Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?Yes, NASA borrowing our methodology from us does not preclude us from still utilising it.
For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...
The sun and moon are over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.
How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?
The firmament is the clear dome that is above us. It seperates the waters above us frombelow. The clear & reflective properties create the true prism that refracts and reflects large dome shaped rainbows into the opposite direction of the sun onto raindrops. This dome explains many other “phenomena” but this is what creates the 24hr days & triple sun. If you take a reflective bowl & a lighter holding it upside down you’ll see when the light source is closest to the edge it creates a reflection on both right & left side, hence the triple sun, this light accounts for the extra 4-8 hours of sunlight
Truth is an absolute legal defense to slander or libel charges.As is honesty and belief that the person accused of defamation is disclosing information in the public interest, regardless of merit or soundness of their claims. I doubt any case concerning FE would revolve around the soundness of FE, but rather whether or not the accused believed she was acting in the public interest.
In the USofA, the most hilarious of legal systems, matters become even more difficult - a public person who believes she has been defamed has to prove that the defamatory statement was published with knowledge of its falsehood.
I find this difficult to get enthusiastic about for several reasons.
1) These people don't like us. We are 'controlled opposition' and trolls and whatever else they think of on the day. Now I'm pretty sure if TFES was controlled opposition, you and me would be on the payroll by now, Tom. We'd have a least had a memo. So when I know they are talking rubbish from the get go, its hard to support.
2) A large portion of their content is toxic. Its a poo flinging contest. Its kind of nice to take the moral high ground and not be dragged into it. A lot of the top FE creators are very weird indeed. Patricia whatshername and that guy who desperately wants to have sex with her. Matt 'I've got 24 hours to save the world Boylan', Lord Steven Christ who not only thinks the earth is flat but that he is the son of God and makes regular demands to be Pope, Eric 'gas the Jews' Dubay ... these people are 2 stars short of a constellation.
3) These people are going to get zapped ... and if their content is all over our site, we are going to be collateral damage. If we started hosting Alex Jones and Tommy Robinson videos, what do you think would happen to our google rank? Its going to be the same with these FE videos.
4) This isn't our fight.
I think these people should be able to say what they want, I think they should allow market forces to dictate what people watch, I think the governments should keep their noses out of online content. But I don't think TFES should be nominating itself to help a youtube community that has from the outset made it clear they want nothing to do with us.
Is stating that us just looking at stuff is evidence. And sometimes it is, but let's take those examples one by one:It certainly is evidence for a flat earth.
The world looks flat - that isn't evidence either for or against a flat earth.
If I wrote I saw this (while I was at the zoo or in Australia):
there would be no hesitation on your part to accept that statement as evidence I sensed and winessed the appearance of a kangaroo.The bottoms of clouds are flat - not even sure that one is true, even if it is I don't know what bearing that would have on the shape of the earth.The bottoms of clouds are not always flat:
but for the most part, they are.
You are correct I believe as far as what impact this does or not have in terms of earth shape.The movement of the sun - this one is ironic given that a core FE belief is UA which is used as a substitute for gravity, the claim being that it would be indistinguishable from gravity (true in many ways but the Cavendish experiment is demonstration of gravity as a force). Point being the exact same thing applies here. The sun moving across the sky would look exactly the same if the sun went round a stationary earth or the earth rotates and the sun remains still (relatively, let's not go down that rabbit hole).UA is not a core belief of FE.None of these things are evidence for or against a flat earth. And the horizon always at eye level page is basically one long "well, it looks like it's at eye level, so it is". Case closed! No controlled experiments are outlined on that page. Yes, if we do a controlled experiment we are using our senses to look at the results but that's not the same as just looking at the horizon, figuring it looks pretty much at eye level and saying that is evidence for it being AT eye level regardless of altitude.I disagree as I have personally measured the altitude of the sun over the flat earth.
There seems to be an emphasis of what you can perceive rather than what you can measure.
Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers. Why not use Gleason's map, for example?
It’s my understanding that all FE maps are globe projections. This includes the mono-polar, bi-polar and Gleason maps, as well as others. In essence, there’s no such thing as an FE map.
It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.
So producing a map of the flat earth that accurately locates and sizes the continents in the Southern Hemisphere along with time zones and distances across the Antarctic should be no problem right?
Yes, the UN uses it as its primary symbol these days.
I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting anyone else's position.
Are you saying that the UN Logo is an accurate representation of the sizing and location of the major continents?
Do you believe the UN would choose an inaccurate map as their primary logo?
Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers. Why not use Gleason's map, for example?
It’s my understanding that all FE maps are globe projections. This includes the mono-polar, bi-polar and Gleason maps, as well as others. In essence, there’s no such thing as an FE map.
It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.
So producing a map of the flat earth that accurately locates and sizes the continents in the Southern Hemisphere along with time zones and distances across the Antarctic should be no problem right?
Yes, the UN uses it as its primary symbol these days.
Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers. Why not use Gleason's map, for example?
It’s my understanding that all FE maps are globe projections. This includes the mono-polar, bi-polar and Gleason maps, as well as others. In essence, there’s no such thing as an FE map.
It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.
I'm confused, the title talks about religious biases, but none of the examples you put forward have mentioned religion; our wiki doesn't mention religion as a basis for our theories, either. What sort of religious bias are you specifically referring to?
