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.


Messages - AllAroundTheWorld

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 72  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: January 23, 2019, 06:04:52 PM »
You saying you did IS evidence

Great. Evidence was provided. I see nothing left to discuss then.
But I provided evidence too.
I have repeated your experiment but got very different results. I couldn’t see the beach at all, much less people on it or playing right down the shoreline.
You don’t think we should discuss my evidence and try to understand why I got such different results?

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about mythbusters
« on: January 23, 2019, 08:42:32 AM »
Some of the footage in that video looks like fisheye lens which exaggerates the curve, but the guy also says he can see the curve too.
But yes, that Wiki page is more FE "Heads I win, tails you lose" reasoning.
"The earth is flat, look out your window, the horizon looks flat"
"Sure, but from high altitudes you can see the curve of the earth"
"Yes, that's just as we expected..."
"...you literally just said that the flat horizon is evidence of a flat earth!"

And so on.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: January 23, 2019, 08:37:42 AM »
You want evidence that the evidence is not all faked, which is absurd.
No, I want evidence that you even did the experiment at all.
You saying you did IS evidence, but in that case so is me saying that I flew to California last week, repeated your experiment and couldn't see the distant beach at all.
So now what do we do, we have both provided "evidence".
Is my evidence good enough for you?

Anyone can claim anything on the internet. This is not just a claim that you walked down the shops and bought some groceries. Even if the earth were flat I am sceptical that you could have seen what you claim to have seen from that distance. The implication is there were no waves over 20 inches high across a 23 mile span of water open to the Pacific Ocean.
And I'm sceptical that you have optics good enough to have seen the things you claim to have seen so clearly from that distance.
It's fairly reasonable to expect to see some evidence of your claim other than "this is what I definitely did and this is what I definitely saw, honest"

I look forward to seeing your "documentation" although suspect it will just be a link to the Wiki page...

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: January 23, 2019, 08:15:15 AM »
Link to your results please.
My guess is he's going to link us to the Wiki page where he says that the experiment definitely happened and those were definitely his results. Honest.
Strange, then, that he ignores this point in his own slide about evidence:
"It is important to have numerous pieces of evidence in order to prove your claim".
Maybe the response to that is that he claims to be able to repeat this "whenever he likes".
But that's just the equivalent of repeating the claim over and over again,
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true...

But I look forward to seeing his documentation.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: January 22, 2019, 09:59:05 PM »
Weak trolling, Tom.
Please provide the evidence for the Bishop experiment even having taken place.
If you can’t then, well, see the wise words in my signature...

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: January 22, 2019, 05:00:45 PM »
Claiming somebody did the "same tests," is just ridiculous when they did not do the same tests.
If you're going to go down that road, no-one can do the same tests.
Even everything else is the same on a different day the weather will be different, the waves and tides may be different.
I don't believe though that it has to be the exact same stretch of water in order to do similar tests and expect similar results.
If you want to repeat Tom's experiment and provide some evidence of your results then I look forward to seeing them. Otherwise, see my sig...

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: January 22, 2019, 04:37:48 PM »
Read Earth Not a Globe. The effect happens over the ocean, but less frequently over landlocked ocean inlets, lakes, and canals. Location does matter. Bobby's images verify what was seen and predicted by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
And yet when you were shown the Turning Torso video - video taken over a channel far more protected from the effects of the open sea than the bay you claim to have used - you rejected it on other spurious grounds. I would suggest you repeat your experiment and document it. It would advance the discussion. Otherwise it's just you claiming something. As I believe you like to say "A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". You're making a claim. Now demonstrate it.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: January 22, 2019, 02:06:54 PM »
Photographic evidence can be, and often is, manipulated by both sides of the debate. If you disagree with this simple statement, please explain your thoughts.
I disagree with this. Certainly with the "often". OK, you get fish-eye lens photos but even then I don't think the intention is usually to deceive. I don't think those photos are generally taken to add evidence to the round earth "theory". I don't think many people feel the need to. It isn't a theory any more, it has been proven. We have hundreds of witnesses who have seen it for themselves, loads and loads of photos and video. Any lingering doubt about the shape of the earth ended when we had the technology to see the earth as it really is and that has been the case for over 60 years now.
Now, as you've noted those fish eye lens photos can and have been used as "proof" of horizon curve and I agree they shouldn't be. But those photos haven't been faked or manipulated, they've just been taken with a lens which misrepresents reality and people have used them incorrectly. This doesn't help RE, but photos are generally taken with those lenses to widen the field of view, not to deceive anyone.
So while I agree that photographic evidence can be faked and manipulated, I completely disagree that it often is. I'd suggest the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that claim.

Quote
You're welcome to do it yourself and see what we did. Or you can cling to your anger over the fact that no one wrote an essay about it. I recommend the former, but ultimately your epistemology is your own.
Asking people to do their own tests is reasonable, but I see that as an "as well as" to documenting your own tests, not an instead of.
Even if you believe that photographic evidence isn't the be all and end all - which I agree with - where's the harm in saying "here's the test I did, here's my photos and evidence of my results, if you don't believe me then repeat the tests for yourself"? It's telling, for example, that when Bobby did a lot of experimentation about horizon dip not one FE person tried to repeat his tests or do their own.

Bobby also repeated Tom's tests - not at the same place, admittedly, but he doesn't live in the same place. They are logically equivalent tests. And he got very different results.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10869.80
He's provided photographic evidence of his findings. It's far more convincing than someone who is saying "this is what I saw" when regardless of the shape of the earth I am extremely dubious that he could have seen the detail he claims from that distance and he has provided zero evidence that he even did the experiment.

Tom's predictable response of dismissing his results caused him to ragequit which is a shame, he was the only person on here, FE or RE, who actually bothered to get off their backside and do any tests of anything. I've dabbled and drawn diagrams to explain things but he really put the hours in.

So now what? We have Tom claiming one thing which seems implausible and has provided no evidence that he even did the experiment - yet somehow it's on your Wiki as a piece of experimental evidence. Bobby has got very different results and clearly documented them. I could do my own tests, maybe I will one day but I don't really have the equipment to do so. The documented experiment looks a lot more convincing than the undocumented one.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect
« on: January 21, 2019, 07:55:51 PM »
The thing about sinks and toilets as per the Simpsons episode is a myth because the effect is so slight. But these guys show that if you do things in a controlled enough way you can see an effect, as we can with tornadoes and hurricanes rotating in opposite direction in the different hemispheres.

The counter argument from FE basically amounts to “nuh uh” which I’d suggest isn’t really an argument at all.
In order for it to be solid evidence of the Coriolis effect the experiment would have to be replicated numerous times in various locations with various different kinds of containers.  There are also unaccounted variables that are not accounted for as mentioned by several of the commentators on Youtube.  The evidence you presented has practically zero statistical power.
Feel free to do your own experiment.
But stop acting as if that is the only single piece of evidence for the effect existing. It is merely an example.

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« on: January 21, 2019, 06:34:29 PM »
Wow! And there’s me moaning about wasting a couple of hours when I could have been sleeping.
Have to admire the commitment to experimenting and learning though.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect
« on: January 21, 2019, 06:24:35 PM »
The thing about sinks and toilets as per the Simpsons episode is a myth because the effect is so slight. But these guys show that if you do things in a controlled enough way you can see an effect, as we can with tornadoes and hurricanes rotating in opposite direction in the different hemispheres.

The counter argument from FE basically amounts to “nuh uh” which I’d suggest isn’t really an argument at all.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect
« on: January 21, 2019, 06:07:57 PM »
No, it is just part of the lots of evidence.
What is the FE explanation for that result?

13
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« on: January 21, 2019, 01:11:31 PM »
It all started off quite well for me here, but after this the clouds rolled in and that was the last I saw. Missed the whole blood moon thing altogether.
Yes. Bastard clouds. I got a couple of photos (not as good as those) when the shadow started to go across but then the clouds obscured the rest :(

And to add insult to injury - hardly a cloud in the sky now of course. Argh!
Yes, it did this last time. Lovely clear night skies for days, then we had an eclipse and it was completely covered in cloud :(
Interested by this quote from this Wiki page:

Quote
The Sun's light is powerful enough to shine through the outer layers of the Shadow Object, just as a flashlight is powerful enough to shine through your hand when you put it right up against your palm.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Why_the_Lunar_Eclipse_is_Red

The reason your hand looks red when you shine a torch through it is because there's blood in your hands and blood is red. The reason in the real world why the lunar eclipse is red is because of the way light filters through the atmosphere and hits the moon, the same reason sunsets are red. I'm not clear what FE think is in the shadow object which causes the red effect.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect
« on: January 21, 2019, 01:02:51 PM »
Each and every problem associated with the Coriolis effect is totally solved, once and for all.
And yet the Nobel Prize still eludes you, somehow.

Your theories aren't even impressing the rest of the FE community let alone the scientific one.

You don't even seem to be disputing the effect exists, you just claim a different mechanism for it.

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« on: January 21, 2019, 11:00:53 AM »
It all started off quite well for me here, but after this the clouds rolled in and that was the last I saw. Missed the whole blood moon thing altogether.
Yes. Bastard clouds. I got a couple of photos (not as good as those) when the shadow started to go across but then the clouds obscured the rest :(

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect
« on: January 21, 2019, 09:50:53 AM »
What evidence? Zero evidence has been provided. We've been talking about this for over ten years. You guys consistently struggle to provide evidence on this matter.
Lots of evidence has been provided. You either struggle to understand it or dismiss it as fake. You do this about all evidence which shows you to be wrong.


17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: January 21, 2019, 09:40:55 AM »
So what shape is a sun which can be seen as a circular disc from every angle?

You, just like the UAFE, are forgetting about the existence of the ether.

Your next statement will be: show me proof of the existence of the ether.
Actually, my next statement will be "what has the ether got to do with an object which is a disc but can be seen as a disc from any angle?"
The only object I know which has that property is a sphere. How does the ether make a disc behave this way?

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: January 21, 2019, 09:38:15 AM »
The bible doesn't even say that the earth is fixed or stationary. I don't know what you are trying to prove.
It does, actually.

1 Chronicles 16:30 King James Version (KJV)
Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved

Psalm 93:1King James Version (KJV)
93 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

My emphasis. I mean, I don't believe that the Bible should be read like a science book but if you're going to use the Bible as a basis for FE belief as Rowbotham does then you can't pick and choose which bits you're going to take literally. Rowbotham didn't believe in the UA, did he?

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect
« on: January 20, 2019, 08:15:43 PM »
No. You came here claiming that some effect exists. Prove it and provide evidence for your claim.
That's the penultimate part of the dialogue I outlined above.
Plenty of evidence has been provided, you then respond with the last part of that dialogue.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: January 20, 2019, 08:14:29 PM »
So what shape is a sun which can be seen as a circular disc from every angle?
I can think of a shape which appears to be a disc no matter which angle you look at it from.
Can you?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 72  Next >