[Yaakov ben Avraham]

How about the proof Tom gave he attended the university in an academic capacity?

We have proved beyond doubt that he was a doctor. I'd love to see some proof from you he wasn't a doctor. Or that people who weren't doctors of medicine were often referred to as doctors of medicine ... do you have any proof for anything, or do you just like arguing black is white?

There is no evidence that he was at the University of Edinburgh. There are neither matriculation records, nor graduation records. I've looked. And it is a matter of historical fact that "MD" was often an informal title. I'd recommend any good history book. And PhD was not offered in Britain at the time. Further, its a bit hard to prove a negative. Its up to you to offer proof positive.

[Thork]

We already provided the evidence he went to the university if you could be bothered to look at Tom's source.

I'm bored of this. You are just being obtuse.

[Rushy]

We've proven repeatedly that Samuel Rowbotham was a reputable doctorate holder. Find something else to nag on, Yaakov. There's no value in just telling Thork "no ur wrong" over and over again.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

If you can show me evidence of his graduation records, or of his degree, I'll accept either. I have found neither in my own research.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I just looked at the thread. An article? That is your proof? No graduation records? No degree? So, if you needed to see the doctor, and I showed you a newspaper article that said I was an MD, you would accept that and take my medical advice?

WOW! I'll be sure to write one of those in the local newspaper. I should be able to make some damn good money soon, and I'll tell everybody in my local synagogue that they can stop going to Dr. Gordon and now they can come and see me. I am sure they will all agree.

Or maybe I'll get somebody else to write it so its more believable.

[jroa]

Yaakov, this is the second or third thread I have seen you argue the same thing in.  In fact, this is completely derailing this thread.  Would you please take this elsewhere?  Thanks. 

[ProfessrCox]

That's rubbish. We aren't religious freaks who believe for the sake of believing. Convince us it is round. I'd love to think its round. It would make my life easier. But its not. All the evidence points to it being flat.

As for Rowbotham and his PHD, its written in stone. It's on his tomb stone. What can't speak can't lie. Don't ignore facts. Embrace them and come to your own conclusions. Life isn't black and white.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=7368594&PIpi=625886

>Convince us its round

Have you ever watched the NASA television show? It's a pretty good program. No, it's not a conspiracy. If it is, it's a damned good one. Go up in space yourself and see. Ultimately, belief in the Bible is where I understand the Earth to be flat (Isaiah 40:22). I lack that belief, because I'm an atheist, thankfully.

[Pete Svarrior]

I lack that belief, because I'm an atheist, thankfully.

So is the vast majority of our members. There's no need to be so smug about it. It doesn't make you superior to anyone else, contrary to what you seem to imply

[ProfessrCox]

I lack that belief, because I'm an atheist, thankfully.

So is the vast majority of our members. There's no need to be so smug about it. It doesn't make you superior to anyone else, contrary to what you seem to imply

So where does this nonsense about the Earth being flat come from? I'm legitimately curious. I have read Zetetic Astronomy and it's all nonsense. Go watch the NASA channel or read a book. It's really not difficult to understand the spheroid shape of the Earth and planets.

[ProfessrCox]

I urge everyone here to stop participating in this nonsense. The Earth is not flat. It doesn't even appear to be flat. It's all bullshit and religious nonsense. Please open your minds. We've landed on the Moon for God's sake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/


For our Biblical Literalness our there, this is from Zetetic Astronomy:

Scripture Proofs.

That earth and seas are two distinct and independent regions, and not one great globe.--Psalms xxiv., 12, xxxvi., 6; 2 Peter, iii., 5. 364
That Heaven is above and Hell below the earth.--Deuteronomy xxvi., 15; Exodus xix., 20; Psalm cii., 19; Isaiah lxiii., 15; Psalm ciii., 2; 2 Kings ii., 11; Mark xvi., 10; Isaiah xiv., 13, 14; Acts i., 9-11, vii., 55; Luke xxiv., 51; Deuteronomy xxxii., 22; Job xi., 8; Psalms Iv., 15, cxxxix., 8; Proverbs vii., 27; Isaiah xiv., 15; Proverbs ix., 18, xv., 24; Isaiah xiv., 9; Ezekiel xxxi., 16, 17, xxxii., 27; Matthew xi., 23; 2 Peter ii., 4; Jude i., 6, 7, 13; Revelations xx., 10, 13, 14; Job xxviii., 5 386, 387, 388.

That the earth is a floating structure standing in and out of the waters.--Job xxv., 7 365

That the earth will be ultimately burnt up and destroyed.--Isaiah xxxiv., 4, lxvi., 15-22; 2 Thessalonians, i., 7, 8; Revelations xx., 11; 2 Peter iii., 10-13; Deuteronomy xxxii., 22; Revelations xxi., 1 392, 393.

That the "great deep," is fathomless.--Jeremiah xxxi., 37 367

That the stars are placed in the heavens to give light upon the earth.--Genesis i., 16, 17; Isaiah xiii., 10; Ezekiel xxxii., 7; Joel ii., 10; Psalm cxlviii., 3; Jeremiah xxxi., 35; Daniel xii., 3 380, 381

That the sun and moon are distinct lights.--Revelations vi., 12 380

That the sun and moon are lights to rule the day and night alternately, and to be "for signs and for seasons and for days and years."--Genesis i., 14-16; Psalm cxxxvi., 7-9; Jeremiah xxxi., 35; Ezekiel xxxii., 7, 8; Psalm cxlviii., 3; Isaiah xii., 10; Matthew xxiv., 29; Isaiah lx., 19, 20; Ecclesiastes xii., 2; Isaiah xxx., 26; Deuteronomy xxxiii., 14 378.

That the sun moves and is not a fixed body.--Psalm xix., 4-6; Ecclesiastes i., 5; Joshua x., 13; Judges v., 31; 2 Esdras iv., 34 369

That the supposition of the heavenly bodies being suns and systems of inhabited worlds is false.--Genesis 1.,1,16,17; Hebrews i., 2, xi., 3 372, 373

That the waters of the "great deep" sustain the land, and that there are waters below the earth.--Genesis xliv., 25; Exodus ix., 4; Deuteronomy iv., 18, xxxiii., 13 366

That where the word "world" is used in the plural number in Scripture, it means the material and spiritual world.--Hebrews ii., 5; Ephesians i., 21; Luke xviii., 29-30; Matthew xii., 32 374

The deluge consistent with the earth being a plane "founded on the seas."--Psalm civ., 6-8 395

Thus, the Bible is wrong, and so is, for different reason obviously, the Flat-Earth theory.

[Tom]

A question to all FETers out there: what would it take for you to believe in a round earth? What kind of evidence, argument, visual, etc. Would it take for you to revoke your FET views and become RETers?

Only the experiments and long distance observations with a spotting scope I'm doing at this very moment and in the next few weeks to come.

Three observations I did already. More to come.

Did you do any long distance observations?

[mousewalker]

A question to all FETers out there: what would it take for you to believe in a round earth? What kind of evidence, argument, visual, etc. Would it take for you to revoke your FET views and become RETers?

RET would have to resolve its multiple contradictions with observable reality, or provide a sufficient explanation for why observable reality should be discounted. In short: evidence.

If FETers truly are, as they claim, scientifically rigorous people, FET should change due to this issue with it.

And it does as new evidence is being discovered.

What contradictions list the top two.
new evidence the ISS? MOON LANDING?

[Pete Svarrior]

What contradictions list the top two.
new evidence the ISS? MOON LANDING?

Yes, those are good examples, although maybe not the top 2. I'd place them somewhere in the top 5.

The inconsistencies in the universe's supposed gravitational model are my personal favourites.

Also, please avoid necroing months-old posts. It's only by chance that I noticed you were addressing me. Most people don't revisit discussions a quarter of the year after they died off. I'd suggest that inn situations like that, you're better off just PM-ing the person you're trying to get an answer out of.

[Orbisect-64]

What will it take to make us believe RE?

Here is my input.


1) Allow citizens to go to Antarctica with full access and zero restrictions - including no restrictions on documenting equipment - and a live video feed. In addition, let citizens explore the North Pole unrestricted.


2) Give us full access to all NASA's documents with no restrictions; no matter the "national security" which is a term that can be used to censor evidence against them—all that is needed is a background check of each person proving them to be a loyal American citizen—you trust us, we will trust you; you don't trust us, we don't have to trust you - simple as that. All released documents must be uncensored (no blacked out words). Included in the documents must be all their test results from the IRAS probe. If they have told us the truth, they have NOTHING to fear from what we'll learn.


3) Give us full funding to do all the experiments we want. It's fair that if controlled independent organizations have been allowed to get full funding, then those holding a different opinion should be allowed full funding. WE will duplicate all their experiments and tests, and make up whatever tests we devise. If RE is true, they have NOTING to fear from what we'll learn.

3b) One experiment we'll perform is to send rockets straight up. If they don't hit the barrier (firmament), then RE if off to a great start. We will mount true-view cameras that face straight downward to the earth with a view below the rocket. And people from around the world will be allowed to bring their cameras to be mounted on the rocket - in fact cameras will be the entire payload - this way no one can say it was controlled by us, because people from around the world sent their cameras up. Every lens must be 55mm-65mm or higher (not fish-eye and GoPro), and each camera will be tested for accuracy before launch. As the rocked leaves earth, we will SEE if the earth turns into an unmistakable globe. Any sabotage of our rockets and equipment will be taken as evidence against RE and their proponents—but of course why would they do that when they have nothing to fear, because they're right.

3b) We will also send up another IRAS probe to duplicate their tests and verify their results. If they told the truth, they have nothing to fear from what we learn.


4) The scientific community needs to START being truthful.

Lene Hau proved in 1999 that light is not a constant, and a total of three independent scientific teams have discovered the same thing. The scientists have gone on the record stating that light is not a constant, and that relativity would only work in a vacuum. Because recent evidence states that the space above earth is full of plasma being held together by a glass-like container, this also means that the notion of space being a vacuum is a philosophy that has since proven untrue. Because the "space" above earth is filled with plasma, relativity can not work there because scientists stated that relativity would only work in a vacuum. Because the air on earth is filled with particles, gasses, moisture, energy, etc, relativity can not work on earth - because light changes properties (changes speed and bends) in fluids and gasses. Therefor the scientific community must recant relativity and all sciences based upon it - including gravity which does not work without relativity - gravity must be stricken from textbooks and the word must automatically be broadcast and verified all over the world media (news networks) every single day until we say to stop - just like they have no problem doing with 9/11 and everything else they love to shove down our throats day after day. "What goes up must come down" does not require gravity; it requires density. Once they RIGHTFULLY remove the pseudo-science of gravity, let's see how RE fares. If the earth is round, then they have nothing to fear from being honest.


5) Many projections of earth have been made; but we all know that none of them are perfectly accurate. It is ludicrous to say that it is impossible to make an accurate map. Simply: a) make an accurate representation the shape of earth; b) map earth's true land proportions over the shape. The total lack of accurate projections after thousands of years of map-making, cartography, and modern science, looks very suspicious. In the year 2015 we should all have a 100% accurate map; but we don't—You would THINK they were hiding something from us. Give us the real map and stop giving us fake projections that lie and we won't rightfully call them liars. Better yet, just let us make an accurate map according to what we find in our experiments. We will put together the largest team of independent cartographers ever assembled in the world to verify our results.


6) If RE is found BY US to be true - not just something someone told us to believe - then we will believe. But if RE does't pass our tests and scrutiny, then NASA must be automatically dismantled, and all those who supported the lie are to be held accountable at our discretion of the punishment—I believe all NASA personal and supporting scientists, as well as all the internet shills, should be sent into "space" in rockets—if they haven't lied to us about going into space, they of course they have absolutely nothing to fear—sweet justice! WE will then take over the science division. Our first act will be to abolish the term "science" because of the disgrace brought upon it. The new name we choose will come to be synonymous with truth and nature. . . totally unlike "science."



—

[garygreen]

IRAS sky survey data sets and documentation:

http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/Missions/iras.html

[Orbisect-64]

IRAS sky survey data sets and documentation:

http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/Missions/iras.html

Sorry, insufficient and incomplete data. As expected, they only give us just enough to keep us in the dark.


Regarding The Black Sun, Rahu, Nibiru, the 2nd Moon, 3753 Cruithne:

"The Washington Post published an interview with JPL scientists (Jet Propulsion Laboratory). Gerald Neugebauer, IRAS chief scientist said: "All I can say is that we know what it is." NASA observes Nibiru SPT from his new telescope located at the South Pole, all governments know this….” —Cosmoecóloga, 14/9/11

http://cosmoecologos.blogspot.com/2011/09/el-planeta-x-nibiru.html

So the IRAS scan gave them a good idea of what the "dark star" is; but they have no intention of letting us in on any of the details - which is why I know that link above is crap. This is why I said we would need all their data, and be able to duplicate their experiments, and then some.


—

[markjo]

Regarding The Black Sun, Rahu, Nibiru, the 2nd Moon, 3753 Cruithne:

"The Washington Post published an interview with JPL scientists (Jet Propulsion Laboratory). Gerald Neugebauer, IRAS chief scientist said: "All I can say is that we know what it is." NASA observes Nibiru SPT from his new telescope located at the South Pole, all governments know this….” —Cosmoecóloga, 14/9/11

http://cosmoecologos.blogspot.com/2011/09/el-planeta-x-nibiru.html

From your (Google translated) link:

By 14 February 2013, the earth it moves between the Sun and Nibiru, an unusual movement of the Poles, this tilt will cause changes The Earth, Earthquakes and tsunamis, and it is expected that by July 2014 Nibiru will be away from the earth.

Various information sources speculate that two thirds of the population will die, and the same ... those who survive the catastrophe might initially die by starvation and exposure to the elements within 6 months.

Dang it, did I miss the end of the world again?  I hate it when the world wide disaster strikes and no one tells me. 

[geckothegeek]

That's rubbish. We aren't religious freaks who believe for the sake of believing. Convince us it is round. I'd love to think its round. It would make my life easier. But its not. All the evidence points to it being flat.

As for Rowbotham and his PHD, its written in stone. It's on his tomb stone. What can't speak can't lie. Don't ignore facts. Embrace them and come to your own conclusions. Life isn't black and white.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=7368594&PIpi=625886

I could put anything I like on my gravestone. It proves absolutely nothing except my ability to make stuff up.

We have proved in other threads that Rowbotham was both a Dr of science (he got his PHD from the university of Edinburgh during his research on how phosphorus effects the human brain) and that he completed his MD and was in fact a Dr twice over. Hence Dr Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

And by the way, your claim PHDs did not exist before 1917 is ridiculous. Rowboham died in 1884, and that's how old that gravestone is. Why would Rowbotham have something written on his gravestone that doesn't exists for the next 30 years? Did he invent time travel as well?

And whilst the nature of a PhD has changed, Rowbowtham would still have qualified for a modern day version based on the work he did. Ergo, he made his own dissertations. You read one of them. Its called Earth not a Globe.

That is one of the most absurd claims I have ever heard. And we have checked on his attendance at the University of Edinburgh and found no evidence of it. How do you make your own dissertations that qualify for a degree that isn't granted yet?! That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard said at any place and at any time!

Its very easy to put something on your gravestone that isn't granted in your country. People knew what a PhD was. Its just that British universities didn't grant them.

Of  course, arguing with Thork is like arguing with a wine bottle, I understand that. But anyone who questions whether Britain granted the PhD is welcome to look that up. A quick look on the web will tell you that it no university in the country did until 1917. And we have never seen any evidence of how he got his MD, for that matter. Perhaps you would guide me to those threads that you claim exist with that proof. But I recall the threads in question, and I specifically remember that you were not able tocome up with bubkis.

I remember this from a previous thread on The Flat Earth Society Forum website.
I checked on this myself with University of Edinburgh and they had no records of a Samuel Birley Rowbotham ever attending the University at any time.

One legend is that the PhD on the gravestone was put there by Rowbotham's wife at a later date.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Without going into ungodly detail, Germany in 1871 and its predecessor States prior to that date (which was the date of its unification under the Kings of Prussia [they became the Emperors of Germany]) did grant the PhD. The United States began granting it at Yale in 1861, if memory serves me well. British universities, in the United Kingdom or anywhere in Britain's Empire DID NOT grant it until 1917.

There is no evidence that Rowbotham ever left the United Kingdom, let alone attended Yale, or any other foreign university, be it in the United States, or in Germany or its predecessor States. In fact, in 1861 we know well what he was doing, which was criss-crossing the country (Great Britain) preaching his nonsense. And before that he was in a commune, in the which he was unfairly accused of engaging in inappropriate sexual activity. He could NOT have left the country AFTER 1861 without it being noticed, since we know what he was doing during that time in his life.

Prior to 1861, he would have had to speak German to get his degree. There is certainly no evidence that he did speak said language. There is no evidence that he studied at any university there, either. Certainly it has never been claimed that he did.

And German is NOT a language that you just casually pick up. I know this, since I am studying it myself. And I am good with languages.

So the fact that Rowbotham writes a book in NO way makes it a dissertation. I am writing a book. That doesn't make it  a dissertation. I hope it will be a good book. In fact, I hope it will be widely used as a textbook. But that doesn't mean it will somehow magically turn into a dissertation. To make such a claim is patently ridiculous. Hopefully now this subject can be dispensed with? It is getting rather boring, really.

[garygreen]

IRAS sky survey data sets and documentation:

http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/Missions/iras.html

Sorry, insufficient and incomplete data. As expected, they only give us just enough to keep us in the dark.


Regarding The Black Sun, Rahu, Nibiru, the 2nd Moon, 3753 Cruithne:

"The Washington Post published an interview with JPL scientists (Jet Propulsion Laboratory). Gerald Neugebauer, IRAS chief scientist said: "All I can say is that we know what it is." NASA observes Nibiru SPT from his new telescope located at the South Pole, all governments know this….” —Cosmoecóloga, 14/9/11

http://cosmoecologos.blogspot.com/2011/09/el-planeta-x-nibiru.html

So the IRAS scan gave them a good idea of what the "dark star" is; but they have no intention of letting us in on any of the details - which is why I know that link above is crap. This is why I said we would need all their data, and be able to duplicate their experiments, and then some.


—

The Washington Post article has been misquoted: "So mysterious is the object that astronomers do not know if it is a planet, a giant comet, a nearby "protostar" that never got hot enough to become a star, a distant galaxy so young that it is still in the process of forming its first stars or a galaxy so shrouded in dust that none of the light cast by its stars ever gets through.

"All I can tell you is that we don't know what it is," Dr. Gerry Neugebauer..."

There isn't anything mysterious about those observations.  The IRAS data is publicly available and has been scrutinized by other scientists who have since published their analyses of the unidentified infrared sources you describe:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985AJ.....90.2203A
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988ApJ...328..530E
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985ApJ...290L...5H

You do not explain in what sense the IRAS data sets I linked are insufficient or incomplete.