The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: ElTrancy on January 04, 2019, 04:02:09 PM
-
A common "explanation" of why there are no definitive maps or measurements for a flat Earth is Tom and his team don't have the time or resources. I'm gonna quote my science teacher on this one. "If you are not willing to put in the time, then your hypothesis is virtually useless." The internet is a powerful resource, and can easily be used by anyone on this site. There are probably tens of thousands of people who you can connect with at any point in time. Here's a great way to use this resource: break up the time, and resources required among hundreds of members across the world. Instead of one person doing all the work, I'm sure hundreds, thousands even, could easily take the time to combine their information. If the Flat Earth society has the time to create a meeting, and multiple websites, then they have time to gather people and find out if the world is actually spherical, or history for the past 2000 years has been wrong.
-
We have. There's no need to create a map to establish this simple fact. Your issue appears to be that you want us to use our resources extremely inefficiently for your own satisfaction. I suggest that you manage your own resources however you please, but perhaps stay out of how others manage their own time.
-
We have. There's no need to create a map to establish this simple fact. Your issue appears to be that you want us to use our resources extremely inefficiently for your own satisfaction. I suggest that you manage your own resources however you please, but perhaps stay out of how others manage their own time.
It is an interesting suggestion though, a big collaboration project like that can be done with people who think the earth is flat or round but then if one cannot trust scientific data then how can one trust random internet people? The data could easily be skewed by trolls or people with bias views. It's a conundrum for the average flat earther as you'd end up having to do all the work for yourself just to confirm other peoples findings and that just isn't possible in one persons lifetime.
though the modern structure of human society is somewhat teamwork. You trust a factory worker you've never met to assemble your mobile phones, you trust people to make your clothes for you. You trust a doctor who prescribes you treatment for whatever illnesses you may end up with. In the end, every human really does this for their own gain (mostly) but it's teamwork nonetheless. Team Earth could map the world in a day using modern technology and communications but I think the vast majority of the world population would be unwilling to help unless they gain something too.
Anyway, if somehow TFES managed to get someone from every city and corner of the earth to participate for maybe a day, how would you utilise this group of people to map the world? If it's not possible with that many people spread out within a day, I don't think it would ever happen without individual incentive.
-
We have. There's no need to create a map to establish this simple fact. Your issue appears to be that you want us to use our resources extremely inefficiently for your own satisfaction. I suggest that you manage your own resources however you please, but perhaps stay out of how others manage their own time.
Without a map you can never accurately prove a lot of given "evidence" like how sun and moon cycles work, distances between places. Unless the majority agree on the same exact map, then how can round earther's take you seriously?
-
how can round earther's take you seriously?
Why would that be a priority? Our movement is growing. People realise the value of direct observation and trusting what they can verify by themselves. Why should we care about those who'd rather blindly follow what they're told? It won't matter. It won't change their minds, and it will have wasted our time.
The other day, a fairly large Twitter pop-sci account reposted That Everest Photo (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10606.0) as an argument against us. This garnered thousands of positive responses, as per usual. Any responses that accurately pointed out the optics involved were met with ridicule by mindless drones who only care about feeling smug, regardless of how correct they might be. After all, a member of a tribe that isn't my own can't ever be right.
Why would we care about whether or not those people "take us seriously"?
-
Couldn't agree with you more Pete. Why should it matter whether people take you seriously or not. We are all entitled to think what we want aren't we. You mention that your movement is growing which reminds me to ask you again how many members you have exactly.
I completely agree with you that direct observation and trusting what you can verify yourself is important. My observations tell me one thing, yours tell you another. I certainly don't simply trust what I am told or everything I read. That would be somewhat naïve wouldn't it. I make my mind up according to what I think rather than what others tell me and I seem to be getting along just fine up to now.
-
Why would we care about whether or not those people "take us seriously"?
However you might consider whether you want the scientific establishment to take you seriously. Let’s consider why you might.
Your example firmly demonstrates that in social media, many ‘round earthers’ have as weak a grasp of the scientific method as the ‘flat earthers’. (I don’t like that flat earth/round earth distinction, I prefer the distinction between those who fully grasp and practice the scientific method, and those who don’t).
1. The establishment controls all teaching and education, and thus controls how many people think throughout their life.
2. The establishment acquires significant funding for ‘research’ projects that further strengthen its grip on society.
3. The establishment has significant influence in the media.
To break this control, you need to engage the establishment on its own terms. A few well-crafted papers addressing the basic facts would be enough. For example, a study of aircraft routes and flight times should be enough to show whether the geometry proposed by the establishment is correct.
People realise the value of direct observation and trusting what they can verify by themselves.
Absolutely. Why not put those facts into a research paper?
-
edby, I don't think this is a job for the Flat Earth Society. In my personal life, I already do some work to try and make an impact on higher education (like you, I also don't focus on RE vs FE, but rather on independent thinking and the students' ability to solve their own problems without becoming overly dependent on authorities). It's but a drop in the sea, but hey, it's something. I strongly doubt that bringing the FES badge into these efforts would help - rather, the siege mentality of the establishment would act to everyone's detriment.
The FES are doing great at engaging the media, and those directly reach a very wide audience. Those who cannot be taught respond with mockery, sure, but for every however many scoffers, we get one or two people who realise the benefits of our way of thinking. We might not be able to single-handedly fix the world, but we're still happy to contribute.
-
Pete, you say that the FES is doing great at engaging the media but away from this website I don't hear anyone talking about it on mainstream TV or radio. The FE movement seems to be very small in the context of the worlds developed population and this is perhaps an example of them exercising what you would probably call their right to independent thought. They are making up their own minds as you do. Through specific channels I am sure the FE movement is doing great. What do you think IS the job of the FES? To try to persuade more people over to your point of view or to simply state your point of view and then leave it to others to make up their own minds.
I have watched many BBC documentaries over the Christmas and New Year period featuring several very prominent and well known presenters. Sir David Attenborough being one of them and if anyone has seen a lot of all parts of the world Sir David is one of them. At no point, to the best of my knowledge has he ever mentioned about the Earth being flat. His present concerns and rightly so in my mind are more focused towards how the use and discarding of plastics across the world is impacting the natural world and its subsequent effect on climate change for future generations.
Sir David is not a one man band of course and he is one small part of a very large team of background researchers to name but a few. I have never heard them mock any of the views that you support. Come to think of it I haven't heard them mention anything about a FET.
-
Pete, you say that the FES is doing great at engaging the media but away from this website I don't hear anyone talking about it on mainstream TV or radio.
I can't help you with that. If you don't want to read our media coverage, I won't force you. If you do, it's a quick Google News search away.
Edit: there is also this list (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8822.0), which I last updated in February of 2018. Perhaps I should pick it back up.
-
Pete, you say that the FES is doing great at engaging the media but away from this website I don't hear anyone talking about it on mainstream TV or radio.
I can't help you with that. If you don't want to read our media coverage, I won't force you. […]
I don't think shootingstar is asking for your help. He is suggesting perhaps that FES public relations is not working as well as it might. I.e. he is not hearing anything on mainstream TV or radio, which is still the touchstone of a successful media campaign, like it or not.
-
No, a single individual's reach is not a touchstone of any campaign - that's nonsense. It's the numbers that count. Perhaps unsurprisingly, shootingstar is exactly the type of person I already highlighted as not a priority.
Since he seems to be located in the UK, he had every chance of, for example, watching the BBC making fun of us on Have I Got News For You, and of listening to some of my live interviews on talkRADIO within the last year. But, again, I can't force him to follow our coverage. It doesn't make it any less present or impactful.
-
And why would that be then Pete. Are you belittling me just because I don't happen to agree with you? That is the starting point for healthy debate surely. I have checked through a few of the links in that list that you have kindly pointed to. Not all entirely in favour of FE theory if you ask me.
-
No, a single individual's reach is not a touchstone of any campaign - that's nonsense. It's the numbers that count. Perhaps unsurprisingly, shootingstar is exactly the type of person I already highlighted as not a priority.
I didn't say that. I said that the mark of a successful campaign is to get (positive) coverage in the mass media. And yes it is the numbers that count.
-
But I already demonstrated we get that coverage before you made your point. Are you just agreeing with me while maintaining a tone of disagreement?
-
Yes but not all that coverage seems to be entirely supportive of FE does it. Having media coverage is one thing but more than anything else in the world, the media is capable of making its own mind up about what it supports and what it doesn't.
-
Yes but not all that coverage seems to be entirely supportive of FE does it.
We've already dealt with this.
The FES are doing great at engaging the media, and those directly reach a very wide audience. Those who cannot be taught respond with mockery, sure, but for every however many scoffers, we get one or two people who realise the benefits of our way of thinking. We might not be able to single-handedly fix the world, but we're still happy to contribute.
The coverage does not have to be supportive of us for it to spread awareness and allow the right type of person to evaluate the movement.
-
But I already demonstrated we get that coverage before you made your point. Are you just agreeing with me while maintaining a tone of disagreement?
Oh I see. You were contradicting his claim that there is little mainstream coverage, adding that if he can't be bothered to access that coverage, you can't help. Fair enough, and I stand corrected.
-
The coverage does not have to be supportive of us for it to spread awareness
No doesn't but non-supportive publicity is hardly going to spread awareness in the way that you want it to is it. I thought that the point of advertising and marketting a product is to increase the size of that market. There is the old saying that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
Funding is a huge help to many of the larger societies in the world. It gives them spending power to put toward advertising campaigns etc. Unless it was different in the past (before I knew of its existence at least) I wonder how many people who have joined FES would have done so if they had to pay a subscription to it?
-
I don't care if the people who come here are supportive or not. If someone wants to do hours of research for us on a topic, to describe and expose phenomenon, that is fine with me. All of it is helpful.
What is not helpful is deliberate deception, however, and those people should be banned.
-
Who is deceiving you Tom. Having a different opinion is not deception and there are no grounds for banning someone just because they disagree with you.
-
I don't care if the people who come here are supportive or not. If someone wants to do hours of research for us on a topic, to describe and expose phenomenon, that is fine with me. All of it is helpful.
What is not helpful is deliberate deception, however, and those people should be banned.
Of course. But saying something in the belief that it is true is not deception even if the belief turns out to be false.
-
I don't care if the people who come here are supportive or not. If someone wants to do hours of research for us on a topic, to describe and expose phenomenon, that is fine with me. All of it is helpful.
What is not helpful is deliberate deception, however, and those people should be banned.
We should discuss what it required to determine the shape and size of a large object like the earth. Measurements of lengths and angles is a good start. Ideas please.
-
Isn't that exactly what Eratosthenes did all that time ago and came to a value for the circumference of the Earth that was remarkably close to the modern measured value? His method involved measuring distances and angles.
-
how can round earther's take you seriously?
Why would that be a priority? Our movement is growing.
The movement may be growing, but according to Alexa, this society is trending the other way. However, you may have social media metrics that make up for it, not sure. Personally, I think Alexa ranks are anecdotal and have become the 'Neilsons' of the web. So taken with a grain of salt.
(https://i.imgur.com/GSmhiI4.jpg)
-
It's a shame the graph only goes back so far. As with many nebulous statistics, you can draw more or less whatever picture you'd like. Something like a 12-18 months ago, we experienced a sudden spike from the 200k+ range to 80-90k. What you're seeing is not a downward trend, but the end of a boom that honestly shouldn't have happened in the first place. Some of my tweets garnered a little bit more attention than they should have, which generated a bunch of media buzz.
Here's a longer-term trend on Google Analytics, data only for the FE wiki (our most-visited service by far), with monthly granularity.
(https://i.imgur.com/m8BmYie.png)
Of course, I do acknowledge that we're not currently on the front page of Reddit as we were on the 16th of March 2018 (that day alone is responsible that March spike), but even then I think it's fair to say that the past 2 years have been good for us :)
I have access to a good amount of stats - if there's something specific you'd like to know, I'd be happy to look it up.
Our social media accounts have been growing steadily and stably, with much more success on Twitter than Facebook:
https://socialblade.com/twitter/user/flatearthorg/monthly
https://socialblade.com/facebook/page/flatsoc
That's my own fault. I find Twitter much more intuitive from a creator's perspective.
On a separate note, I (and I suspect others) have no intention of trying to monopolise the FE movement. I'm happy to make a contribution, regardless of how large it is at any given point in time. If the FE movement is growing (and I think that's currently indisputable), then we're doing something right as a community.
-
Such graphs are a bit like political opinion polls and the politicians take a selective view on those. I repeat the point I made earlier about how popular the FES would remain if it was only accessible via subscription. The 'other' website as is often mentioned on here I notice invites donations but associate membership (whatever that means) is free. The requirement to send off personal details put me off that.
-
Such graphs are a bit like political opinion polls and the politicians take a selective view on those.
Is repeating things I said while pretending it's a novel point a personal hobby of yours?
-
Is repeating things I said while pretending it's a novel point a personal hobby of yours?
Since you have already made clear that my opinions and questions are not one of your priorities Pete why should be matter to you whether I repeat things or not. Is not answers some of the questions I have put to you previously a personal hobby of yours?
-
Since you have already made clear that my opinions and questions are not one of your priorities Pete why should be matter to you whether I repeat things or not
Because you're sitting on 2 warnings for off-topic posting in the upper fora, primarily. I'm trying to figure out if it's time for a 3rd.
-
Most of my posts are asking questions and then trying to get the thread back on topic after others have drifted off it so I don't know when I have qualified for those warnings. Other members are much better at going off topic than I am in my view.
-
We have. There's no need to create a map to establish this simple fact. Your issue appears to be that you want us to use our resources extremely inefficiently for your own satisfaction. I suggest that you manage your own resources however you please, but perhaps stay out of how others manage their own time.
Without a map you can never accurately prove a lot of given "evidence" like how sun and moon cycles work, distances between places. Unless the majority agree on the same exact map, then how can round earther's take you seriously?
Somebody explain how the sun and moon cycles were adequately explained by ancient people who held to the flat earth.
Why should we repeat what was already explained by those prior civilizations?
Why do we care if RET takes FET seriously?
You could care less if FET takes RET seriously.
Please check your pompous behavior at the door.
Nobody is engaged in proselytizing here except for you and your ilk.
-
Somebody explain how the sun and moon cycles were adequately explained by ancient people who held to the flat earth.
I imagine that they believed that the sun and moon went around the flat earth in the sense that the sun was above the earth during the day and below the earth at night and the moon the opposite. How they accounted for lunar phases I don't know.
This belief actually makes sense with a local perspective. The sun looks like it's coming up from below the edge of the earth in the morning and going back below the edge of the earth in the evening. We still use the words "sunrise" and "sunset" today as though it's the sun which is moving. So with a local perspective it would be reasonable to believe that when it was day it was day everywhere on earth and when it was night it was night everywhere on earth. Now we know better of course.
-
Somebody explain how the sun and moon cycles were adequately explained by ancient people who held to the flat earth.
I imagine that they believed that the sun and moon went around the flat earth in the sense that the sun was above the earth during the day and below the earth at night and the moon the opposite. How they accounted for lunar phases I don't know.
This belief actually makes sense with a local perspective. The sun looks like it's coming up from below the edge of the earth in the morning and going back below the edge of the earth in the evening. We still use the words "sunrise" and "sunset" today as though it's the sun which is moving. So with a local perspective it would be reasonable to believe that when it was day it was day everywhere on earth and when it was night it was night everywhere on earth. Now we know better of course.
Point is it doesn't matter what your imagination is or what your beliefs are.
Those adherents to FE in ancient times had perfectly outlined all those observable "signs in the sky," based on FE.
-
From what I have read about astronomers and philosphers in 'ancient times' they seemed to latch on pretty quickly to the idea that the Earth is round and if they could figure it out from empirical evidence alone then I can't see what the problem is today... Aristarchus for example used his observations of the first quarter Moon alone to realise the Sun was bigger and further away than the Moon and that a lunar eclipse was due to the Moon crossing the Earths shadow. He was just using his own eyes to do that. Noticing that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon was curved that suggested quite sensibly that the Earth was therefore round.
He saw that with his own eyes and so had no reason to disbelieve it or accuse someone else of deceiving him.
-
We have. There's no need to create a map to establish this simple fact. Your issue appears to be that you want us to use our resources extremely inefficiently for your own satisfaction. I suggest that you manage your own resources however you please, but perhaps stay out of how others manage their own time.
Without a map you can never accurately prove a lot of given "evidence" like how sun and moon cycles work, distances between places. Unless the majority agree on the same exact map, then how can round earther's take you seriously?
Somebody explain how the sun and moon cycles were adequately explained by ancient people who held to the flat earth.
Why should we repeat what was already explained by those prior civilizations?
Why do we care if RET takes FET seriously?
You could care less if FET takes RET seriously.
Please check your pompous behavior at the door.
Nobody is engaged in proselytizing here except for you and your ilk.
AllAroundTheWorld answered your first question. To your second, I'd like to quote George Santayana "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Prior civilizations are also the ones who discovered the Earth was round. Why can't we repeat what they already explained? Correcting older civilizations on their falsities. You should care because if you ever want to be known in the scientific world, and not be shunned by most scientists, then you're going to need a map to explain your claims.
"Nobody is engaged in proselytizing here except for you and your ilk." With this sentence I has officially heard the stupidest thing ever. This entire website is here to change peoples beliefs by showing the "evidence" of a flat earth. Is that not proselytizing?
-
We have. There's no need to create a map to establish this simple fact. Your issue appears to be that you want us to use our resources extremely inefficiently for your own satisfaction. I suggest that you manage your own resources however you please, but perhaps stay out of how others manage their own time.
Honestly I don't want you to use your resources extremely inefficiently. As according to Tom, you don't have those. I'd like to point out things that cannot be proved without a map:
Plate tectonics (And everything including them: Volcanoes, Earthquakes, ect ect)
Sun & moon cycles.
Seasons
The Ice wall
Distances between places (That actually make sense on a flat map)
So basically your entire movement depends on a map that nobody can seem to make ;D
-
From what I have read about astronomers and philosphers in 'ancient times' they seemed to latch on pretty quickly to the idea that the Earth is round and if they could figure it out from empirical evidence alone then I can't see what the problem is today... Aristarchus for example used his observations of the first quarter Moon alone to realise the Sun was bigger and further away than the Moon and that a lunar eclipse was due to the Moon crossing the Earths shadow. He was just using his own eyes to do that. Noticing that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon was curved that suggested quite sensibly that the Earth was therefore round.
He saw that with his own eyes and so had no reason to disbelieve it or accuse someone else of deceiving him.
Funny how the new fangled RE approach, even in those times, did not result in any changes in the predicted timing of events as witnessed in the heavens above...
We have. There's no need to create a map to establish this simple fact. Your issue appears to be that you want us to use our resources extremely inefficiently for your own satisfaction. I suggest that you manage your own resources however you please, but perhaps stay out of how others manage their own time.
Without a map you can never accurately prove a lot of given "evidence" like how sun and moon cycles work, distances between places. Unless the majority agree on the same exact map, then how can round earther's take you seriously?
Somebody explain how the sun and moon cycles were adequately explained by ancient people who held to the flat earth.
Why should we repeat what was already explained by those prior civilizations?
Why do we care if RET takes FET seriously?
You could care less if FET takes RET seriously.
Please check your pompous behavior at the door.
Nobody is engaged in proselytizing here except for you and your ilk.
AllAroundTheWorld answered your first question.
Where?
To your second, I'd like to quote George Santayana "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Prior civilizations are also the ones who discovered the Earth was round. Why can't we repeat what they already explained?
You can.
Correcting older civilizations on their falsities.
Horse hockey.
You should care because if you ever want to be known in the scientific world, and not be shunned by most scientists, then you're going to need a map to explain your claims.
Do you regularly appeal to numbers when engaged in discussion?
Mass acceptance is important to you?
"Nobody is engaged in proselytizing here except for you and your ilk." With this sentence I has officially heard the stupidest thing ever. This entire website is here to change peoples beliefs by showing the "evidence" of a flat earth. Is that not proselytizing?
I am not out to change anyone's belief system.
And I challenge you to find anything in writing on this site stating the objective is to change belief sets held by anyone.
-
So basically your entire movement depends on a map that nobody can seem to make ;D
I already acknowledged and addressed your opinion. What we do is working very well, as evidenced by the movement's growth. The fact that dogmatic opponents of Zetetic inquiry will not be convinced by it is a non-issue. We have better things to focus on.
-
So basically your entire movement depends on a map that nobody can seem to make ;D
I already acknowledged and addressed your opinion. What we do is working very well, as evidenced by the movement's growth. The fact that dogmatic opponents of Zetetic inquiry will not be convinced by it is a non-issue. We have better things to focus on.
What are you focusing on? Surely confirming the shape and size of this object we sit on is a bit important.
-
What are you focusing on?
The Flat Earth Society is a group actively promoting and popularising the Flat Earth Movement worldwide. In addition, it aims to archive and document materials pertaining to the Flat Earth Theory for future generations of researchers.
I hope this helps.
-
What are you focusing on?
The Flat Earth Society is a group actively promoting and popularising the Flat Earth Movement worldwide. In addition, it aims to archive and document materials pertaining to the Flat Earth Theory for future generations of researchers.
I hope this helps.
But not actually carrying out any investigations, measurements or research to show the validity of any previous documents?
-
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.
-
Why Pete do you describe anyone who doesn't necessarily agree with the opinions of FES as your 'enemies'? There is no war going on here as far as I can tell... just normal healthy discussion and debate.
-
Why Pete do you describe anyone who doesn't necessarily agree with the opinions of FES as your 'enemies'? There is no war going on here as far as I can tell... just normal healthy discussion and debate.
By definition I suppose it is true though, anyone opposed to you is an "enemy" to an extent. It is a harsh word though as it suggests hostility which I guess in heated debates you could argue that it can get hostile. I don't consider anyone my "enemy" just for being flat earthers but I have also received hostility with one flat earther making a thread about me to insult me, I guess he certainly sees me as "the enemy". I'm rather emotionless though so maybe I am being perceived as hostile for debating with flat eathers and I just don't notice it myself. On the other hand there are some really dumb and hostile round earther trolls that join up to say dumb and insulting stuff to FE'ers. It works both ways but not everyone here is trying to be hostile. Pete, I hope you don't see yourself as the enemy of round earth.
Regarding the 'focus' of FET, as there are categories on this forum for debate and investigations into flat earth vs round earth I hope that means you openly invite opposition to flat earth? debate is healthy in the growth of knowledge and understanding and I hope you don't see that as hostility.
-
Why Pete do you describe anyone who doesn't necessarily agree with the opinions of FES as your 'enemies'?
I don't. Consider reading what I said again.
Pete, I hope you don't see yourself as the enemy of round earth.
That depends on the flavour of "round Earth", really. Some here make it extremely obvious that they're not here to discuss, but rather to lie their way through debates in an attempt to stifle the movement, or perhaps just because they find it entertaining.
-
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.
-
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.
Quality, over quantity. We want people who think for themselves, not people who parrot a different set of dogma.
-
Some here make it extremely obvious that they're not here to discuss, but rather to lie their way through debates in an attempt to stifle the movement
Well I can't speak for others obviously but I am happy to put on record that I am not here to lie about anything. That would be neither constructive or productive. Everything I say is true to the best of my knowledge. Whether flat Earthers choose to believe or accept that is up to them. Where I believe flat Earthers to be wrong in what they say I will say so.
-
From what I have read about astronomers and philosphers in 'ancient times' they seemed to latch on pretty quickly to the idea that the Earth is round and if they could figure it out from empirical evidence alone then I can't see what the problem is today... Aristarchus for example used his observations of the first quarter Moon alone to realise the Sun was bigger and further away than the Moon and that a lunar eclipse was due to the Moon crossing the Earths shadow. He was just using his own eyes to do that. Noticing that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon was curved that suggested quite sensibly that the Earth was therefore round.
He saw that with his own eyes and so had no reason to disbelieve it or accuse someone else of deceiving him.
I apologize, I had read AllAroundTheWorld's post and had their name in my mind. But shootingstar did answer your question
-
Isn't that exactly what Eratosthenes did all that time ago and came to a value for the circumference of the Earth that was remarkably close to the modern measured value? His method involved measuring distances and angles.
As did Norwood's method, in the 1600s, and that of the French Geodesic Mission, in the 1700s. Both came out with, within reasonable bounds of error for the time, the same figure.
-
We do that daily.
(that is "investigations, measurements or research to show the validity of any previous documents")
What have you done in (say) the last week in this vein?