The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: OrigamiBoy on February 07, 2018, 04:11:17 PM
-
Hi,
I have been relatively active on the FES for around 2 months now and have noticed a common trend. In the Flat Earth Debate section, most debates follow a common pattern.
1. A RE'er proposes some type of statement and proof
2. A FE'er response to that statement with some type of proof
3. Repeat.
I know what your thinking:
"Well you idiot origamiboy, that's how all debates go"
And your right, but there is something different about debates here: RE'ers almost always propose the argument first. FE'ers usually never make arguments against the RE model and usually are just responding to threads debunking the FE.
Which brings me to my next point:
When the FE'ers responded to a statement they don't explain why the RE statement cant exist, they mostly just explain why the FE answer CAN exist. The existence of A does not disprove the existence of B. In order to really convince (smart) people that the earth if flat, you need to bring up reasons why it isn't round. I have some good places where you could start your debunking:
1. Why cant satellites exist
2. How are NASA's photos and live streams faked
3. Why does the RE model not work (Any reason is great)
4. Why does the government dump billions of dollars, fake hundreds of photos, and videos just to make us believe the earth is flat, and if the "RE prank" is so huge why hasn't anyone who works for NASA or the government never come out and said something.
I think in order for the FE'ers to prove to us that the earth is flat, this is a good place to start. :)
-
The other site (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=8.0) has more activity along those lines.
Also, our hosts are always quick to direct posts like these toward the wiki. I think it's fair to consider the wiki as the starting point for all the arguments you describe.
(which is a good reason to update the wiki, as those arguments have been extended significantly and it's got errors and omissions aplenty, cough cough)
-
The other site (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=8.0) has more activity along those lines.
Also, our hosts are always quick to direct posts like these toward the wiki. I think it's fair to consider the wiki as the starting point for all the arguments you describe.
I don't believe you have read the post.
There is nothing on the wiki explaining the arguments in the way I brought them up.
-
Okay, fair enough. I just went through the wiki and didn't find anything for points 1 and 2. They do have bits for 3 and 4, I'm thinking of the Bedford canal experiment (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence) et al and the motive of the conspiracy (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy).
I too would like to see more threads started by people not called Tom Bishop; not anything against Tom's threads, just saying that he's the only regular I've seen do it.
-
Okay, fair enough. I just went through the wiki and didn't find anything for points 1 and 2. They do have bits for 3 and 4, I'm thinking of the Bedford canal experiment (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence) et al and the motive of the conspiracy (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy).
I too would like to see more threads started by people not called Tom Bishop; not anything against Tom's threads, just saying that he's the only regular I've seen do it.
Yea, Tom seems to be the only one that makes posts against the RE, also #3 is very broad, its really just a starting point that the FE'ers could go anywhere with and the main point I was trying to make with #4 is "why hasn't anyone who works for NASA or the government never come out and said something."
-
(which is a good reason to update the wiki, as those arguments have been extended significantly and it's got errors and omissions aplenty, cough cough)
I'm working on improving communications regarding how the Wiki works, but in the meantime: if you have more concrete suggestions of arguments that have expanded, hit me up via PM.
-
Okay, fair enough. I just went through the wiki and didn't find anything for points 1 and 2. They do have bits for 3 and 4, I'm thinking of the Bedford canal experiment (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence) et al and the motive of the conspiracy (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy).
I too would like to see more threads started by people not called Tom Bishop; not anything against Tom's threads, just saying that he's the only regular I've seen do it.
Yea, Tom seems to be the only one that makes posts against the RE, also #3 is very broad, its really just a starting point that the FE'ers could go anywhere with and the main point I was trying to make with #4 is "why hasn't anyone who works for NASA or the government never come out and said something."
For #4 we've previously been pointed in the direction of Thomas Baron (https://wiki.tfes.org/Thomas_Baron) for why no one has come forward. There was a thread just recently that diverged a bit into that discussion, although I don't recall which one off hand.
-
Agree with a lot of the OP.
Disagree with suggestion 2. We worked out we were living on a globe long before NASA and even if it were shown that NASA were faking it all, that would not demonstrate that the earth was flat. I believe the FE idea is that NASA actually mistakenly believe the earth to be a globe so they fake their images that way.
But there still has to be some conspiracy to make GPS work without satellites. The airline industry are pretending the earth is a sphere to plot their routes with great circles, meteorologists are pretending they have weather satellites, the people at the Antarctic base are pretending there's an Antarctica, all polar explorers at the South Pole are lying or mistaken, scientists around the world are pretending the earth is a sphere, every space agency both government and private are all pretending too. Some of this may be straw man but there surely has to be a pretty massive global conspiracy which includes people from so many disciplines. And for what? Why do we need to be kept from this terrible truth that the earth is flat?
One of the great achievements of science, in my view, is to show us our true place in the Universe. From thinking that everything literally revolved around us to realising that actually we were just another planet whizzing round the sun which is just one of many suns. Then realising that some of the things we thought were other suns are actually whole other galaxies. And more recently finding that some of those other suns have planets whizzing round them too. We've gone from thinking we were literally the centre of the universe to realising that we live on an unremarkable* planet orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable galaxy.
*well, apart from it harbouring intelligent (?) life.
But as we have come to realise all this and our true place in the universe none of it has been hidden from us. Why would it be if "they" realised the earth wasn't really a sphere after all.
I would like to see more of 1 and 3.
Regarding 1, GPS demonstrably works and some of the alternative ideas for how it can without satellites have been laughably easy to dismiss. The ISS can be seen from earth and NASA publish a website telling you where and when you can do so. Why would they go out of their way to do this? It's so easily testable.
Regarding 3, I haven't seen any of this on here. Tom regularly cites Rowbotham but quite honestly all his "proofs" are him just saying "this is what I have observed". That really isn't a proof.
There is a lot of resorting to "Heads I win, tails you lose arguments" on here. So in the Occam's Razor page in the Wiki it says:
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth ... or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
But then in the High Altitude Photographs page it says:
Curvature results from the fact that at the edge of the atmosphere we are looking down at the illuminated circular area of the sun's light. The observer is looking down at a circle. A circle is always curved in two dimensions. When looking down at the circular area of the sun's light upon the earth we see elliptical curvature.
So in the first the claim is basically "the horizon looks flat so the earth must be flat", but in the second it's "You can see a curve if you're high enough and this is why". So they DO accept the idea that a big enough curve can appear flat, but only when it suits them.
They do this with ships going over the horizon. The argument there boils down to "the hull only appears to sink behind the horizon, zooming in will restore it" but then when you show pictures or video clearly showing distant ships or buildings occluded by the curve of the earth they just claim it's waves.
And I've recently pointed out an issue with their perspective argument. When I and others have explained why sunset can't occur on a flat earth they cite perspective, but on their Wiki page about shadows and how that could be explained by a flat earth and a much closer sun than is commonly accepted the diagram they use does not take perspective into account (correctly, shadows are not affected by perspective, unless it suits their argument).
I find this way of debating quite frustrating, it's intellectually dishonest. And frequently threads peter out because they just walk away when they can't answer the questions. It's quite baffling how Tom recently said that every Round Earth argument has been defeated when he's the worst at walking away from threads when he's shown to be wrong. He then claims that there are too many Round Earthers to debate which would work as an argument on a busier board but on here there's not that much to keep up with.
The FE model as given in the Wiki on here just doesn't work. I and others have pointed out problems in it and rather than engaging with those they just ignore them or dig their heels in and don't budge an inch.
They stress the importance of empirical measurements but suggestions about experiments they could do to prove their ideas - triangulation to measure the distance to the sun or moon, if it is close as they suppose they could do this from reasonably close locations and get measurable differences in angle. I've recently suggested they do some experiments to test my point about long shadows at sunset which can only be explained by a sun physically low in the sky.
All of this is ignored. I could understand that if the questions we're asking were addressed in the Wiki but they aren't, my thread about the FE Sun did generate some debate but the more difficult questions about what causes the spotlight effect and the changes in it's motion which explains seasons and moon phases remain unanshered. If the answer is "we don't know" then fine, so be it. But that should then encourage the FE community to think about these things and try and find a model which does work.
My thread about shadows (no FE replies so far) does not prove a globe earth but it does prove that the sun is not where they think it is at sunset. It either must be physically on the horizon or light bends so it appears to be. Things like this should make them consider aspects of their model and either fix them or, if they can't, realise they are mistaken about this whole thing. This is how any rational thinking should be. If your model doesn't match observed reality then you either have to tweak the model so it does or, if you can't, concede the model is wrong.