1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Test to debunk flat earth models

« on: November 14, 2018, 10:41:53 AM »

God knows what shoes I'll wear on July 15, 2022.
I wake up and put on my shoes, because I never had a choice in the matter; god knew it so I had to do it or else god's knowledge would be false.

Wildly off-topic (soz, mods), but I do feel the need to correct this logical fallacy.
I like The Beatles. A lot.

So, if I had a choice between, say, going to see Paul McCartney in London this December or going to see The Spice Girls next summer then my friends would know that I would choose the former.
Does the fact that my friends anticipated what choice I would make mean I didn't have a free choice? No, of course not. They didn't influence my decision, they just knew (or guessed) what it would be.
So if God is all knowing and knows us perfectly then he knows what choices we will make in every situation. That does not contradict the idea that we free to make choices

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia & Chile FET how far apart?

« on: November 14, 2018, 10:21:14 AM »

More proof FET maps are inaccurate and flawed

To be fair, they don't claim to have an accurate map and say they don't have the resources to make one.
But what they don't do is look at the known distances between places and try to make a map based on those.
If you try to do so then you'll quickly find it's not possible which leaves us with two possibilities
a) The earth isn't flat, or
b) The distances are wrong and the global airline and shipping industry don't actually know how far things are apart or how fast their vessels move despite reliably getting people and goods around the earth every day.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 13, 2018, 01:33:46 PM »

This is confusing. Are you now claiming that weight doesn’t vary between the pole and equator?
You’ve spent the last page saying that it does because of air pressure difference.
Wrongly of course, but are you now saying it doesn’t?
Far as I understand the weight variation is more to do with the earth’s rotation, not because of earth’s oblateness

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: BBC slags off TFES again

« on: November 09, 2018, 08:43:19 AM »

this man is introduced at the beginning where they say in the same sentence people deny things like climate change, the holocaust or the shape of the earth. Because all these things are really similar right? 

Well, there is an obvious similarity in that in all 3 cases a metric shit-ton of evidence is being denied.

Holocaust deniers are ignoring the fact that Auschwitz-Birkenau is demonstrably there, has all the evidence of mass slaughter and there are a load of witnesses and first hand testimony to the events

Climate change deniers are ignoring the more-or-less scientific consensus on this issue which is based on a load of data and that the climate is demonstrably changing - I'm in my 40s and the difference from my childhood is notiable.

Flat earthers are denying pretty much the whole of science and ignoring the global space programmes and the hundreds of people who have been to space and so can give first hand testimony about the shape of the earth.


It does require a certain mindset and it's interesting that you deny any link when you yourself fit into 2 of the above categories.

5

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Justice 4 MattyWS

« on: November 08, 2018, 03:13:20 PM »

I'm interested in what the other mods say because I think you and Pete are both too trigger happy, so Pete agreeing with you doesn't add anything for me.
Pete said it was a ramble, not a rant and I agreed with that. I don't think it was a rant and I agree with what he said. It seemed like a perfectly valid response to Thork's post.

I'm not trolling, I just genuinely don't see what is wrong with the post and all we're doing now is going.

You "It was off topic"
Me: "No it wasn't, he responded to what Thork said"
You: "Didn't"
Me: "Did"
You: "Didn't".

So I don't think we're going to get much further. It's a shame more people didn't express an opinion but whatever, I've had my say.

6

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Justice 4 MattyWS

« on: November 08, 2018, 10:36:16 AM »

It does not break the rules junker has cited.

Yes, it does.

How so? Matty's comments are entirely a response to what Thork posted.
It was completely on topic.
He didn't include material which did not contribute to the point he was making.
You have simply stated without elaboration that his post was against those 2 rules, I have explained why I can't see how it was.
So please elaborate.
The fact that you then said the Media forum is not for that purpose IS a different reason
A more valid one actually - if anything that breaks Rule 5.

There may well be a recurring issue with this poster, but this post was not an example of it.
It seems to me you banned him because you don't like him. And I'm somewhat concerned to see Pete say that the post itself doesn't matter.
I'd agree that the person posting does influence modding decisions, you might give some users more latitude because you know they're basically posting in line with the culture of the forum. But that doesn't mean that a poster who you have some issues with should be banned for a perfectly legitimate post.

I'd be interested to hear Rushy or Parsifal's views.

7

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Justice 4 MattyWS

« on: November 08, 2018, 08:42:27 AM »

It WAS a ramble about how he dislikes FE but it was also a completely relevant ramble in reply to Thork's post. It does not break the rules junker has cited.
I do think the point about the Media board not being the place for debate is more valid although you let that slide with other posters (me being one of them at times).
And the fact that junker is having to scrabble around for a reason and keeps changing that reason is telling.
The point about posting patterns is also valid, I just think this post was a bad example of a pattern you want to change.

8

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Justice 4 MattyWS

« on: November 08, 2018, 07:03:15 AM »

Thork says 2 things in the part of the post I quoted, the logo and why the BBC lumped you in with other deniers. Matty addresses both those things and only those things in his reply.

Would other mods or admin care to comment?

9

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Justice 4 MattyWS

« on: November 07, 2018, 10:43:24 PM »

Rule 3 says "Stay on topic"
Rule 6 says "Avoid including material which does not contribute to the point you are making"

The topic was "BBC slags of TFES again" and Thork said

Maybe Pete Svarrior would like to Tweet the BBC and ask them why they used our logo in their hit piece on and lumped us in with not only climate change deniers but also holocaust deniers!

The actual video was not about TFES, it was about deniers of various things and flat earthers were mentioned as an example. The two paragraphs you've quoted as being in breach of those rules are entirely related to why Matty felt it valid that the BBC did that, it's a completely valid response to Thork's post and the BBC video he referenced. You may disagree with what he's saying, but it was entirely on topic.

It might well be that, overall, he has earned his short ban. But for that post? I'm not buying that.

10

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Justice 4 MattyWS

« on: November 07, 2018, 09:15:14 PM »

This poster has provided little value and is not a contributing member. I will not shed a tear over the loss of his presence from these forums.

Why, because he's saying things you disagree with?
And even if that is so, that doesn't address the issue of what was wrong with that post which warranted a short ban.
What rules did it breach?
I don't think you personally finding him irritating is a good enough reason for a ban.

11

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Justice 4 MattyWS

« on: November 07, 2018, 04:53:28 PM »

I can't speak about his overall behaviour but I'm still not sure what rule you think he's broken here.
Thork was complaining about a BBC video about FE - not just FE but it mentioned FE along with some other things.
MattyWS simply responded in a way which I don't think would have seen more established RE posters get a warning.
Maybe he does need to be beaten into shape but I'm surprised that this was the straw which broke the camel's back, I honestly can't see anything wrong with it.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republicans take the house and senate.

« on: November 07, 2018, 04:23:44 PM »

Holy shit, disputeone, just say "fuck." You're not sparing anyone's feelings by writing it as "f*ck." Don't be a Th*rk. Also, Romney is winning by a landslide, it's not okay to be white, and the genocide of white people will soon begin.

Bother.
Oh well, we had a good run.

13

Suggestions & Concerns / Justice 4 MattyWS

« on: November 07, 2018, 04:19:25 PM »

Out of interest, what was wrong with this post that it warranted a ban? It was part of a conversation between him and Thork, I note Thork has not been censured (not should he have been). What rules does this break?

Deniers are deniers, regardless of what it is they deny. To say you're being lumped in with people who deny different things as inaccurate is like saying you're not the same species are black or asian people because you're white, you're still human thus still 'lumped in' with other races in that regard. Not that I'm claiming racism or anything, just a simile.

And IMO flat earthers are definitely deniers. So far from what I've seen on these forums is flat out denying and ignoring evidence and proof they can't refute, and yet unable to explain fully why they think the world is flat as a matter of fact.

I'll grant you one thing though, the use of the logo on his badge was likely not allowed assuming this site has any claim over the licencing of the logo (I wouldn't know for sure myself).

Alright, well I guess the warnings didn't have an impact. Have a few days off to review the rules.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia & Chile FET how far apart?

« on: November 07, 2018, 04:16:27 PM »

I thought I just explained my level of math. Personally if you looked at points on a basketball and told me the distance between several I would be unable to calculate the shape of the basketball. Is it possible to do? I have no idea.

I've no idea either and it's beyond my level of maths, but while I might not be able to calculate the shape from the distances, what I could do is try and plot those distances on a flat piece of paper. If I discover I can't then I must conclude that the earth cannot be flat, or the distances are wrong.
And since the distances are well established and are used by the global transport industry to reliably get goods and people around, it's a bit of a stretch to claim that they don't know how far they're travelling or the speed of their craft. You'd think knowing those things would be pretty crucial to their business model.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Math Evidence (calcs and data) corroborating turning torso and radius 6371km

« on: November 07, 2018, 04:02:35 PM »

Did you notice the horizontal horizon line from left to right as you search for the curve?

Why would anyone be searching for a curve on a globe as big as the earth is?
You can certainly see the earth going away from you in the turning torso video, it's clear how the amount of the building occluded by the curve increases with distance, exactly as predicted.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: November 07, 2018, 03:49:04 PM »

The only way to explain it on a flat surface is if the Actual Horizon on my diagram stay at the same distance regardless of height.
That way the angle would increase but, without doing the maths, I think it would do so in a different more linear way than on a globe.
And we can observe that the horizon distance increases with altitude so that doesn't match observations in any case.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 1 In 4 Statisticians Say They Were Asked To Commit Scientific Fraud

« on: November 07, 2018, 11:40:23 AM »

So...who compiled those statistics then and how do we know that number is accurate?

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: November 07, 2018, 11:19:52 AM »

Yes, we are looking down at the horizon, but it's so minute it really can't be measured nor does it matter.

It can be measured, it has been measured and the amount the horizon dips varies by altitude.
That has all been shown very clearly...I think earlier in this thread.
If you dispute those results then feel free to do your own experiment and post the results for review.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republicans take the house and senate.

« on: November 07, 2018, 10:36:48 AM »

I wonder if we go back a few years to Obamas mid term election and the massive loss he suffered I wonder how the MSM were writing those up

Wonder no longer...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+midterms+2014

20

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video

« on: November 07, 2018, 10:23:54 AM »

They argue "there is no way NASA could do this so perfectly" in one breath and "there is no way NASA could make all of these mistakes" in another.

While FE argues that "the technology and budget is there to fake these videos" in one breath and "they are so incompetent at doing so that they keep making mistakes" in another
As I keep saying, I've yet to see any analysis of these videos from anyone who is actually an expert in this area.
Right now it's just a load of supposition and confirmation bias.
And it's noted the level of scrutiny FE applies to these videos (which you have to believe to be fake if you're going to maintain a belief in FE) where no scrutiny at all is applied to anything which seems to back up the idea of a FE.