[Spycrab]

As has been established, for those who did not read up on the previous two, the wiki page "The Place of the Conspiracy" that goes as such:
-The flat earth is an obvious truth
-Any evidence against an obvious truth is fabricated
-Any evidence against the flat earth is fabricated
had peaked my interest. I queried about what lead one to believe it is an 'obvious truth', and Pete informed moi that it was indeed stolen from the other FE wiki.
If this is not what one believes, might I ask, what is the Flat Earth belief based on?
What is the base fact that all flat earthers agree on that makes it seem real? (or at least real-er than the round earth)
A distrust of the government?
An eye for photoshop and seeing discrepancies most of us miss?
Blind faith in Rowbotham?
It looking flat?
I'm stumped.

[Max_Almond]

The Bible. And you can't argue with that.

[Spycrab]

The Bible. And you can't argue with that.

Okay great. Can you be a bit more specific? I sincerely doubt the entire bible is about the earth's flatness, or the movement would've surfaced eons ago.

[Pete Svarrior]

If this is not what one believes, might I ask, what is the Flat Earth belief based on?
What is the base fact that all flat earthers agree on that makes it seem real?

Much like with any other belief, this will vary from individual to individual. Any attempt at summing them up would be a misrepresentation.

it was indeed stolen from the other FE wiki.

There is no "other FE wiki" and nothing was "stolen". The state of the Wiki from before the split was used as a basis for the current version of it. Meanwhile, the pre-forked version was destroyed entirely.

[Tom Bishop]

I wrote the majority of the original Wiki. How did I steal from myself?

[Max_Almond]

I wrote the majority of the original Wiki. How did I steal from myself?

Imagine that you believed you had stolen from yourself, and someone told you it wasn't true. How would you answer them?

[Pete Svarrior]

Imagine that you believed you had stolen from yourself, and someone told you it wasn't true. How would you answer them?

Please, let's try to stay on topic. Take it to PR&S.

[Dr David Thork]

As has been established, for those who did not read up on the previous two, the wiki page "The Place of the Conspiracy" that goes as such:
-The flat earth is an obvious truth
-Any evidence against an obvious truth is fabricated
-Any evidence against the flat earth is fabricated
had peaked my interest. I queried about what lead one to believe it is an 'obvious truth', and Pete informed moi that it was indeed stolen from the other FE wiki.
If this is not what one believes, might I ask, what is the Flat Earth belief based on?
What is the base fact that all flat earthers agree on that makes it seem real? (or at least real-er than the round earth)
A distrust of the government?
An eye for photoshop and seeing discrepancies most of us miss?
Blind faith in Rowbotham?
It looking flat?
I'm stumped.

Your interest was piqued. Not peaked. - the more you know ...

As mentioned we all have our own opinions of why authorities promote a round earth when they must know it to be flat. I have given some of my own reasons as to why this happens here ....
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2635.msg66165#msg66165
But that's my own research. Its nothing officially endorsed by the society.

[Tom Bishop]

On topic: I didn't write that particular article, but I did put it in the original wiki at user request.

I feel it has a lot to do with empiricism and analysis of what is truly demonstratable. If only certain things can be demonstrated, and there is genuine evidence that is hard to explain against NASA, then the apparent obvious truth becomes clear.

The whole "flat earth is an obvious truth" and "contrary evidence NASA presents is fabricated evidence" bits are simplified conclusions made after talking about the subject for many years and thousands of hours of research.

But this is mostly a journey you will have to make for yourselves. I am exploring such topics in the book we are writing in the lower forums.

[inquisitive]

On topic: I didn't write that particular article, but I did put it in the original wiki at user request.

I feel it has a lot to do with empiricism and analysis of what is truly demonstratable. If only certain things can be demonstrated, and there is genuine evidence that is hard to explain against NASA, then the apparent obvious truth becomes clear.

The whole "flat earth is the obvious truth" and "contrary evidence NASA presents against is fabricated evidence" bits are simplified conclusions made after talking about the subject for many years and thousands of hours of research.

But this is mostly a journey you will have to make for yourselves. I am exploring such topics in the book we are writing in the lower forums.

What are the key parts of thousands of hours of research that show a flat earth?  Measurements?

[Max_Almond]

Good question. There must be at least one.

[Tom Bishop]

Why are you asking me to write studies and descriptions for you about what I've read and investigated and my thoughts about this and that and that other thing? I let it out slowly in my posts. But putting it into a book is in order at some point.

The movement is bigger than just a few people now, regardless. Read Earth Not a Globe or YouTube your journey.

[Max_Almond]

I think he was just asking for one piece of evidence or measurement that supports a flat earth hypothesis.

Doesn't seem like too much to me.

[Tom Bishop]

There isn't one thing. There are a lot of things. It is cumulative.

But if I had to point at one thing I would just point at the ENAG experiments.

[Max_Almond]

All of them?

Or could you name a couple you think the most compelling?

[inquisitive]

There isn't one thing. There are a lot of things. It is cumulative.

But if I had to point at one thing I would just point at the ENAG experiments.

Yet none are being carried out today, it is clear you are avoiding actual proof of your beliefs, if they truely are.  Which we must doubt.

[Tontogary]

There isn't one thing. There are a lot of things. It is cumulative.

But if I had to point at one thing I would just point at the ENAG experiments.

But much of what is in EnaG is not true, accurate or logical, and is full of mistakes, so the “experiments”, almost none of which were actual experiments, more just observations, are not proof of a flat earth or compelling evidence.

[Tom Bishop]

There isn't one thing. There are a lot of things. It is cumulative.

But if I had to point at one thing I would just point at the ENAG experiments.

But much of what is in EnaG is not true, accurate or logical, and is full of mistakes, so the “experiments”, almost none of which were actual experiments, more just observations, are not proof of a flat earth or compelling evidence.

They are simple observations which show that the earth is flat. The argument of "Rowbotham was just seeing atmospheric refraction [inserts wikipedia link to mirages/refraction]" is a losing argument.

See this post:

The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.

And yet, it fails to account for atmospheric effects that Wallace's experiment mitigates with a booster seat.

If the result were to show that the object were fully visible then one could assert that it is quite the coincidence that a chance mirage occurred at the time of viewing to make the object fully visible. Quite the coincidence that this mirage placed the object at the exact altitude it needed to be if the earth were flat. Quite the coincidence that it is a mirage that gives a solid picture rather than a wavy mess like most mirages. Quite the coincidence if this mirage were to occur again on another trial. A lot of coincidences.

Enough coincidences that it brands the Round Earther a Coincidence Theorist.

Calling Rowbotham a liar won't get you very far, as Rowbotham and Lady Blount had plenty of witnesses for their experiments. The math they were using is correct for the curvature of the earth. Other Flat Earth authors performed water convexity experiments over the years in their books. We also see the water convexity experiments are being conducted on YouTube.

It all adds up. Its all cumulative. Arguing that it was just a situation where light refracted through some warm air does not cut it at all.

[inquisitive]

Many simple experiments, described many times, prove a round earth.

[Max_Almond]

The argument of "Rowbotham was just seeing atmospheric refraction [inserts wikipedia link to mirages/refraction]" is a losing argument.

Tom, it's sounds like you're saying "atmostpheric refraction doesn't exist"?

Is that what you are saying?