[Tom Bishop]

No, I have not attempted to prove your claims for you.

Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.

[Curious Squirrel]

No, I have not attempted to prove your claims for you.

Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.

I can verify that NOAA has accurately predicted the sunrise and sunset times for my location every day since Thursday July 27 until sunrise today July 31, 2017. Their site agrees with the information provided by timeanddate. I will continue to look for a location that provides a good photograph of the sun at these times, but my location in a city makes things somewhat difficult.

[3DGeek]

No, I have not attempted to prove your claims for you.

Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.

I can verify that NOAA has accurately predicted the sunrise and sunset times for my location every day since Thursday July 27 until sunrise today July 31, 2017. Their site agrees with the information provided by timeanddate. I will continue to look for a location that provides a good photograph of the sun at these times, but my location in a city makes things somewhat difficult.

So - to summarize:

Tom will not accept:

* Anything from any government or science institute.
* Anything we have seen from our own personal observations.
* Any data we can collect from public sources such as timeanddate.com and alexia.

...and:

* He refuses to collect any data whatever of his own.

Hmmm - this is starting to look like a coverup to me!

The only acceptable sources seem to be books over 150 years old written by snake-oil salesmen.

[Tom Bishop]

No, I have not attempted to prove your claims for you.

Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.

I can verify that NOAA has accurately predicted the sunrise and sunset times for my location every day since Thursday July 27 until sunrise today July 31, 2017. Their site agrees with the information provided by timeanddate. I will continue to look for a location that provides a good photograph of the sun at these times, but my location in a city makes things somewhat difficult.

How do we know that their predictions hold true at all? Is there a report of observations somewhere on that website which affirms the predictions?

How do we know that the model is actually still a Round Earth model and not one which has been modified over the years to meet observation?

You can't simply link to a calculator and declare it all to be true. None of this is transparent or substantive as an acceptable evidence.

[Curious Squirrel]

No, I have not attempted to prove your claims for you.

Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.

I can verify that NOAA has accurately predicted the sunrise and sunset times for my location every day since Thursday July 27 until sunrise today July 31, 2017. Their site agrees with the information provided by timeanddate. I will continue to look for a location that provides a good photograph of the sun at these times, but my location in a city makes things somewhat difficult.

How do we know that their predictions hold true at all? Is there a report of observations somewhere on that website which affirms the predictions?

How do we know that the model is actually still a Round Earth model and not one which has been modified over the years to meet observation?

You can't simply link to a calculator and declare it all to be true. None of this is transparent or substantive as an acceptable evidence.

I provided you a link to how to calculate sunrise times in another thread, which you ignored. If you can follow the math, feel free. But I'm affirming their predictions given in the calculator right now. You seem to be fine with single experiments and observations elsewhere, why is this any different?

You could follow a link on the site to find out that NOAA and the US Government don't collect and catalogue observations for legal reasons. Feel free to follow the appropriate link on that page to learn more on why.

You've been asked in other places, but define 'acceptable evidence' to you in this scenario.

[Tom Bishop]

So there are no reports or sources whatsoever to affirm the predictions the Round Earth model makes and we have to do it ourselves? This strong model of yours seems like it should have something more than zero evidence for these sun predictions. We are told that there are MOUNTAINS of evidence. Why not simply go onto google and bring it here for us?

[Curious Squirrel]

So there are no reports or sources whatsoever to affirm the predictions the Round Earth model makes and we have to do it ourselves? This strong model of yours seems like it should have something more than zero evidence for these sun predictions. We are told that there are MOUNTAINS of evidence. Why not simply go onto google and bring it here for us?

I've done it myself the last few days, as I've mentioned three times now. I'm not sure where you're getting 'mountains' of evidence. I have not said any such thing, only that my own experiences and observations back the date put forth in these calculators. We did experiments like this back in elementary school as well. Why would such a thing be heavily documented on the internet in this period? Especially when variations due to weather can cause differences in what is seen visually?

An answer here suggests tests done over a period of time largely coincided with the times given on these sites using the equation above.

Feel free to see if I get any bites on the topic as well. The few links I've found promising so far are part of scientific journals that require a login of some form.

[Tom Bishop]

So now you are claiming that there is not really a plethora of evidence, as we have been told, and that Round Earth Theory is actually based on the observations of elementary school students?

Can you at least post the observational reports of these elementary school students? That would at least be something. We continue to see nothing!

[Curious Squirrel]

So now you are claiming that there is not really a plethora of evidence, as we have been told, and that Round Earth Theory is actually based on the observations of elementary school students?

Can you at least post the observational reports of these elementary school students? That would at least be something. We continue to see nothing!

I have never claimed there is a plethora of evidence about this phenomena. Do you lack reading comprehension? Or do you just forget what you read that fast? You're attempting to argue a point with someone who never made that point or assertion.

I said (in fewer words earlier), the observations were done largely before the era of the internet. Thus, the record of these experiments is largely not easy to find online, as there has been little reason to transfer those records to a digital and publicly accessible form. Science doesn't usually repeat such experiments every few years for kicks. What I have found in regards to these experiments so far, has been within scientific journals that require a login to access. Pretty standard fare.

I have since asked here (not sure why that link didn't work last time, hoping it does this time) if there are such reports available to peruse, at a location that seems likely to provide such information, as my Google fu is failing.

As for the observational reports of elementary school students, I have doubts these are regularly posted online. I can go looking, but you're demanding more evidence than many of your own experiments/examples provide, especially when the onus is on you to be proving the results as correct with no other explanation.

[inquisitive]

So now you are claiming that there is not really a plethora of evidence, as we have been told, and that Round Earth Theory is actually based on the observations of elementary school students?

Can you at least post the observational reports of these elementary school students? That would at least be something. We continue to see nothing!

If you are given some dates amd times of sunrise at a number of locations how would you use it to verify the shape of the earth?

[Tom Bishop]

Come on, you can't even come up with elementary school testimonies?

[Curious Squirrel]

Come on, you can't even come up with elementary school testimonies?

You say this as though such things are regularly posted online, outside of perhaps to their FB page if that. Not to mention just because I did it at that age, doesn't mean it's still being done. Curriculum DOES change as they years go by after all. You DO understand what I've said the last 3 times right? On why it will be difficult to find records beyond Youtube videos on this? And even those seem to only cover a single rise/set, usually on the equinox, like the one I posted. I also posted another person speaking up in agreement with the times predicted by the equation.

I will keep poking about, but having found limited sources so far, and nothing currently usable I'm not sure on my odds. As a reminder, I have not said a damn thing about 'mountains' of evidence as you keep putting it. I've offered that my own experience has been concurrent with what is offered, the math behind how the times are derived, and now another person remarking that the times are accurate to within the degrees predicted on the site. Not sure what more you're asking for not already provided by those two accounts.

[ErnestV1]

No, I have not attempted to prove your claims for you.

Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.

I can verify that NOAA has accurately predicted the sunrise and sunset times for my location every day since Thursday July 27 until sunrise today July 31, 2017. Their site agrees with the information provided by timeanddate. I will continue to look for a location that provides a good photograph of the sun at these times, but my location in a city makes things somewhat difficult.

How do we know that their predictions hold true at all? Is there a report of observations somewhere on that website which affirms the predictions?

How do we know that the model is actually still a Round Earth model and not one which has been modified over the years to meet observation?

You can't simply link to a calculator and declare it all to be true. None of this is transparent or substantive as an acceptable evidence.

Here ya go, Tom.

http://www.bfound.net/detail.aspx?jobId=141125&CoId=1582&rq=1

With this job you could take your Zetetic method on the road and do one year of observation for yourself south of the antarctic circle. :-)

Whole there, if you are truly interested in the truth, you could check the date and time Web page for that location, call friends back home and make comparisons and generally discover whether or not there is verifiable data that can be used no matter which model you want to stand upon. If it is verifiable and you continue to stand on the FE model you will at least have data from which to mount a plausible working model for the Zetetic FE map. I wish you all the best in your endeavors!

[Curious Squirrel]

For the record this are the kind of things I'm finding. This happens to be for an Astronomy 100 class. I see evidence of people doing these exact tests, but the tests are done as homework for young student (or in this case Freshman) and thus are not published. They aren't publicly available online, because it's an introductory study. The science community as a whole isn't interested in proofs for basic equations of the field.

It IS however pretty easy to see that these sorts of observations happen all over. I would think there would be a lot more people asking why things were so off if the online calculators weren't predicting correct times. But I know you like to ignore logic like that for whatever reason.

As a note, you've been given the tools to verify if the online calculators hold up to the equation for sunrise/sunset times created for the RE model, or if they've been adjusted over the years (all in the same exact way) to adjust for something. I would love to run those calculations for you myself, but I don't grok how to make those equations work. With all your study into making FE work, certainly you should have a good idea on how.

[mikeyjames]

I think you need to look into the definition of "Hypothesis". The whole point is to discuss and debate them among your peers before proving them. If you had to prove every hypothesis before discussing or advocating for it, you'd get nowhere very fast.

...Oh wait... you've had over a decade to nail this stuff down, and have gone literally backwards - with new competing hypothesis that didn't even exist then, and you are no closer to understanding literally any of the big questions you had ten years ago. Your approach clearly isn't working. How long are you going to continue spinning your wheels? Another decade? Two more?

Hell, you haven't even improved on Rowbotham's "steam holds the oceans up" 1860 superstitious, pseudoscientific bullshit. The more you keep referring to him as the gold standard, the more stuck in the past and unable to progress you become.

The only reason no one can poke holes in FE hypotheses, is because as soon as a hole is poked, intellectually dishonest people like you reactively blurt, "I never said I believed in that!". Jesus man, grow a pair, pick a hypothesis, and defend it. When holes are poked, acknowledge it and revise. Rinse, rather, repeat.

FEC (Flat Earth Conjecture) is not supposed to be an infallible religion. ...Right? So why do all of your discussion threads sound like someone is threatening your religion?

The only reason you personally won't advocate for a specific map, is because you're an intellectual coward. I truly don't mean that as a personal attack, and obviously it's just my own Zetetic observations and explanation for them. You seem like a nice guy. But a truly, intellectually contemptible coward. You seem terrified of an imagined "fall from grace" you believe will happen if you have to admit a single error on something - something which I have never seen you do.

No intellectually honest person is never wrong.

Not only are you guys literally looking for a messiah, you guys seem to be trying to act like one, or at least like priests. Infallible. The only way to be infallible, is to never say anything of substance - which you never do. Never advocate something that could have a hole poked in it. How much longer are you going to be alive to promote this? Haven't you already squandered - what, 1/3 of your remaining healthy working years, doing little more than distancing yourself from any and all hypotheses that have even one inescapable hole poked in it? Wouldn't you rather spend the remaining 2/3 of that time actually advancing the understanding of the true nature of the world? By taking risks, admitting errors when you're proven wrong, discarding hypotheses that don't work, and advancing the state of understanding? I mean, the world is counting on you guys to reveal the truth, right? Counting on you. Given those stakes, why are you fucking this up so badly?

Why don't you guys call a big conference with working committees (ideally in Australia), and hammer out a draft of tentative working hypotheses to the most fundamental questions hounding you guys - that various FAQs and wikis are all over the map (no pun intended) on, and you guys constantly, openly discredit your own Wiki. I suggest working subcommittes or subconferences titled:

• The universe: "Ice wall/single pole", "No ice wall/antarctica as a continent/double-poles", or "Double-rimmed ice wall with Atlantis in the outer waters"?
• The plane: Infinite, or finite?
• Dome: Exists or not?
• The LAX-SYD cornundrum: Let's lick this!
• The moon: Looks the same from different locations at the same time, or different?
• Solar eclipses: How do they work?
• Lunar eclipses: ...etc.
• Man-made satellites: Real? Balloons? Don't exist?
• Celestial Gears: How do they work, and how'd they get there?
• The Firmament: What is it?
• Tides and eclipses: Let's figure out how to predict them using the math of our own underlying laws and mechanics! That will shut those RE assholes up once and for all!
• Celestial software: Let's fork the open-source Stellarium to be driven by our own laws of nature and celestial mechanics, open for all to study, test, and critique! Just like RE Stellarium! That will seriously win converts.
• Other galaxies: Do they exist?
• Our sun: What powers it?
• The moon: Self-lit or not?
• Other stars: What powers them?
• Extraterrestrial life: Even theoretically possible?
• Meteorites: what are they?
• Gravity, UA, or fuck it and keep punting?
• Rowbotham: Hey, why don't we eject this supernatural shit-show 19th-century snake-oil salesman from our vocabulary once and for all, to save some face, allow our hypotheses to change and improve, and attract fresh recruits?

I could go on as many others have. This is not a list of criticisms. It's things you obviously need to fix or at least agree on, and move forward with testing. It's time to commit to hypotheses that might be proven wrong or require change, or that you may not even be sure how to test or is even testable. (You can always discard those after exhausting ideas.) It's not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of strength. You can't set the world's experts to conducting experiments to confirm or falsify your hypotheses, and test your predictions - if you have no consistent hypotheses at all.

It's a sign of weakness to continue treating it like some kind of infallible dogmatic truth you just haven't quite nailed the details of down yet.

Finally, you should assemble a permanent working committee tasked with rigorously, openly, and scientifically testing every conjecture in the FE model - with rigorous controls and statistical methods - from biggest to smallest (e.g. disappearing ships), or until it runs out of money. If even just to win new recruits. Surely with the FE belief exploding, you can start a successful GoFundMe campaign. Surely they are willing to put their flat money where their flat beliefs are?

Good luck.

This goes down as one of the best posts I have ever read on any flat earth forum. I note it was duly ignored by Tom.

Overall, it just amazes me that they accept just about anything as evidence for the flat earth model, yet for something as simple as timeanddate.com they will only accept the result if each sunrise/set prediction is verified. Then if we managed to get thousands of people to post verifications they would claim not to believe them and demand video evidence. Then if the videos were supplied it would be claimed that the videos had been doctored somehow. When it comes down to it you may as well be arguing with the Pope about whether God exists - you are simply never going to convince them.

On this forum and the other one, each thread seems to go the same way +/- a few steps:

• Someone sane posts a query regarding one of the many holes in FET
• A flat earth believer (FEB) will say "that is explained in the FAQ"
• The sane person will point out the inadequacies of the FAQ
• A FEB or two will post attempts to explain away the said holes in their theory
• Sane people will poke holes in the FEBs' explanations
• Some back and forward for a few posts
• A FEB will then attack the grammar of someone's post in a attempt to derail the debate
• A FEB will post some pseudointellectual drivel that has nothing to do with anything being discussed in an attempt to confuse and derail the debate
• Another FEB will attempt to falsely attribute something totally irrelevant to another poster and try to derail the debate using straw-man tactics
• Yet another FEB will highlight a small error in another post and attempt to focus the entire debate on that one narrow part of the problem
• A sane person will finally bring the debate back on track and highlight the holes in the FEBs' explanations up to this point
• FEBs state they don't believe in any of the evidence they have been provided with and desert the thread completely

You could take Tom up to the ISS and he would claim he was drugged, that false images were placed on the memory card in his camera and/or implanted in his brain. Evidence means nothing to round earth deniers and it never will. I believe:

• For some it borders on is religion
• Some have just painted themselves into a corner and stubbornly refuse to give up
• Some have invested so much time and energy into the debate that to admit defeat would create too much dissonance for them
• Some are just the ultimate trollers who sit back and laugh at the fools who believe them and at all of us wasting our time and energy trying to debate them.
  

Which one is Tom?

[J-Man]

Mikey

You created an alias to post this drivel?

Well done. I'm sure Tom will be along soon for your amazing efforts.

[CriticalThinker]

And now it looks to me like Tom and others are beginning to concede the point that the South Pole definitely has similar daylight traits as the North Pole... thus the search for a new map model must begin in earnest.

If you read the Flat Earth literature works the bi-polar model (not that specific map, however) has been around since at least 1918, and is said to have been created immediately after the South Pole was discovered as to include that new data into an updated Flat Earth model. Read the book "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" by Zetetes. The concept of a South Pole has been accepted in the society since there was a South Pole. It is not some new thing.

I'm genuinely curious about this.  Has the FE community conducted any substantial experiments or produced any substantial writings since the discovery of the atomic bomb?  Is the Bishop experiment the only accomplishment of the community since the cold war?  New data is gathered and examined daily in modern science, surely there must be something.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[3DGeek]

Come on, you can't even come up with elementary school testimonies?

It has been known for MANY thousands of years that the Earth is round.   This is the "default hypothesis" for everything that happens on our planet.

Because it's so widely known and accepted, and because it fits 100% of the reliable observations made by ordinary people every day - there is not going to be some majorly funded effort to "Prove That The Earth Is Round"...all of the moderately sane and intelligent people of the world already know this is a fact.

In truth - the burden of proof is on you Flat Earth folks.   Your experimental evidence boils down to one snake-oil salesman's poorly conducted experiment - subsequently shown to be (at best) inconclusive by subsequent efforts to repeat it.

That's *IT* that's all of the evidence I've ever seen presented here.

So why you expect there to be armies of scientists out there proving that the Earth is round - I don't know.

Here is experimental evidence:

1) Send a man to the moon with a camera.
2) Ask him to take a photograph of the Earth.
3) Notice that the photograph shows that the Earth is round.

That's EVIDENCE Tom...rock solid EVIDENCE.   If you wish to claim that it's NOT evidence then you have to prove that he didn't take that photograph.  The man has been interviewed a bazillion times about it.  We have a ton of ancillary evidence that he really was there.

You have provided no evidence that it's not true...not one shred!    You mindlessly parrot the claim that it was all faked - and if that's your standard of discourse, then you've already lost.

The onus is now on YOU.  Go through every single one of my (many) "Disproof" threads (most of which you're too chicken to even reply to) - and tell us why every single one of them is incorrect.

Go do that...we'll wait a month or so.

Truth is - YOU CAN'T DO IT.   You know you can't.   In your heart of hearts - you must now realize that you've been wrong all of this time...the evidence for the Round Earth is everywhere around you - and your pathetic series of claims simply DO NOT explain the facts.   They truly don't.

You say the sun sets because the 2,000 year old rules of perspective are "wrong" - but when I prove that they aren't wrong using the pinhole camera explanation - you don't respond.  When I show that clouds are lit from the underside by the light of the sun - you ignore that problem.

ALL of those threads are stuffed full of EVIDENCE...that **IS** the evidence you're demanding here - yet you're very carefully ignoring the bits of it that you don't like.

Pathetic...just pathetic Tom.

It's time you admitted that you're wrong...you have no more avenues of debate to go down.

[mtnman]

3DGeek, if there was a "like" button our your post, I would click it.

[Tom Bishop]

Come on, you can't even come up with elementary school testimonies?

It has been known for MANY thousands of years that the Earth is round.   This is the "default hypothesis" for everything that happens on our planet.

Because it's so widely known and accepted, and because it fits 100% of the reliable observations made by ordinary people every day - there is not going to be some majorly funded effort to "Prove That The Earth Is Round"...all of the moderately sane and intelligent people of the world already know this is a fact.

In truth - the burden of proof is on you Flat Earth folks.   Your experimental evidence boils down to one snake-oil salesman's poorly conducted experiment - subsequently shown to be (at best) inconclusive by subsequent efforts to repeat it.

That's *IT* that's all of the evidence I've ever seen presented here.

So why you expect there to be armies of scientists out there proving that the Earth is round - I don't know.

Here is experimental evidence:

1) Send a man to the moon with a camera.
2) Ask him to take a photograph of the Earth.
3) Notice that the photograph shows that the Earth is round.

That's EVIDENCE Tom...rock solid EVIDENCE.   If you wish to claim that it's NOT evidence then you have to prove that he didn't take that photograph.  The man has been interviewed a bazillion times about it.  We have a ton of ancillary evidence that he really was there.

You have provided no evidence that it's not true...not one shred!    You mindlessly parrot the claim that it was all faked - and if that's your standard of discourse, then you've already lost.

The onus is now on YOU.  Go through every single one of my (many) "Disproof" threads (most of which you're too chicken to even reply to) - and tell us why every single one of them is incorrect.

Go do that...we'll wait a month or so.

Truth is - YOU CAN'T DO IT.   You know you can't.   In your heart of hearts - you must now realize that you've been wrong all of this time...the evidence for the Round Earth is everywhere around you - and your pathetic series of claims simply DO NOT explain the facts.   They truly don't.

You say the sun sets because the 2,000 year old rules of perspective are "wrong" - but when I prove that they aren't wrong using the pinhole camera explanation - you don't respond.  When I show that clouds are lit from the underside by the light of the sun - you ignore that problem.

ALL of those threads are stuffed full of EVIDENCE...that **IS** the evidence you're demanding here - yet you're very carefully ignoring the bits of it that you don't like.

Pathetic...just pathetic Tom.

It's time you admitted that you're wrong...you have no more avenues of debate to go down.

Funny how you are able to write plenty of off topic paragraphs proclaiming yourself to be so superior and correct but that you are unable to meet the simple challenge presented and link to the data showing information which is claimed to exist in favor of your model.