1

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Notes on The Importance of Empiricism

« on: February 02, 2018, 07:21:13 PM »

So when I observe that the sun is sinking below the horizon, and all that is visible is the top half circle of the sun, I should conclude that half of the sun must be below the horizon

Yet, from what I can understand the Flat Earth explanation for this observation is that it is essentially an optical illusion that has to do with perspective (correct me if I'm wrong).  Is that not rationalization for a direct observation from nature that wouldn't be possible in the flat earth model?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: NASA can't lie, Earth is round

« on: January 31, 2018, 03:37:58 PM »

It's a really silly way of thinking.  They say the Earth looks flat, so I believe it is flat.  That's a reasonable conclusion to make at first, and in fact society used to think the Earth was flat for that exact reason!

However due to various physical observations, it was concluded that it is extremely likely the earth is a sphere.  This is long before space travel.  The evidence was so convincing and made so much sense that it became the new accepted model over time.  It's not like suddenly everyone was brainwashed to believe the Earth was a sphere, it just makes sense based on the evidence.

Likewise, the FE'ers are doing a something similar here, but the key difference is a large portion of the evidence and explanations for what we see do not make any sense.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 26, 2018, 05:55:01 PM »

Imagine you have been a flat earther for 10 years. You've made 50,000 posts, gone over every topic again and again. And someone signs up with a new account and asks you about gravity, or Coriolis, or satellites. How enthusiastic are you going to be about having that 'debate' for the 400th time? Meanwhile someone is talking about a new film that has come out or some new game or hardware in the lower fora. Which thread are you going to engage in?

That's reasonable, but have you read through any of this thread?  Granted it's quite long, but it is nothing like you've described.  Also like AllAroundTheWorld has mentioned, there are various other threads where discussion has stopped when evidence or arguments come up that the senior Flat Earther's don't have a response to.

Usually Tom will answer everything. At some point you won't accept something he says or some evidence he points to. He may give further examples. You won't accept them either. Where is he going to go from there? He's showed you his reasons, you don't agree ... that's the end of the debate. He told you everything he could, he told you why he thinks what he thinks and you didn't accept it. What are you hoping to acheive? Are you expecting to be the person who convinces Tom the world is round? Or are you expecting Tom to convince you that it is flat? There is no winner. It is an exchange of ideas and once those ideas are exchanged, the thread is done and Tom will leave it.

This is just not true in any of the discussion or debate threads I've read, in fact it usually the exact opposite.  Just read through this thread for an example.  Where are Tom and/or Pete's responses?  They both started to discuss and then abandoned ship

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 25, 2018, 11:00:57 PM »

I've been reading around on the forum a bit, and I've noticed a common trend.

The senior Flat Earthers cherry pick what they respond to.  The creator of this topic puts in a lot of effort to thoroughly address everything Tom posts and is genuinely wanting to advance the discussion.  Yet Tom posts very short vague replies which don't address the majority of the topic creator's points, and obviously has no interest in furthering the discussion evident by the lack of replies for 8 days now.

Pete Svarrior rather than contribute to the topic, decides to focus in on the barely relevant car part of the analogy while dismissing later examples that directly show that a shape may not actually be what it appears to the eye