9101

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A refutation of RE that RE-ers will accept - experiment at home on 20th March

« on: March 26, 2016, 04:49:34 PM »

The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

I wasn't able to check the sun's position at noon (and I probably wouldn't if I was able), but I used Stellarium and found the sun's inclination to be 51.7° at culmination.  This makes sense, as my latitude is 38.53 N.  If we are to trust Stellarium (and we absolutely are) then we haven't disproven RET at all. 

Anything else?

Rama, surely you aren't that dense. Stellarium isn't experimental or observational evidence. It's a computer program.

The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!

But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.

So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."

If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.

9102

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A refutation of RE that RE-ers will accept - experiment at home on 20th March

« on: March 25, 2016, 11:58:10 PM »

The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

9103

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The dimensions of the Earth will not fit on a Flat Surface

« on: March 18, 2016, 08:31:38 PM »

Please provide your evidence.

Evidence of what?

No, I didn't pace out each degree from the equator to the north pole!
No, I didn't pace out each degree around the equator!

Please provide your evidence for those distances, whether it was collected by yourself or others.

9104

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should anyone believe the earth is flat?

« on: March 17, 2016, 06:21:21 AM »

How does it answer the question on how the full moon appears to be full for everybody though, from the peremiter of the night shadow to people standing directly beneath it?

I believe that perspective behaves differently than is assumed by classical Ancient Greek perspective over very large distances. When the moon sets you are not looking at its "side". There are no real world examples to tell us the truth of perspective at large scales, and it is a matter left to assumption.

Imagine that we have a giant solved rubix cube:



When the rubix cube is 10 feet above you imagine that we are looking at its white underside. It is directly over you and we can only see white. Now imagine that the rubix cube starts slowly receding away from you into the distance. You will quickly see one of colors sides of the cube as it recedes and changes angle. It will get far enough that the white bottom of the cube will go away and you will only see it from the colored side.

Now imagine that we have a giant rubix cube 30,000 feet above you. It is directly over you. When the rubix cube recedes away from you into the distance, it will take much longer for you to see the colored side of the rubix cube, and for the white bottom to go away.

We assert that the sun and moon are at such a great distance in the sky that they hardly change angle at all when they move over the observer's limited viewing area.

9105

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should anyone believe the earth is flat?

« on: March 17, 2016, 05:52:29 AM »

The diagram on the right is how I interpret the geometry at the time of a full moon. Note that the distances are to scale, but the object sizes are exaggerated (though the sun and the moon are to scale with each other). The sun and moon are placed 180° apart on the equator as they must be for a full moon.   

Now, could someone please explain:
How the moon gets any illumination from the sun at all[3]. Are we to postulate a "special ray of light" from the sun, just to illuminate the moon? With the geometry on the right the viewer directly under the moon would see a half-moon, the other view (the moon should be on the horizon) would see closer to (but not quite) a full moon.
How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it full - as we know happens if real life?
How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it the same size - as we know happens if real life?

The sun shines light from all directions on its surface. It's not a lamp. It's light is limited in its duration across the earth's surface because of the not-perfectly-transparent atmosphere, and its decent into the surface is an illusion of perspective.

The sun and moon at a level of about 3000 miles above the earth are not within the atmosphere of the earth, and so the light between those two objects is unimpeded.

[1] A "a shadow from the sun illuminating", a shadow illuminating, really? Some better wording is surely called for!

[2] The Wiki also says the moon "wobbles" up and down, but I fail to see how a "wobble" can help with the moon some 12,000 miles from the sun.

[3] Remember we are assured that "a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time." So, presumably the moon gets its illumination from the sun.

In the sentence "When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time."  it clearly says that the sun is the thing doing the illuminating in that sentence. The words sun and illuminating are directly next to each other, while shadow and illuminating are not. We've explained this to you several times now.

9106

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the Sun

« on: March 17, 2016, 05:45:40 AM »

Hello fellow truthseekers,

I have found the wiki to be of adequate explanations regarding the Earth, but what about the Sun? Do we know its origin? Its composition? And where does the light and heat come from?

Thanks! Hope this isn't a redundant post.

The origin and interior of the sun are unknown.

9107

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should anyone believe the earth is flat?

« on: March 15, 2016, 03:50:26 AM »

[How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?

There are many observations that can be made with binoculars, a relatively cheap telescope, and using some math.

The ISS can be viewed with the naked eye, binoculars, and telescopes.  With binoculars I have been able to make out the solar panels.

Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel.  The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told.  It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed.  Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from.

Iridium flares can be observed.  They first started becoming visible around the late 1990's.  You can find plenty of sources to tell you when and where to look.

You can take long exposures of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be.


You can try things like this:
http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/

IMHO if the search for truth is TFES objective they really do not seem to be trying too hard to seek out that truth.  My guess one reason not doing two or more of the above is that it will offer evidence that space travel happens, those pictures from space agencies are real and that is damning evidence against the Earth being flat.

Nothing about that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe earth.

I assume you still have access to the telescope you used for the Bishop Experiment. You have access to the internet since you can post in these forums.  You got all the tools you need to find out the how, when and where to observe the ISS.  Something is up there, moving faster then any plane I have seen.  Viewing it through my binoculars I could make out the general shape and solar panels. 

Figuring out where satellite dishes using the same satellite are pointed can give you a pretty good idea of the altitude of the source of the signal.  Same reason why almost since radio was invented the source of the signal could be located.  If you are really meticulous and exact you should get a very good estimate of the location the satellite signal is coming from.  Is there a flaw in my logic?  Satellite dishes using the same satellite need to be set at different elevations and directions in different locations.  If you get LOP's that show an altitude in the atmosphere then you have evidence that space flight is a lie.

Find reports for the Iridium flares prior to the late 90's?  Reason I am using the Iridium satellites is they are usually the brightest things in the night sky. 

You can combine the long exposure pictures with the SatTV suggestion.  Do they at least reasonably coincide?  Is there any documentation prior to spaceflight observations of these things not moving in the night sky?

You can not track a satellite and at least note the amount of time you were able to track it?  You can not do this?  https://amateurgeophysics.wordpress.com/earth-orbiting-satellites/the-doppler-shift-of-satellite-radio-beacons/

If I wanted to prove space travel is impossible I would not just say it is.  I would look for ways to prove to myself or others I am right and if within my means would do so.  The above are the cheapest and relatively easiest ways I could think of to gather data and evidence.

Edit: If you can determine that something man made is up there then at the very least it should help to refine the FE model.  Like the altitude of what I will call the can not pass line.  Not 100% sure where space starts on the FE model.

Again, none of that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe.

9108

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality

« on: March 15, 2016, 03:34:49 AM »

It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.

Correlation does not equal causation, Tom.  There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.

Both Hampden and Wallace had referees. Their referees looked into the telescope and sided with their clients.

Actually Hampden's referee signed off on a picture demonstrating that the middle marker was higher than the outside markers, indicated the Earth is round.

The experiment is out the window because it was a wager. It is not really permissible as evidence to either side of the argument.

So then I assume you will amend the wiki to say as much, in the interest of completeness?  Also, the wiki should be amended because it says that Wallace cheated, which is patently untrue.  He was forced to give the winnings back because those types of wagers were not permitted and nothing to do with cheating.

Perhaps Pizza Planet or Thork will look over the subject matter. It's not an article I wrote or really have an interest in.

9109

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality

« on: March 13, 2016, 08:55:31 PM »

It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.

Correlation does not equal causation, Tom.  There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.

Both Hampden and Wallace had referees. Their referees looked into the telescope and sided with their clients.

The experiment is out the window because it was a wager. It is not really permissible as evidence to either side of the argument.

9110

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality

« on: March 13, 2016, 08:53:42 PM »

It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.

So you will now omit all reference to the Bedford Canal experiment!

Not all of the Bedford Canal experiments were wagers for a year's pay. Only one of them was.

You do realise that even an atmospheric refraction of 0.5° can make an object at sea-level visible at 30 miles.
The only way to check this sort of thing is to do repeated measurements at various times of the day.
The images in this reference show what can happen http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz904.htm.

So this effect happens whenever the experiment is performed and places the object into the air at the exact height it would need to be, no higher and no lower, to simulate the experience of a Flat Earth?

That's amazing, if so.

9111

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should anyone believe the earth is flat?

« on: March 13, 2016, 08:48:47 PM »

[How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?

There are many observations that can be made with binoculars, a relatively cheap telescope, and using some math.

The ISS can be viewed with the naked eye, binoculars, and telescopes.  With binoculars I have been able to make out the solar panels.

Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel.  The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told.  It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed.  Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from.

Iridium flares can be observed.  They first started becoming visible around the late 1990's.  You can find plenty of sources to tell you when and where to look.

You can take long exposures of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be.


You can try things like this:
http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/

IMHO if the search for truth is TFES objective they really do not seem to be trying too hard to seek out that truth.  My guess one reason not doing two or more of the above is that it will offer evidence that space travel happens, those pictures from space agencies are real and that is damning evidence against the Earth being flat.

Nothing about that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe earth.

9112

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: March 13, 2016, 08:22:21 PM »

We don't really care about a video critique of a youtube group of investigators who seek to "expose the global conspiracy from Atlantis to Zion". We are partial to Rowbotham's work on the subject here. If you have anything we are actually interested in, let us know.

9113

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Perception

« on: March 13, 2016, 08:10:59 PM »

There is the matter of the front legs.  Seems I can see a shadow under the entire prairie dog.  The only thing I can see that looks like a leg seems very, very short compared to the pictures I just looked at.  It also seems more like being part of the cheek than a leg.

Some species of Prairie Dog rodents have short legs.

By the way I did this, because I got tired of seeing answer from FE's just basically saying because that is how it is.  I actually researched and came up with locations that if it is a prairie dog where the picture could have been taken.  I did not just say it looks like a rodent and 10 out of 10 people thought it was.

At least for me and I am sure others this is the kind of stuff we are talking about when we say evidence.  It showed locations where prairie dogs live, places that and/or had limited vegetation, and pictures of those states that both prairie dogs lived and somewhat matched what we can see in the photo. I did not research any further to see if prairie dogs live in the areas the photos I posted.
I also assumed a prairie dog did not end up on an indoor set.

A picture of what many agree looks like a rodent is evidence of a rodent. Try not to claim that I provided "no evidence". Observational and experiential evidence is absolutely valid  and meaningful evidence.

9114

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Perception

« on: March 13, 2016, 08:02:01 AM »

It's likely a prairie dog.

9115

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 13, 2016, 07:39:07 AM »

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/10/trump-wine-is-built-on-acres-of-lies.html

Is that true?  The wbsite does say that its not affiliated with Donald Tump...

It's a Trump Wine, just like Trump said. It's his son's company.

9116

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Perception

« on: March 13, 2016, 07:22:09 AM »

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale.  Why would you FEers believe the doctor?  He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.   

We FEers have no reason to distrust the establishment either.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.  I don't know how many times REers have told me I'm foolish to believe the Earth is flat just because I perceive it to be flat.  If pressed they often go to great lengths to demonstrate to me that my senses are always lying to me and can never be trusted.  They pull out obvious optical illusions, sets of boxes and vases that look like people and cars that appear to be going uphill while in neutral and all kinds of wacky shit.  I find it a wonder that REers are able to believe anything at all, considering that our senses are really our only way of interacting with the world around us, yet they seem to be believe they can't be trusted for anything.

I don't see where "the establishment" has anything to do with it.  In fact, as I've explained previously, medicine is one of the rare arts that puts practical zeteticism into use on a consistent basis and if anything its practitioners' adherence to a discipline so strongly anti-NASA suggests that they are more friend than foe.  I'm really just not sure I agree that NASA is part of "the establishment".  Their influence has weakened a great deal over the years.  Maybe at one time... but honestly, they are more like a novelty at this point than anything else (like a "Weird Al" song, or fake dog poo), and even at that they have gotten stale.

So medicine is the only or one of the very few professions that proceeds by inquiry?

You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?

And you would have us believe that NASA photographed a rock that looks exactly like a rodent on the surface of mars?

Come on, that's obviously not a rodent.  Maybe if you squinted really hard at it, but otherwise, any normal person can see that it's just a rock.  Don't be stupid.

That's a fairly convincing rock. 10 out of 10 of the people I showed it to thought it was a rodent. It even has the black almond rodent eyes

9117

Flat Earth Community / Re: Infiltrating the Conspiracy

« on: March 13, 2016, 05:53:00 AM »

The funny thing is about those two images is that if you look at the cloud formations carefully when the moon's shadow is near Australia you can see that the two images are actually depicting the same eclipse.

Why is it that the clouds are moving in one animation and not moving in the other, if it is of the same event?

9118

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: March 13, 2016, 05:43:32 AM »

That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.

Why in the world would a modern surveyor be concerned with the empty assertions of someone made 160 years ago?

If he wanted to attack the authority on Flat Earth Theory, he would. I doubt anyone here really cares if he attacks some random poorly informed Youtube video author from that other society.

9119

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality

« on: March 13, 2016, 04:41:24 AM »

It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.

9120

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality

« on: March 13, 2016, 01:53:50 AM »

There is so much controversy over the "Bedford Canal" experiment and the fuss afterward that basing a whole movement on that is surely building on quicksand!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
Rowbotham repeated his experiments several times over the years but his claims received little attention until, in 1870, a supporter by the name of John Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor's training and knowledge of physics, avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and won the bet. The crucial step was to set a sight line 13 feet (4 m) above the water, and thereby avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction. Despite Hampden initially refusing to accept the demonstration, Wallace was awarded the bet by the referee, editor of The Field sports magazine. Hampden subsequently published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for threatening to kill Wallace and for libel. The same court ruled that the wager had been invalid because Hampden retracted the bet and required that Wallace return the money to Hampden./quote]

Yes Hampden "won" the money, but with a reputation in shatters!

Look you have "a snowflakes chance in hell" of any wide acceptance till you have a model with:
an accurate map that can be used for find distances and directions accurately,
a model that can explain observed phenomena, sunrises, sunset etc.

Wallace and Hampden made a wager for a very large amount, equivalent to a year's worth of pay at that time. The results and controversies of that wager are invalid for that reason alone. It makes sense that either man would be untruthful if a year's wager was on the line. Wallace was a struggling author, and we can't put it past him to cheat over something that would ruin him.