[Merkava]

Do Flat Earth believers agree the Sun comes into view basically directly east and sets basically directly west (plus or minus for time of year)?

[Tom Bishop]

No, the sun does not rise directly east and set directly west. The direction the sun rises from ranges through the year from the North-East to the South-East, and the direction it sets ranges from North-West to South-West.

[Merkava]

Interesting you would say "rise" and "set"  and I was attempting to cover "ranges through the year" with Plus or minus for time of year.  But I think that was basically us agreeing?
At any rate, we can just pick an equinox so it's as close to directly East as it can be.
So if your standing on the equator in Quito, Ecuador, on 9/21/2017 at 6:04AM(GMT-5) Sunrise.
Closest city I could find to having the sun at it's zenith, on the equator (64 km = 40 miles away) is Makokou, Ogooue-Ivindo, Gabon (0°34′25″ N, 12°51′51″ E) where it would be 12:04PM

Any issue with any of these facts?

[Tom Bishop]

Interesting you would say "rise" and "set"  and I was attempting to cover "ranges through the year" with Plus or minus for time of year.  But I think that was basically us agreeing?
At any rate, we can just pick an equinox so it's as close to directly East as it can be.
So if your standing on the equator in Quito, Ecuador, on 9/21/2017 at 6:04AM(GMT-5) Sunrise.
Closest city I could find to having the sun at it's zenith, on the equator (64 km = 40 miles away) is Makokou, Ogooue-Ivindo, Gabon (0°34′25″ N, 12°51′51″ E) where it would be 12:04PM

Any issue with any of these fagcts?

Yes, I have an issue with using a calculator for theoretical observations rather than actual observations.

[Merkava]

Do you think the sun isn't going to be in these positions in September?  We can move to 9/21/2016?  Picking a time in the near future would allow the possibility of verifying the predictions would it not?  Would you like to pick the locations/dates/times?

[Tom Bishop]

If you wish to verify your predictions, fell free. Travel to Makokou on the day of your test and you can verify your prediction for us.

We will be responsible for verifying our own predictions, and you will be responsible for verifying yours. Does that sound fair?

[Merkava]

It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me?  If you think those predictions are false, just say so?  If you except them, then we can move on.  I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.

How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.

Can you get on board with that?  Anyone?

[Tom Bishop]

It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me?  If you think those predictions are false, just say so?  If you except them, then we can move on.  I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.

How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.

Can you get on board with that?  Anyone?

I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.

[3DGeek]

It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me?  If you think those predictions are false, just say so?  If you except them, then we can move on.  I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.

How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.

Can you get on board with that?  Anyone?

I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.

What evidence would you accept as "real"?

Can I phone someone who lives near there and ask them whether the sun is setting or not?   Maybe the British Embassy or the US Embassy - a hotel or someone?

Would you accept that?

What if I go there in person?   Would you take my word for it - or would you still say that since YOU hadn't seen it, then you won't accept it.

If you LITERALLY won't accept anything that you PERSONALLY haven't accepted then why the heck should we believe one single thing you say?  Firstly because you'd be terminally ill-informed - and secondly because (logically) we should accept the same standards of evidence that you do.

Truthfully, you cannot carry out debates with ANYONE here unless there is some form of practical evidence that you'll accept.

So, I ask again - what are your standards for evidence?

[ronniereagan]

This website is probably the most fun anybody could have on the internet.

Logic is used by both sides of the coin here, but ultimately, the argument you guys are having has nothing to do with logic.

All round earthers, arguing the case on this website, are attracted by the irrational desire to alleviate another's ignorance or the desire to prove their point and expose others as frauds.

The vast majority of flat earthers that have made an account on this website will NEVER accept any evidence contrary to their assertion. If there was a space elevator, leading to an orbital ring, and you were to hold a flat earther's hand all the way up and around the two structures, their imagination would simply conceive a version of events that would allow them to witness the events where trickery was afoot.

The rest of the flat earthers are too far gone, and are actually insane.

Let's not kid ourselves here, we're all trolls. Some of you are trolling flat earthers and some of you are trolling round earthers. I, for one, am planning on trolling both sides.

Back to NOAA and NASA!

[Merkava]

It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me?  If you think those predictions are false, just say so?  If you except them, then we can move on.  I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.

How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.

Can you get on board with that?  Anyone?

I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.

Lack of effort?  I found a city, on the equator, that was in a location so that when the sun was rising there, I could find another city where it would be high noon.  I  found out what time that would happen on a date that will put the sun east.  You dismiss that with one sentence.  Cause you don't like calculators.  Ok, I offer to let you pick any location, time and date.  But you can't be bothered with that.  So you don't like my time/date/location, won't pick your own.  Can't agree the freaking sun rises in the east, seriously wtf?  Why are you even in the debate section?  Are you supposed to be the grand poo-bah here?  I just wanted to see if any of the flat earth people could walk point by point through a debate, I guess at least the guy at the top can't or won't.

[Merkava]

This website is probably the most fun anybody could have on the internet.

Logic is used by both sides of the coin here, but ultimately, the argument you guys are having has nothing to do with logic.

All round earthers, arguing the case on this website, are attracted by the irrational desire to alleviate another's ignorance or the desire to prove their point and expose others as frauds.

The vast majority of flat earthers that have made an account on this website will NEVER accept any evidence contrary to their assertion. If there was a space elevator, leading to an orbital ring, and you were to hold a flat earther's hand all the way up and around the two structures, their imagination would simply conceive a version of events that would allow them to witness the events where trickery was afoot.

The rest of the flat earthers are too far gone, and are actually insane.

Let's not kid ourselves here, we're all trolls. Some of you are trolling flat earthers and some of you are trolling round earthers. I, for one, am planning on trolling both sides.

Back to NOAA and NASA!

"All round earthers, arguing the case on this website, are attracted by the irrational desire to alleviate another's ignorance"  Maybe that's me.  I like debating as well.  This issue is like the greatest topic ever, but only in the sense it should be (IS, IT IS EASY) to get to the bottom of.  I was trying to find out if people are actually serious, or just haven't been told in a way they could follow, or are ill or what.  The immediate elusiveness to just answering a simple question and not agreeing to anything no matter what tells me a lot though.  It sure looks like deceit to me.  I don't answer questions like that on topis I believe in, or any other for that matter.  Now to be fair, it was only one guy, but I assume from his title he's a high muckety muck?
If people can't be talked down from this ledge, why bother trying to convince anyone of anything?  I guess it doesn't matter, hopefully they teach their kids this stuff, my kids will be at the top of the CURVE.     That was a beauty.

[JoeTheToe]

It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me?  If you think those predictions are false, just say so?  If you except them, then we can move on.  I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.

How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.

Can you get on board with that?  Anyone?

I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.

What evidence would you accept as "real"?

Can I phone someone who lives near there and ask them whether the sun is setting or not?   Maybe the British Embassy or the US Embassy - a hotel or someone?

Would you accept that?

What if I go there in person?   Would you take my word for it - or would you still say that since YOU hadn't seen it, then you won't accept it.

If you LITERALLY won't accept anything that you PERSONALLY haven't accepted then why the heck should we believe one single thing you say?  Firstly because you'd be terminally ill-informed - and secondly because (logically) we should accept the same standards of evidence that you do.

Truthfully, you cannot carry out debates with ANYONE here unless there is some form of practical evidence that you'll accept.

So, I ask again - what are your standards for evidence?

He has been doing this for at least ten years. I've had that exact debate with him more than once - and never a single answer. He will never commit to honestly answering a straight-up question, and he will certainly never the answer of what specific proof would change his mind. He is intellectually lazy, and most of all, a contemptible intellectual coward. I don't mean that as a personal attack, he seems like a nice fellow - I mean that from an intellectual perspective, based on the merits of his "arguments" (and dodges thereof). He is terrified of saying something that could be nailed down and/or disproven. The most he commits to, is "read the random, disconnected, unfounded, unverifiable, confident-sounding, flowery, rambling assertions made in a two-century old text from a conceited, devastatingly ignorant but charming narcissist". I'm baffled that Tom is still even around, but certainly not surprised that he has never been considered a "leader" in any respect in the corners of the flat earth. The most he appears to have contributed, is to the debate over who should be the Messiah for TFES. (I wish I were kidding.) He's too afraid to commit to anything, preferring instead to safely snipe at others over pedantics.

Wait a minute...what if Tom Bishop isn't a man, but an idea? Like Batman? Different people pick up the mantle, and always use the same 10 to 20 year-old profile pic? That must be what's going on. And if you disagree, it's because you have been brainwashed since childhood as part of a massive global conspiracy.

[Tom Bishop]

The standard for strong evidence is peer review. If there are multiple sources which tell us that the sun is doing something specific at the equator then that is strong evidence that this is the case. However, if you guys even posted a catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made, that would be helpful to your cause. That is evidence, even if uncorroborated. Right now we have zero evidence. None. Instead of seeking to provide such evidence we hear ranting that you shouldn't bother because anything you post will not be believed, and still insisting that a calculation based on your model should blindly be believed without any affirming evidence.

If you simply post the evidence it will speak for itself no matter how much anyone would try to deny it.

[JoeTheToe]

The standard for strong evidence is peer review. If there are multiple sources which tell us that the sun is doing something specific at the equator then that is strong evidence that this is the case. However, if you guys even posted a catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made, that would be helpful to your cause.

What in gods name are you talking about? "Sun doing something specific at the equator"? "catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made"? 

"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.

[3DGeek]

The standard for strong evidence is peer review. If there are multiple sources which tell us that the sun is doing something specific at the equator then that is strong evidence that this is the case. However, if you guys even posted a catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made, that would be helpful to your cause.

What in gods name are you talking about? "Sun doing something specific at the equator"? "catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made"? 

"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.

So it seems that Mr Bishop will accept the dusty old writings of some explorer in the 16th century - but will not accept any modern information.   This is a very strange position to assume.

We live in an age where instant communications are available all around the world...heck you can even what online cameras in different places.

So rather than looking for some old books in a museum someplace - why not instead go somewhere online like:

  https://www.earthcam.com/

...it shows the outputs from places all over the world:

  https://www.earthcam.com/mapsearch/

So - if I want to know whether the sun has risen in (say) Australia - there are about 45 live-feed cameras to choose from - and I'm fairly sure we could figure out the sunrise time by simply watching a few of those cameras at the appropriate time.

We can do this for about 100 different cities around the world - and thereby know (to within reasonable precision) when the sun rose in those cities.

Mr Bishop will now (presumably) find some exceedingly weak reasoning about why this won't work...perhaps he'll blame the transfer time over the Internet - ah - but I have a tool called "ping" which will measure that time quite accurately.   Perhaps he'll accuse the webcam operators of introducing delays of tens of minutes to throw off our results - but this requires another HUGE jump in the number of conspirators involved.

We could even eliminate that issue by asking for volunteers in different countries to sign into a group chat on Skype or Google+ so we could interact with them and thereby verify that there are no significant delays (at least not beyond a second or two) in their observations.   We could verify that their video feeds are not being faked by asking them to do things like point the camera at today's newspaper or something.

In the modern world, this data is RIDICULOUSLY easy to collect.

But Mr Bishop wants 400 year old writings in Spanish - because he knows that this information is effectively unobtainable.

So...how about it Mr Bishop?    Are you up for me to find people living in several different countries and have them show you when the sun rises?  Will you accept the evidence of this?

No?   Somehow I didn't think so.

This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.   Dismiss any evidence that doesn't suit you.  Bah!

[Tom Bishop]

"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.

Perhaps you missed the journal Earth Not a Globe Review which ran for over 75 issues of 200 to 400 pages each.

So it seems that Mr Bishop will accept the dusty old writings of some explorer in the 16th century - but will not accept any modern information.   This is a very strange position to assume.

I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed. If all of this evidence in favor of the Round Earth Theory is so plentiful and readily available, as we are constantly told, why not simply post it here rather than arguing that it is a waste of your time and that we should go out searching for it?

[3DGeek]

"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.

Perhaps you missed the journal Earth Not a Globe Review which ran for over 75 issues of 200 to 400 pages each.

So it seems that Mr Bishop will accept the dusty old writings of some explorer in the 16th century - but will not accept any modern information.   This is a very strange position to assume.

I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed. If all of this evidence in favor of the Round Earth Theory is so plentiful and readily available, as we are constantly told, why not simply post it here rather than arguing that it is a waste of your time and that we should go out searching for it?

I've been posting such evidence here - but generally you will not accept it.

So - I'm trying to ascertain what evidence you WILL accept so that I can present it here for all to see - and you would then be accepting of it.

So what EXACTLY is the standard of evidence that YOU, PERSONALLY will accept?    Would (for example) a Skype session with someone in Australia with a camera attached to their computer, producing a live feed of a sunrise or sunset be considered evidence of the sunrise/sunset time?   I'd be happy to make an effort to set that up with you *IF* you'd agree to accept the results of it as "EVIDENCE".

However, it's unreasonable to expect me to go to all the trouble to do that if you're going to just say that the person we're calling is a conspirator or that they aren't really living where they claim to be.

If you will come up with your standard of evidence (and PLEASE not "I want a book written by a guy 200 years ago") - then I'll make every effort to provide a proof that the world is round that meets those standards.

[Merkava]

"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.

Perhaps you missed the journal Earth Not a Globe Review which ran for over 75 issues of 200 to 400 pages each.

So it seems that Mr Bishop will accept the dusty old writings of some explorer in the 16th century - but will not accept any modern information.   This is a very strange position to assume.

I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed. If all of this evidence in favor of the Round Earth Theory is so plentiful and readily available, as we are constantly told, why not simply post it here rather than arguing that it is a waste of your time and that we should go out searching for it?

"I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed."

I posted exactly when and when the sun will rise on a date, YOU didn't believe it.  I offered:
1.  Do you think the sun isn't going to be in these positions in September?  YOU didn't answer.
2.  We can move to 9/21/2016?  YOU Ignored
3.  Picking a time in the near future would allow the possibility of verifying the predictions would it not?  YOU don't want to verify, because IT WILL BE THERE.
4.  Would you like to pick the locations/dates/times?  YOU Ignored

YOU are the one avoiding questions.
YOU don't post evidence, you say read something someone else wrote.
YOU don't even know when the sun rises.  "I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator."  Why wouldn't YOU want to find out???  How can you proclaim the Earth is flat if you don't even know that? 

WHEN it rises at 6:04AM in Quito, Ecuador, on 9/21/2017 and it's 12:04PM in Makokou, Ogooue-Ivindo, Gabon 9/21/2017 YOUR map and ALL of this NONSENSE will be proved wrong.  Just like every other equinox that has ever been and ever will be.  Just like when the sun rises every single day and isn't in the place it should on your map.  Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

But don't YOU check and don't YOU answer, no, tell me to read the wiki.  Or how about an ad hominem attack?  Yeah, that will do.  That way you can say you don't believe anything you haven't seen and YOU can never bother to see anything at all.

[Curious Squirrel]

Hey look, we don't even need to go to the equator to see the sun rise due East, and set due West. http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/everything-you-need-to-know-vernal-or-spring-equinox#rise The second one this year is on September 22nd. Mark your calendar. Find a good place to view the horizon and bring a good compass or direction finder. Check to see if it does so. It should be seen as rising at that spot anywhere in the world. Use the Earthcam site above to watch it in other locations around the globe even. According to RET this happens twice every year. Multiple sites and locations confirm this. No need to go looking for old naval documentation. If you care to know why plenty of resources to learn more. How's that for evidence?