[Lemmiwinks]

Yeah, but what if its only 32 miles wide?!!?

No 'what if' about it. The Sun is 32 miles in diameter.

Oh great, then whats the parallax of a 32 miles in diameter sun at 3,000 miles above earth?

[Rama Set]

Yeah, but what if its only 32 miles wide?!!?

No 'what if' about it. The Sun is 32 miles in diameter.

Oh great, then whats the parallax of a 32 miles in diameter sun at 3,000 miles above earth?

It is massive and does not correspond with observation in the slightest.

[Lemmiwinks]

Yeah, but what if its only 32 miles wide?!!?

No 'what if' about it. The Sun is 32 miles in diameter.

Oh great, then whats the parallax of a 32 miles in diameter sun at 3,000 miles above earth?

It is massive and does not correspond with observation in the slightest.

Let me put on my surprised face.

[Pete Svarrior]

It is massive and does not correspond with observation in the slightest.

Please back up your assertions.

[inquisitive]

Yeah, but what if its only 32 miles wide?!!?

No 'what if' about it. The Sun is 32 miles in diameter.

Do the flat earth measurements from several locations instead of 2.  Observe the sun from many locations.

[Tintagel]

Typical RE avoidance maneuver.

No evidence. No refutations. Just "not true". Really amazing, Rama. You'd make a great scientist.

How about not responding if you don't have anything substantial to add? Ever thought of that?

make you a deal. You substantiate your multiple claims and I will rebut them.

Do you really need me to teach you how a plane's instruments work? Or a cell tower? C'mon now. This is basic stuff.

And do I really need to substantiate my claim that "not every scientist studies the shape of the Earth". Really? If you think every field of study has something to do with the shape of the Earth then you might  need to rethink your ability to argue with the big dogs here in the upper fora.

Nope, ok so show us a group of scientists, accredited ones that hold positions, have peer reviewed papers that say the earth is flat.

If my claim that all 8 million scientists is radically off, then you should be able to show me a significant portion of them that say so. I dont care what field they are in, could be fluffy bunny studies, you just have to show me they think the earth is flat.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist with a peer-reviewed paper saying that the earth is a sphere.  Scientists operate on the assumption that the earth is round, they don't try to prove it because "everyone knows."

[Gulliver]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist with a peer-reviewed paper saying that the earth is a sphere.  Scientists operate on the assumption that the earth is round, they don't try to prove it because "everyone knows."

No. It's rather easy, and the research is on-going. See a review at:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

[Rama Set]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist with a peer-reviewed paper saying that the earth is a sphere.  Scientists operate on the assumption that the earth is round, they don't try to prove it because "everyone knows."

No. It's rather easy, and the research is on-going. See a review at:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

Or perhaps the Journal of Geodesy(http://link.springer.com/journal/190)?

[Tintagel]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist with a peer-reviewed paper saying that the earth is a sphere.  Scientists operate on the assumption that the earth is round, they don't try to prove it because "everyone knows."

No. It's rather easy, and the research is on-going. See a review at:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

A peer reviewed paper and a web article are not the same thing.  As a web copywriter, I can tell you that web content is written with an eye to SEO and keywords, not for accuracy.  I've had clients literally tell me that what I write doesn't have to be true as long as it gets the Google hits.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist with a peer-reviewed paper saying that the earth is a sphere.  Scientists operate on the assumption that the earth is round, they don't try to prove it because "everyone knows."

No. It's rather easy, and the research is on-going. See a review at:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

Or perhaps the Journal of Geodesy(http://link.springer.com/journal/190)?

A journal is more like what I was thinking.  I'll review.

[feynman]

If the sun is 32 miles away, how could you explain that in the North Pole there is a permanent day 6 months per year ?

[flat earther]

Very interesting question, but the thread got off topic after a few replies.

Yes, I agree that we need millions of people to be in the know. And it is the hardest conspiracy to hide. And it will become increasingly so in the future.

Also, this conspiracy is one that needs complicity on a global scale: Americans, Russians and Chinese.

But then let's think about 911. Putin clearly knows the truth, but how long did Russia Today wait before bringing it up? Over 10 years.

So to some degree the governments are all complicit in covering up conspiracies. That is, unless you believe that Bin Laden did 911. But we can't waste time with that hypothesis, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

So, in my opinion the answer to the original question of how many people know the truth and how many people are successfully hiding the truth (from a flat-earther point of view) is another question: how many people belong to freemasonry and military in the world? Plus how many people are afraid to lose their job? I would say billions.

So if billions are willing to keep their mouths shut, we are we surprised that millions are keeping their mouths shut?

Furthermore, we know that two thirds of humans are busy trying to find food and shelter. Another (almost) third is mostly busy in stupid activities: watching television for example. The only people to worry about is those who use their free time wondering about things, like us. Maybe we are 0.01%. And there's another 0.01% who know the truth but keep quiet.

[jroa]

If the sun is 32 miles away, how could you explain that in the North Pole there is a permanent day 6 months per year ?

The sun is a little bit closer to the center of the Earth during the northern summer.  A person standing at the north pole would be within eyesight of the sun all day long and the sun just appears to go in a circle around you.  During the northern winter, the sun is too far away from the north pole and you would not see it at all.  This is also explains the seasons.  It is explained in the wiki and the picture below might give you an idea of how it works. 

[Theorist]

I think I can prove it is round:

For 4 months in the year at Antarctica, the sun never goes below the horizon and it goes "around you" in a circle each day.

If you stand at any part of the Antarctic coastline (aka the ice wall in FET) and face North, visualize it - it is impossible for the sun to be in the South from you, ever! If it was in the South, this would mean the sun breached the firmament - by a long way.

In the FET this means the sun can only ever "pass by" in front of you.

No one can debunk this and the earth is again round.

[Thork]

I think I can prove it is round:

For 4 months in the year at Antarctica, the sun never goes below the horizon and it goes "around you" in a circle each day.

If you stand at any part of the Antarctic coastline (aka the ice wall in FET) and face North, visualize it - it is impossible for the sun to be in the South from you, ever! If it was in the South, this would mean the sun breached the firmament - by a long way.

In the FET this means the sun can only ever "pass by" in front of you.

No one can debunk this and the earth is again round.

You are aware Antarctica is shut off to the entire world and you can't just go there on vacation without military supervision ... right?

[jroa]

I think I can prove it is round:

For 4 months in the year at Antarctica, the sun never goes below the horizon and it goes "around you" in a circle each day.

If you stand at any part of the Antarctic coastline (aka the ice wall in FET) and face North, visualize it - it is impossible for the sun to be in the South from you, ever! If it was in the South, this would mean the sun breached the firmament - by a long way.

In the FET this means the sun can only ever "pass by" in front of you.

No one can debunk this and the earth is again round.

I think someone needs a geography lesson.  Some parts of Antarctica are not even within the Antarctic Circle, meaning that those parts do not even receive 1 whole day in which the sun does not set. 

[Theorist]

I don't need to go there, it was in the documentary: "Antarctica A Year On Ice"

At Antarctica facing a camera North, the sun doesn't go past the front of the camera (or in a "sideways on" fashion if not facing North) like it would in a flat earth model, instead in the documentary it goes 360 degrees around the camera - which is impossible on a flat earth, because the sun would be overlapping the ice shelf by thousands of miles.

Granted, I have no clue which way the camera was facing in the documentary, but this doesn't affect whether the sun would pass "across" you (FET) or go around you 360 degrees (RET).

For the sun to be going 360 degrees around AND us being on a flat disc, we would be living in some sort of figure of 8.

Or, face the camera South... now you should never see the sun in front of you on a flat earth, it is above the horizon every day for four months so its not like there's no time to check it.

You can see the sun going past the camera when the camera is facing South, oops!

Flat earth busted, that easily.