[Pete Svarrior]

Do you worry that you may have the opposite effect by choosing very selectively who you collaborate with? As in, shutting out people who will disagree in favour of people who will agree (yes men)?

That's always a risk. I can only assure you that I don't spend much time talking to people who unconditionally agree with me.

EDIT: to add to this, why not publish the experiments and results anyway and just ignore the "zealots"? That way at least we can see how you've come to the conclusion whether we like it or not.

I've tried it. I still do, rarely, just to keep myself in check. It just leads to extremely unproductive threads with the zealots endlessly demanding follow-up answers. And if at any point I choose to drop out of the conversation, we're back to square one. "Ooh, why don't you spend your every living moment explaining yourself? Do you fear scrutiny?" It's not worth trying to appease the unappeasable.

Can you really not see the limitations of that approach? You are sharing results amongst people who already believe the earth is flat.

That's not what I said, and it's not the case.

As for continuously growing in popularity, I don't know how to measure that.

This is actually a great example of the unappeasable never being appeased. I've explained our growth time and time again. I've linked newspaper articles, poll results, and I've explained how Google Trends surges are irrelevant (three days of people visiting in droves because haha funny Elon tweet does not a meaningful increase make, but it does mean that the site suddenly surges in Google results, and ends up getting more views for some time. Those are usually bounces - someone visits and leaves immediately without doing anything. Other times, they're quality visits from schoolkids posting dinosaur memes). And yet here you are, still asking the same question. There is absolutely no point in engaging you on it. You're not interested in the answer, you're just looking for things to poke.

[JSS]

EDIT: to add to this, why not publish the experiments and results anyway and just ignore the "zealots"? That way at least we can see how you've come to the conclusion whether we like it or not.

I've tried it. I still do, rarely, just to keep myself in check. It just leads to extremely unproductive threads with the zealots endlessly demanding follow-up answers. And if at any point I choose to drop out of the conversation, we're back to square one. "Ooh, why don't you spend your every living moment explaining yourself? Do you fear scrutiny?" It's not worth trying to appease the unappeasable.

To me the reactions you are getting are obvious. To any non flat earther, hearing about experiments that prove the earth is flat is incredibly intriguing.

Of course we want to hear about them, learn how they work and what the results are. Maybe even try and replicate them.

And of course we would want to debate them. Why wouldn't we? People are curious, it's human nature to want to learn and explore.

And also of course, you will get people who have heated arguments about it and get rude and point out perceived flaws in mean ways. You are challenging core beliefs here, you're going to get plenty of pushback.

[Pete Svarrior]

And of course we would want to debate them. Why wouldn't we? People are curious, it's human nature to want to learn and explore.

Please, try to at least pretend you've read and understood the discussion up until now. I already explained why I won't "debate" it with people whom I consider to be a waste of my time. The current question is "why not publish the experiments and results anyway and just ignore the 'zealots'?"

[JSS]

And of course we would want to debate them. Why wouldn't we? People are curious, it's human nature to want to learn and explore.

Please, try to at least pretend you've read and understood the discussion up until now. I already explained why I won't "debate" it with people whom I consider to be a waste of my time. The current question is "why not publish the experiments and results anyway and just ignore the 'zealots'?"

I've been following the whole discussion with interest, because I do want answers to the question in the subject. I've read every word.

I just wanted to suggest some reasons why you get the reactions that you do.

Why not publish your methods and experimental results on the TFES Wiki? You don't have to engage anyone here about them if you don't want to, but they would be available for others to look at.

[totallackey]

So, you pick the globe off your desk and alter it.

No.

I took 3 pictures of it and didn't alter any of them. OK, I cropped them. And I resized them so they weren't 3000 pixels across.

No...wait...yes...

But that isn't altering them in the way you are claiming NASA alter images.
There are no filters, I haven't adjusted anything about the images - brightness or contrast or anything.
Those pictures are as I took them.

Where did I place limitations on the way NASA alters their images.

They alter them...

Do they all look the same? Does Africa look the same size with respect to the globe?
No, it doesn't. And that's the sort of inconsistency that FE people often jump on.
"Aha!", they say, "That shows that these images are faked and they're not even done consistently."

But actually it's as simple as this - if you take two pictures of a globe - one from fairly close and the other zoomed in from far away - then the results will look different. Landmasses will look like they're different shapes or sizes. Not because of images being altered, simply because of geometry. The first two pictures prove that.

It remains altered, regardless of how...

The 3rd image was taken simply to demonstrate that if you change the camera settings then the colouring looks different. That should be fairly obvious but it's another thing that FE people dishonestly use as "proof" that the images are faked.

The basic FE argument is "if these are really all pictures of the globe then why don't they all look the same? The fact they don't proves they're all fake".

I've just driven a coach and horses through that argument. Pictures of the same object taken from different angles or distances or with different camera settings don't all look the same. That does not mean they are not genuinely images of the same object.

No, everything you wrote actually supports the images are altered.

[AATW]

You're not interested in the answer, you're just looking for things to poke.

I am interested, but I think it's a complicated question to answer.
Yes, you've provided polls and there is no doubt that interest in FE is far higher now than, say 10 years ago.
I don't see that as a validation of your theories, it's simply easier to spread any ideas these days but that's a separate debate.
Whether there is a continuing growth though or whether it's just a phase, even if it's quite a long one, is a harder question to answer.
I am interested in the answer but I think it's a hard question to answer.

I'm also interested in how you came to the conclusion that the earth is flat. I understand it's been a journey for you so that's probably not a simple answer but when McToon interviewed you, you said something about being able to "see too low". I'd be very interested to see your examples about that to "check your workings" and I might even be inclined to do my own tests. The Bishop experiment where it's just him saying a thing and providing no evidence for it, or even that he even did the experiment does not pique my interest. A well documented experiment might.

[ChrisTP]

Totallackey, So what if an image was cropped? What is your point Totallackey? Why would resizing, cropping or differing lense types for a photo of earth mean it's suddenly not a real photo of a globe and why even then does that equate to the earth somehow being flat because of this? Are the images above showing examples of this suddenly now fake because they were 'altered' and thus the model globe is actually flat instead? In what reality does that make any sense? A cropped photo of a football is still a photo of a football. A resized photo of a rugby ball is still photo of a rugby ball. Zooming way in to the surface of a basketball doesn't make the basketball flat. doing these things does not make the shape of the object drastically change and applying common sense you can easily understand how optics can change with perspectives.

[totallackey]

Totallackey, So what if an image was cropped? What is your point Totallackey? Why would resizing, cropping or differing lense types for a photo of earth mean it's suddenly not a real photo of a globe and why even then does that equate to the earth somehow being flat because of this? Are the images above showing examples of this suddenly now fake because they were 'altered' and thus the model globe is actually flat instead? In what reality does that make any sense? A cropped photo of a football is still a photo of a football. A resized photo of a rugby ball is still photo of a rugby ball. Zooming way in to the surface of a basketball doesn't make the basketball flat. doing these things does not make the shape of the object drastically change and applying common sense you can easily understand how optics can change with perspectives.

The point is you are taking the photo of the football.

Therefore, you know if the picture is an accurate representation of the football.

And could offer an opinion as to whether another photo of a football (even one that is flat) is an accurate representation.

You haven't been to space and :

1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there

2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.

[ChrisTP]

You haven't been to space and :

1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there

2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.

Neither have you?  Use these arguments on yourself, You've not seen the whole flat earth from space, so you are in no position to claim it flat under your own argument. You look how a window a see land or water, your vision is extremely limited and easily tricked, why should you or I rely on your 'senses' for this extremely limited scope? What about the people who have gone to space and seen earth? They're in a better position than you or me to claim the shape. They're more educated than us, they've more experience than us. The people who sent up their very own built equipment and took photos know what they're doing, they have achieved taking a photo from space without being there and the photo came back showing a ball earth. You can either claim they're all liars, ignore them and believe your own limited scope with your inaccurate senses or you can just admit you're wrong. There is no middle ground here. You don't believe in space but people have gone and taken pictures. They have more evidence than you. They have more credentials, I think I'd believe them over you, someone who has claimed;

A) The ISS can't be seen with the naked eye (it can be seen with then naked eye if you aren't blind).
B) Rockets are holograms. lol

You claim this stuff with no evidence, all the while saying you have some kind of near infinite vision to see the whole earth is flat from your window. Cool story bro.

[AATW]

You haven't been to space and :

1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there

2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.

Fairly reasonable, but my photos were a rebuttal to a specific point which is made by FE, summed up by this image:



The basic point is "Aha! See? America is different sizes! The oceans look different colours!" and thus all the images are declared fake.
There is a school of thought which says if you were going to fake images of the globe earth from space you'd probably make sure it was done consistently...
And as my photos prove, you can take several photos of the same object from different distances and with different camera settings and the photos look different. Landmasses look different, sizes and shapes. Things look to be different colours. That is NOT evidence of fakery, it's simply that different photos of the same thing can look different. It depends on the angle you take the photo from, the distance and camera settings.

[Tom Bishop]

I feel that it's a waste of time talking to many people here as well. Someone interested in the truth wouldn't be shouting "that's an illusion!!", but rather, "how can I find out if it's an illusion?"

They won't and can't say that, because they have a belief system. You can say "that's an illusion!" to literally anything. Not really worth giving much consideration to.

[JSS]

The point is you are taking the photo of the football.

Therefore, you know if the picture is an accurate representation of the football.

And could offer an opinion as to whether another photo of a football (even one that is flat) is an accurate representation.

You haven't been to space and :

1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there

2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.

I'm curious, is this your standards of evidence for everything? If you can't see something in person, close up, you believe it's all lies?

If I tell you the CPU in your phone is made up of a billion tiny switches so small you can't see them, all  flicking on and off a billion times a second and it's made from silicon, do you think I'm telling the truth? If not, what exactly do you think is in your phone? You certainly never saw a 10nm transistor with your own eyes, yet I assume you believe that the CPU in your phone is a computer and not a demon or magic feather? Do you believe silicon chips are actually made of silicon, even though you never opened your phone and ran tests?

Seriously, I'm curious how far you take this viewpoint. Is the whole world a mystery, other than your room and the view out your window? I find that very strange way to go about life. We as a species would still be banging rocks together in caves if we didn't have the capability to learn information second hand.

[JSS]

I feel that it's a wast of time talking to many people here as well. Someone interested in the truth wouldn't be shouting "that's an illusion!!", but rather, "how can I find out if it's an illusion?"

They won't and can't say that, because they have a belief system. You can say "that's an illusion!" to literally anything. Not really worth giving much consideration to.

I don't recall anyone saying the word "illusion" in the 5 pages of this thread so far. Can you be more specific, please? What I see is a lot of talk about pictures and how to prove they are real or fake, and examples of what distance and perspective do when taking a picture.

I posted some pictures myself to show that it's an easy experiment to do yourself to back up the (much better quality) globe pictures.  I literally performed an experiment, posted the results, and explained how to do it yourself. 

How is that not asking, "how can I find out if it's an illusion?"

It's exactly what we should be doing. Performing experiments, asking questions, coming to conclusions, and accepting them.

[ChrisTP]

I feel that it's a waste of time talking to many people here as well. Someone interested in the truth wouldn't be shouting "that's an illusion!!", but rather, "how can I find out if it's an illusion?"

They won't and can't say that, because they have a belief system. You can say "that's an illusion!" to literally anything. Not really worth giving much consideration to.

This seems to have been your argument a few times before... How on a flat earth do you explain footage of large ships sinking below the horizon in the ocean? It's explained on a spherical earth by obviosly being spherical and sure, there's a wibble in the air but it's still a consistent effect. Go ahead and explain it without using mirages (a form of illusion).

 

[totallackey]

You haven't been to space and :

1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there

2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.

Neither have you?  Use these arguments on yourself,...

I do every day.

You've not seen the whole flat earth from space, so you are in no position to claim it flat under your own argument.

You are correct.

I have not been to space.

I do not make the claim the earth is flat on the basis of my having been to space.

I make the claim the earth is flat on the basis of me having been on earth nigh on 60 years.

You look how a window a see land or water, your vision is extremely limited and easily tricked, why should you or I rely on your 'senses' for this extremely limited scope?

Because if you do not rely on your senses bad things generally happen.

What about the people who have gone to space and seen earth?

What about them?

They're in a better position than you or me to claim the shape.

No, they're not.

They're more educated than us, they've more experience than us.

No, they're not more educated than me. They do have different experience than me.

The people who sent up their very own built equipment and took photos know what they're doing, they have achieved taking a photo from space without being there and the photo came back showing a ball earth.

No it hasn't.

It shows a circle.

You can either claim they're all liars, ignore them and believe your own limited scope with your inaccurate senses or you can just admit you're wrong.

Geez, I am so happy you have offered me a choice!

I choose to call the people who have altered the images liars.

There is no middle ground here.

For you, it is obvious there is none.

I think if I write more word, you might be tempted to turn me in to the Gestapo or KGB...

You don't believe in space but people have gone and taken pictures.

That is what you believe.

They have more evidence than you.

That is what you believe.

They have more credentials, I think I'd believe them over you, someone who has claimed;

A) The ISS can't be seen with the naked eye (it can be seen with then naked eye if you aren't blind).
B) Rockets are holograms. lol

You claim this stuff with no evidence, all the while saying you have some kind of near infinite vision to see the whole earth is flat from your window. Cool story bro.

When did I ever ask for you to believe me?

What is your problem?

Why would I ask a RE-adherent who finds joy in hanging out on a FE forum to believe anything?

Why would I ask a RE-adherent to even think or behave rationally?

[totallackey]

You haven't been to space and :

1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there

2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.

Fairly reasonable, but my photos were a rebuttal to a specific point which is made by FE, summed up by this image:



The basic point is "Aha! See? America is different sizes! The oceans look different colours!" and thus all the images are declared fake.
There is a school of thought which says if you were going to fake images of the globe earth from space you'd probably make sure it was done consistently...
And as my photos prove, you can take several photos of the same object from different distances and with different camera settings and the photos look different. Landmasses look different, sizes and shapes. Things look to be different colours. That is NOT evidence of fakery, it's simply that different photos of the same thing can look different. It depends on the angle you take the photo from, the distance and camera settings.

Actually, it is all evidence of fakery on the part of NASA.

[totallackey]

The point is you are taking the photo of the football.

Therefore, you know if the picture is an accurate representation of the football.

And could offer an opinion as to whether another photo of a football (even one that is flat) is an accurate representation.

You haven't been to space and :

1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there

2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.

I'm curious, is this your standards of evidence for everything? If you can't see something in person, close up, you believe it's all lies?

Never has been my stance.

If I tell you the CPU in your phone is made up of a billion tiny switches so small you can't see them, all  flicking on and off a billion times a second and it's made from silicon, do you think I'm telling the truth?

Perhaps.

It is an earthbound object and something like this could be verified if I really thought it important.

If not, what exactly do you think is in your phone? You certainly never saw a 10nm transistor with your own eyes, yet I assume you believe that the CPU in your phone is a computer and not a demon or magic feather? Do you believe silicon chips are actually made of silicon, even though you never opened your phone and ran tests?

I don't care.

Seriously, I'm curious how far you take this viewpoint. Is the whole world a mystery, other than your room and the view out your window? I find that very strange way to go about life. We as a species would still be banging rocks together in caves if we didn't have the capability to learn information second hand.

Please ...stop with the hyperbole.

[AATW]

Actually, it is all evidence of fakery on the part of NASA.

Please elaborate.
I have demonstrated very clearly that different pictures of a globe taken from different distances or using different camera settings can look different. So please explain how different images of the earth looking different are evidence of anything when the images were taken at different times using different cameras and from different distances. I have just shown you'd expect them to look different.

[JSS]

I'm curious, is this your standards of evidence for everything? If you can't see something in person, close up, you believe it's all lies?

Never has been my stance.

Sorry for assuming it was. Lets clear this up with a simple, direct question.

Can you can accept things are true even if you can't see them with your own eyes?

[totallackey]

Actually, it is all evidence of fakery on the part of NASA.

Please elaborate.
I have demonstrated very clearly that different pictures of a globe taken from different distances or using different camera settings can look different. So please explain how different images of the earth looking different are evidence of anything when the images were taken at different times using different cameras and from different distances. I have just shown you'd expect them to look different.

Yeah, you were using that camera taking pictures of what you knew was supposed to be in the picture.

There is no indication or accompanying explanation from NASA indicating what type of device was even responsible for the images to begin with. Just a, "Hey! Lookie here!"

Only after being called out for their BS do they even want to attempt any explanation...

I'm curious, is this your standards of evidence for everything? If you can't see something in person, close up, you believe it's all lies?

Never has been my stance.

Sorry for assuming it was. Lets clear this up with a simple, direct question.

Can you can accept things are true even if you can't see them with your own eyes?

I can accept things are possible even if I can't see them with my own eyes, yes.

When it comes to the shape of the earth, there is no legitimate (purely subjective term that it is and always will be) reason to believe it to be anything other than what my own two eyes and rational mind state it must be, and that is flat.