3321

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma

« on: January 10, 2019, 11:59:18 AM »

I just used distances given on Google Earth, a product you say you use "daily" and therefore must trust.
I don't know how they calculate distances, but I do know it is used by millions of people every day, including you, so if their data is inaccurate then you'd think that would have been noticed.
If you are now claiming that the distances are inaccurate then what is your basis for that? How they are calculated is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether they are correct.

It should be pretty clear that they did not send a little robot with a measuring wheel to go and measure the distance when you made the online request, nor have they ever done that. Next you should probably consider if anyone has ever done that. If you decide that no one has done that then we must be talking about something theoretical that has to do with how the latitude and longitude numbers are determined.

The distances Google claims between places are only theoretical until someone uses the system to get around. Luckily we have millions of people testing it every day, including you, and building confidence in their data.
It seems you trust Google Maps data enough to use it every day to get you around but you don't trust it when it shows the earth isn't flat.
It's good, confirmation bias, isn't it? 

3322

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Apparent size of the sun

« on: January 10, 2019, 11:45:57 AM »

What proper filters? Solar filters are just doing the same thing as sun glasses, as mentioned earlier.

All filters simply eliminate some of the light coming through them. A proper solar filter eliminates enough that you can safely view and photograph the sun through it and when doing so you see just the circle of the sun and not any glare around it.
Polarized lenses do remove some glare but I wouldn't recommend looking at the sun through them and they don't reduce all glare:

https://www.everydayhealth.com/vision/myths-about-polarized-glasses/

On the Wiki page in the stills you can clearly see a halo of light around the lights. That is glare. It stops you accurately measuring the size of the lights.

3323

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma

« on: January 10, 2019, 11:26:59 AM »

I just used distances given on Google Earth, a product you say you use "daily" and therefore must trust.
I don't know how they calculate distances, but I do know it is used by millions of people every day, including you, so if their data is inaccurate then you'd think that would have been noticed.
If you are now claiming that the distances are inaccurate then what is your basis for that? How they are calculated is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether they are correct.

3324

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Apparent size of the sun

« on: January 10, 2019, 11:05:14 AM »

Hardly a coincidence. The article shows that the constant growing effect happens to all intense lights that recede into the distance.

No, the article merely claims it and shows some photos with glare.
What experiments have you done with the appropriate filters to demonstrate the effect?
In other threads you have demanded demonstration. This is your claim. Demonstrate it.

Those photos are evidence and demonstration. The "glare" was tested with two brands of polarized glasses, and remained in tact.

Ah yes. Polarized glasses.
Which, as was explained to you previously, do not prevent glare, they merely reduce it.
You will need to get a proper filter and try again.

3325

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma

« on: January 10, 2019, 11:01:58 AM »

- If all distances and continental positions are unknown, then why proudly post an inaccurate map on your site, if you are a movement founded in opposition to inaccurate maps?

The website presents several possible maps in the maps section. The truth is for you, the interested investigators on this forum, to research.

I have, in the thread in the other section about the FE Map. My research demonstrates that no flat earth map is possible - if the distances on Google Maps are accurate.
You say you use Google Maps daily so you clearly trust it's accuracy. I'm not clear then why I'm unable to map 4 points out on a flat map.
I note there has been no FE response other than lackey throwing in some red herrings about screen resolution and refusing to do any checking on my work or do his own.

3326

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Apparent size of the sun

« on: January 10, 2019, 10:59:31 AM »

Hardly a coincidence. The article shows that the constant growing effect happens to all intense lights that recede into the distance.

No, the article merely claims it and shows some photos with glare.
What experiments have you done with the appropriate filters to demonstrate the effect?
In other threads you have demanded demonstration. This is your claim. Demonstrate it.

3327

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon size and distance

« on: January 10, 2019, 10:49:33 AM »

The distance to the moon has been known for hundreds of years although modern techniques make the measurements more accurate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy)#History_of_measurement

If FE disputes all of this then fine but what is their evidence for their supposed distance? What measurements have they made or experiments have they done?

3328

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Apparent size of the sun

« on: January 10, 2019, 09:23:24 AM »

Prove that the flare is in the camera lens and that it's not an enlargement in the sky. The article also includes versions of the effect as seen in polarized lenses.

It appears that the article has provided evidence, while you have provided none. A massive failure to persuade or to support your argument on your part.

So your claim is there is some effect which by pure co-incidence makes the sun appear a constant angular size even though its distance from us varies so much that it should appear less than half the size at sunset as it does when overheard? It's weird how selectively you argue, previously I've seen you argue against big "co-incidences" like this.

3329

Flat Earth Community / Re: Resources and time

« on: January 09, 2019, 01:05:41 PM »

But not actually carrying out any investigations, measurements or research to show the validity of any previous documents?

We do that daily. Doesn't mean we'll randomly cater to the whims of those who actively portray themselves as our enemies.

Do you, though?
Most of the effort I see on here is from round earthers testing things. Bobby has done a lot of work testing some of your claims.
I have done less but I've done a few things, like trying to make a flat map with distances given on Google Earth to show that it's not possible (I note there has been no FE response apart from lackey posting some spurious nonsense about screen resolution).
In the wider FE community there's a load of stuff on YouTube with people doing things, I don't see many people on here* doing anything though.
(* - some of those people on YouTube may be people on here, I guess).

I know you guys focus on people doing their own observations and that's no bad thing but publishing results of FE experiments which others can critique and repeat would be helpful for the rest of us to follow your line of thinking.

3330

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon

« on: January 08, 2019, 09:00:11 PM »

Sure, we can go with balance. But it will still be a balance of things I can verify, not things the nice man on TV told me to believe.

I literally have no idea how you make your mind up about anything then, because very little is personally verifiable if you’re going to go down that route. The principle you’re talking about isn’t bad per se, it’s just not possible or practical for most things.

3331

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon

« on: January 08, 2019, 07:45:38 PM »

What is the benefit of sitting around on one's arse and pondering unverifiable claims?

Because, if you're going to be strict about it, pretty much every claim is unverifiable.
So you either believe nothing at all or your form your world view based on evidence and balance of probabilities.
There's a reason why a court of law only demands a person be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, because absolute proof is impossible.

The earth being a globe is unverifiable in the strictest sense.
The earth being flat is unverifiable.
You believe one of those so you have clearly come to that conclusion based on some evidence, it isn't based on you having been up in a space ship and seen the flat earth.

3332

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma

« on: January 08, 2019, 05:13:44 PM »

Even you gotta admit it is hard to understand BS.

I understood his work perfectly. If you are going to be rude, at least give some reasonable explanation of why you think it's wrong, or BS or whatever.

I have written a reasonable explanation of why it is wrong.

You haven't. You've just said some things about screen resolution and I have explained why that is irrelevant.
Come on, dude, I even checked the image quickly myself and showed you a screenshot of how you can check yourself.
Someone else has just replied to the post saying they got similar results using the same method a different tool.
And it has also been suggested to you that you can draw this out on paper using a pencil and protractor. You will get the same results.
If you think there is an error in my work then you are free to repeat it and post your findings.
It is telling that you have so far shown no inclination to do so...

3333

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon

« on: January 08, 2019, 05:04:22 PM »

What this thread was getting at was, what I'm interested in (although I do concede the OP was a clumsy way of asking), is the FE response to the space industry generally. In 2018 alone there were 114 launches, 111 of them successful. And while NASA may be the poster boys for all this there were 6 agencies involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_in_spaceflight#By_country

And look at how many countries were involved overall:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_in_spaceflight#Orbital_launches

This is all so routine it rarely gets reported. This one did though. On 23rd December Elon Musk finally launched a military satellite into space:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/dec/23/elon-musk-spacex-launches-military-rocket

This was noteworthy because it was a private company who won a contract to launch satellites for the military. What do FE people think is going on here?
Is Musk lying? Why haven't the military called him out on it if so? Surely if he claimed they were launching satellites for them and they just weren't then someone would say something. Are the military "in on it"? Are they lying? Why? Or is he fooling them some way, so they think he's launching satellites but he really isn't? You think they'd notice if the $500m satellite he'd launched wasn't working but maybe he's managed to fool them into thinking that it is.

It's all well and good to say that none of this is directly verifiable - and I guess that is actually true - but on balance of probabilities, given the rocket technology clearly exists, is it really likely that all of this is fake? I mean, GPS works, my satellite TV works, the ISS can be seen from earth.

Every launch is another opportunity for FE to examine its beliefs but I don't see much of that going on other than a vague "we can't verify this directly so we're not going to think about it too hard".

3334

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: January 08, 2019, 02:04:36 PM »

Have you ever enlarged a drawing you might make in MS Paint?

What happens to the lines you see when you enlarge a drawing or shrink a drawing?

Do they not occupy more pixels on your screen as you enlarge it (i.e., become less defined?)

Do the lines not become more defined and sharp as the image shrinks?

Again, none of this is relevant. I have given you the full scale image, you can check it for yourself or you can draw your own if you don't trust my work. I encourage you to actually.

But here's some very basic checking I've done on my image to show you why resolution doesn't matter. So in the OP I said that it was 2405 miles from Seattle to New York and said that was the black circle. So I just loaded my image into Paint .NET and very roughly did a select of the area across that black circle:


Note the bottom where Paint .NET helpfully tells me I've selected 2404 pixels which I'd suggest is close enough given that I did this while the image was zoomed out so it was hard to select perfectly. I've put a red ring round the screenshot where it tells you how many pixels you have selected. So the fact I'm zoomed out doesn't matter, the paint package tells me how many pixels the full size image is.

Bottom line: Do your own tests, make your own image or drawing and see what you find.

3335

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: January 08, 2019, 01:37:16 PM »

You are telling me you drew a scale drawing using your resolution settings and expect someone to use their resolution settings to examine it?

Yes, because your resolution will only change the size of the image on your monitor, as will your monitor size. It will not change anything else about the image so is not relevant. If you go into a paint package and draw a circle of diameter 'x' pixels then you could send me that image and I could verify whether the circle was indeed 'x' pixels across using my paint package. Your resolution and mine would be entirely irrelevant.

You have three x's drawn with no corresponding grids?

I don't know what you mean by that. The first city is Seattle. That was my starting point, it has to be somewhere so I put an X to mark where I defined it to be.
The second X is New York. If the distances on Google Maps are correct then New York must be somewhere on the perimeter of the black circle. I have picked a point, it doesn't matter which one, all that affects is the orientation of the final map.
I then used the distances from Seattle to Dallas and New York to Dallas and drew circles of the corresponding size around my first 2 X's.
If the distances are correct and I've drawn my circles correctly then Dallas must be on the intersection between the red and blue circles.
There are two possibilities, I picked the lower one because I know that Dallas is south of both New York and Seattle.
That's my third X.
So now I know where those 3 cities are in relation to one another.
The green circles represent the distances from those 3 cities to the 4th. If the distances are correct then I should get an intersection between those 3 green circles, but I don't.
Note that when I used the same method with 4 English cities which are on a much smaller scale I DID get an intersection between the 3 green circles. The reason for this is over smaller distances there is less discrepancy between the globe earth and a flat map.

How do we know those are laid out properly?

You can check Google Maps to see if I have used the correct distances.
You can check the image to see if the circles are the number of pixels across I claim (again, you can do that regardless of your monitor and computer resolution)
You can pick your own cities and draw your own image. I look forward to seeing your results.

3336

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: January 08, 2019, 01:12:52 PM »

That's a completely nonsensical question. The resolution of your monitor doesn't matter. So long as you use a consistent scale all the resolution will do is make the image appear bigger or smaller on your monitor. It doesn't change the result.
I honestly don't understand what your objection is.
Again, if you prefer to do your own diagram then feel free to do so.
You could draw one on a piece of paper and use a scale of 1cm to 100 miles, or something.

3337

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: January 08, 2019, 01:04:41 PM »

How is one to know if the pixels are as you state?

What work that entail?

Here is the original image, you can check:

https://i.ibb.co/zVdBcqm/FEMap.jpg

The scale was intended to be one mile to the pixel. Because of my mistake it ended up being 2 miles to the pixel.
Feel free to check my workings or draw your own diagram. All you need is Google Maps. Pick 4 cities and try it yourself. As I've found in this thread, the discrepancy between the globe earth and flat maps is best seen over distances in the order or one or two thousand miles, not a couple of hundred.

3338

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma

« on: January 08, 2019, 12:48:12 PM »

1-3. This is the official Flat Earth Wiki map. If it is so inaccurate that even the positions of the continents are uncertain, why post it at all? Isn't this as inaccurate as posting a rotating globe on the site?

I think the claim is that the map is an indication of how the earth is and not necessarily accurate but this is a bit slippery, it means that any criticism can be met with claims that the map isn't accurate. You can't debunk something which doesn't exist. Luckily, you can use Google Maps and the distances given on there between cities to demonstrate that no flat earth map is possible as I did here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11747.0

It's notable that there has been no FE response apart from Lackey not understanding what I've done.

You arbitrarily draw pretty kindergarten pictures of different color circles and x's on a whiteboard (mind you with absolute ZERO reference as to how anyone could actually verify scale) plus openly admit your ineptitude in formation and then have the temerity and gall to write I have no understanding of what you've done?

Simply writing when you actually do something might be a better place for you to start.

I've replied to this in the other thread. But just to reiterate, the fact you think my circles are drown in an arbitrary way shows you don't understand what I have done.

3339

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: January 08, 2019, 12:47:19 PM »

You arbitrarily draw pretty kindergarten pictures of different color circles and x's on a whiteboard (mind you with absolute ZERO reference as to how anyone could actually verify scale) plus openly admit your ineptitude in formation and then have the temerity and gall to write I have no understanding of what you've done?

Simply writing when you actually do something might be a better place for you to start.

The fact you think that the circles are drawn arbitrarily shows that you don't understand what I've done.

If A and B are 'x' miles apart then if I plot a point A and then draw a circle centred on A of radius 'x' cm/mm/pixels around it then B must be somewhere on the circumference of that circle. Yes? My mistake was I used 'x' as the diameter, not the radius. But I did so consistently so all that does is means the scale is 2 miles to the pixel, not one. It doesn't affect the result.

I have followed the above logic to find the relationship between 3 cities in America and shown that if you try and plot a 4th then you don't find any common point which is at the right distance from those 3 other cities. I have now done the same for some UK cities and, as the UK is much smaller, I have found a common point for my 4th city. This shows the veracity of the method I've used and shows that the error between a flat map and a globe is, as expected, negligible on smaller scales.

If you have any sensible critique of what I've done then please post it. If I've made an error (apart from the one I've already admitted which only changes the scale, not the result) then please explain it.

3340

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon

« on: January 08, 2019, 12:37:47 PM »

The most coherent response came from Pete. I've been meaning to reply. Unfortunately he posted it in a thread in AR but it's pertinent here, so:

It's not "fake". It's untrustworthy. Contrary to claims, very little actual examinable footage has been released, and most news stories contain primarily shitty computer animations reminiscent of old cartoons. Recall your own hand-waving around the subject of evidence.

It's an unverifiable claim and it's being treated as one.