so, I'm sure the world would appreciate your posting of that evidence. Please be sure to include the documentation of your application of the ZP.

You know what's funny? All these different flat earth theories. You know why there's so many (one might say a "jumble") of them? Because none of them stand up by themselves. One gets shot down "well that's just ONE of the theories".and you try to keep it going. Could you point to one that DOESNT have any holes, your best one so to speak? Because I got a theory that stands up to it all: the planet we are on is round and spins and there is not a global conspiracy that's lasted for centuries upon centuries upon centuries and managed to fool the smartest people in existence.

FET is like any other science trying to explain the origins of the universe and life around us. Here's a list of different theories attempting to explain how the universe formed.

Naturally, there are several theories, and that's a good thing because someone is bound to get it right eventually. It's trial and error. That's how most forms of science work. Before you start criticizing us look at your own science, because it's doing the same thing.

What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.

[Ghost of V]

What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.

Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.

Have you considered trolling a different forum?

[Pete Svarrior]

I made no such claim.

Feels bad when others do it to you, huh?

[Gulliver]

What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.

Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.

Have you considered trolling a different forum?

Please do present your evidence of this simple fact. Please be sure to note how you determined that Einstein, a theoretical physicist, confirmed it and that this ether is the same as the one FET relies on for various effects and, of course, document how you know that your ether has these effects. Thanks.