[Tom Bishop]

This is a repost from another thread, posted here for consideration. Ideally this book should be split into four volumes, each containing chapters within the subject-matter:

Volume I: Introduction

This section should be an introduction to FET, a history of RET, and discuss Zetetic vs. Theoretic

Volume II: Terra Firma

This volume and the chapters within it deals with phenomena within the atmosphere of the earth.

Volume III: The Cosmos

This volume and the chapter within it deals with phenomena outside the atmosphere of the earth.

Volume IV: The Conspiracy

This volume and the chapters within it deals specifically with the Conspiracy.

Each chapter within a volume should have the following sections:

Background: This section provides a background on the topic. It should be assumed that the reader knows nothing about earth science and needs to be brought up to speed on what the RET theory states before launching into FET.

Theory: The next section in the chapter should deal with the current theory.

Q&A: After the theory is explained in each chapter, questions and challenges should be asked (perhaps provided by RE'ers on this forum). Under the chapter for the sun, for example, once its place is described and defined in FET under the theory section we can list a series of italicized questions such as "Why doesn't the sun change size over the course of the day?" and "What causes its movement?" We can then list the questions in the glossary for people to reference.

Footnotes: A list of references for resources used in the chapter. They should be marked with superscript ^{1, 2, 3}, or otherwise in brackets [1] if superscript formatting is not available.

[markjo]

Theory: The next section in the chapter should deal with the current theory.

What if there are multiple competing theories?

[Tom Bishop]

Theory: The next section in the chapter should deal with the current theory.

What if there are multiple competing theories?

Write about the theory you support and we can go through later and categorize the models in the Table of Contents appropriately.

[Thork]

I want you to know what it takes to write a book. Books are typically 80,000 words for a new author/authors

If 5 people decide to contribute ... that's 16,000 words each. You are probably looking at each person dedicating 50-60 hours of their time to this project. I honestly cannot see enough people committing that much time. I will not begin contributing until I have seen at least 3 other people adding chapters because I can't see this kind of commitment coming from the community. I think this job is too big. I'm just being realistic.

[Tom Bishop]

How many hours have we spent answering questions? A whole lot more than 50 to 60 hours.

FE'ers are going to spend significant time here over the next year typing up answers to questions. The Flat Earther usually comes in and explains the current theory and then the RE'ers ask questions about it. That covers the "Theory" and "Q&A" sections. We take those posts and copy paste it into the book. A little extra effort will be needed to create the background section, but I believe it is necessary to create some context to things like who Pythagoras was, and what Galileo discovered.

A book can be compiled just going through the posts on the other site alone. We actually already have a lot of the content. We have thousands of posts to sort through.

What I would like to do is slightly alter my debating style so that I answer in the form of a paragraph or two which I intend to copy-paste into a book. That will kill two birds with one stone for me. I would be debating, which I would be doing anyway, and I will be contributing to the book. No extra time is invested.

[Thork]

We take those posts and copy paste it into the book.

Posts like these?

Apparently my image did not attach properly. My apologies. I don't know too much about computers. Here is the picture which shows what is known about the underside of the earth:

Gonna be a fascinating book.

[Tom Bishop]

I don't see anything wrong with my infographic. I think the explanation in the image is very coherent.

If you don't want to contribute, then don't contribute. I just explained a convenient way for us to contribute to the book without sacrificing time. I'm not going to be dedicating any more time than I already do. The book will be completed over time. Once the forums reunify we will have a lot of people asking questions, presenting challenges, and give us more incentive to debate. When that happens we should ensure that the time we spend answering a question is not wasted or forgotten into the forum abyss by also putting that answer into the book.

[Dionysios]

The contents of volumes one and four seem to overlap a bit, and I have a suggestion.

The history of round earth theory is listed as a major part of volume one, but the history of flat earth theory is not listed. I suggest that the history of round earth theory belongs to volume four on the conspiracy which is concerned with the history of lies, and round earth theories fall into that category.

I suggest that the history of flat earth theory belongs in volume one instead. I'll be glad to contribute some of this, particularly the more ancient parts.

Therefore, volume one as an introductory volume can map out a lot of history of flat earth belief among other things. Volumes two and three delving more into the meat of the issues is a good idea. I like the overall framework of this idea.

[Tau]

I'd love to dedicate that many hours, and I think enough people will contribute that it really won't be as bad as you think it will. We can solicit help from people who promote particular theories, and there's no minimum amount of time to donate. You can write a chapter and never do anything again.

All this being said, it might be a good idea to liberally use Rowbotham's words where appropriate. There are a lot of places where we'd just be rewriting what he said, and I think we can just use the original ENaG

The contents of volumes one and four seem to overlap a bit, and I have a suggestion.

The history of round earth theory is listed as a major part of volume one, but the history of flat earth theory is not listed. I suggest that the history of round earth theory belongs to volume four on the conspiracy which is concerned with the history of lies, and round earth theories fall into that category.

I suggest that the history of flat earth theory belongs in volume one instead. I'll be glad to contribute some of this, particularly the more ancient parts.

Therefore, volume one as an introductory volume can map out a lot of history of flat earth belief among other things. Volumes two and three delving more into the meat of the issues is a good idea. I like the overall framework of this idea.

I'd like to defend discussing the history of RET in Volume 1. Many people have a misconception that RET has been proven. One of the first steps in convincing people that FET is a legitimate theory is to point out that they've been lied to. Columbus did not prove that the Earth was round, nor did Magellan, nor did Eratosthenes, nor did Aristotle. Aristotle said it and everyone else believed it, much like with his theory of the five elements or the four humours. That's important information to get across. On that note, I volunteer to write this section.

[Tom Bishop]

I sort of agree with Dionysis that the topics should be closer together. Perhaps we should discuss the Conspiracy right after we discuss the history of RET and before we get into the Flat Earth mechanics. In my opinion people usually want to know about how pictures from space are explained before getting into the mechanics of the seasons.

Maybe:

Volume I   : Introduction
Volume II  : The Conspiracy
Volume III : Terra Firma
Volume IV : The Cosmos

I also like that the topic of the Conspiracy is up top because the evidence that there is a space hoax is strong, replete with photographic and continuity errors, and it will be the first thing people see. Once the idea of a Conspiracy is established people will be more open to other ideas about the world if that source could not be trusted.

We should have a separate thread where we discuss what chapters we want to work on.

[Dionysios]

I agree with Tom Bishop's rearrangement of the conspiracy as volume two and the reasons behind it.

Suggestions for the Conspiracy Volume (2):

As far as the history of round earth theory, I suggest that this constitute some of the initial chapters of volume two on conspiracy since it is an early part of the conspiracy. Of course, round earth theory should be mentioned in an introduction, but to place the main chapters on it in the introductory volume instead of in the history of conspiracy adds to confusion.

The conspiracy has been methodical, and we should map it accordingly as it happened historically.

As far as the conspiracy volume goes, I also suggest that it should be structured chronologically as a general rule - things like Aristotle earlier in the volume and things like Apollo missions towards the end.

[Dionysios]

Suggestions for the Introductory Volume 1:

Flat earth writers, both ancient and modern, are much less well known nowadays than famous round earth theorists. The flat earth is what we are all about first and foremost - regardless of all the other theories.

Do we then have a consensus that an outline of flat earth history will constitute a part of the introductory volume?

Note: I advise against only one or two chapters of flat earth history. The introductory volume should include a history at least as comprehensive as Christine Garwood's with perhaps 50 well documented chapters on flat earth history.  It should be distinguished from her book most of all in two ways - her book is very ignorant and weak on pre-Rowbotham flat earth history and of course our book will have a pro-flat earth perspective. It should be something people recognize and quote 100 years from now. An entire meaty chapter, for example, should be chronicle the history of Jain flat earth theories.

Western scientists and the world scorn us, but they are ignorant of flat earth history which massively supports us and not them. I am against making the introduction a pathetic pamphlet that sweeps most of all this history under the rug and caters to peoples' ignorance.

I volunteer to write such a book. Of course it will take time, but I am confident that such energy is well spent - especially with Tom Bishop in control of the project.

(Perhaps within a history of flat earth theory is where round earth theory should be mentioned in the introductory volume - inadvertently as it relates to the context of flat earth history.)

Therefore, my advice is that the introductory volume one consist of:
1) an introduction to flat earth theory
2) a history of flat earth theory
3) zetetic vs theoretic


Garwood's book will be an obvious reference source for this history during the last 200 years, but by no means uncritically adopting her opinions or assuming her interpretations.

[Dionysios]

All this being said, it might be a good idea to liberally use Rowbotham's words where appropriate. There are a lot of places where we'd just be rewriting what he said, and I think we can just use the original ENaG

I agree with this to such an extent that I propose that the 1873 edition of 'Earth Not a Globe' would be sufficient by itself to constitute Part One of Volume 3. All other theoretical material combined would fall into either Part Two of Volume 3 or Volume 4.

[Tau]

This all sounds good to me. I do think we should have a detailed history of Round Earth Theory. It is very relevant to FET. But, the history of FET is of course much more important.

[Dionysios]

Each volume now needs tentative tables of contents.
After these attain a sufficient degree of completeness, the tables of contents can perhaps be maintained online with alteration only possible by moderators or administrators.

After appreciable work proceeds on this and the kernel of a book begins to form, I suggest a responsible and reliable point man be given custody of the whole thing as to prevent changes or mishaps with the text which some put so much energy into. I recommend Tom Bishop. I also suggest all key persons retaining fairly up to date back-ups of the book as it develops in their own personal databases.

I will try to submit a table of contents for part two of volume one (on the history of fet) within the next two weeks if I can find the time. I'll open a new thread when I do this.

For volume one, I will probably leave the introduction and zetetic vs theoretic sections to someone else if interested. I will likely eventually submit a very basic rough draft for the zetetic vs. theoretic section of which I do have definite ideas about Euclid vs the drawbacks of the modern scientific method, but the final product might be interesting after pertinent additions and an editing by others.

[Tom Bishop]

Dionysios, I agree with all of your ideas and move that they be implemented. I agree that the History of RET should be in The Conspiracy section. I am interested in seeing your Table of Contents for the History of FET. I don't have a problem with your envisioning of the size of this volume.

I volunteer to work on Zetetic Vs. Theoretic for Volume I. That is a topic I am very much interested in discussing at length.

[Dionysios]

I have suggestions for the basic layout of the conspiracy section.

The earlier history of globularism and its development could possibly be controversial. 
In the case of any fundamental differences of opinion, perhaps both alternatives can be described as Tom had suggested about another aspect.

General suggestion for the main sections of the conspiracy volume:

I. Earliest history of globularism up to Claudius Ptolemy
II. Decline of globularism in the early Christian, late Roman era and its vestiges in eastern societies
III. Resurgence of globularism Through Islamic Revival of Greek Sciences
IV. Adoption of Islamic Sciences by medieval europe
V. Imposition of globular doctrine worldwide via european colonialism
This section will have separate chapters chronicling this history for each country such as the Jesuits who discarded the flat earth Zhou Bi when they became the official astronomers for the Court of China in the 1600's. 

VI. I presume that the history of the conspiracy from Copernicus onwards including Apollo missions, et cetera will constitute the latter parts of the conspiracy volume.
(Listing alternative explanations could also be done here for any other issues with fundamentally different viewpoints such as satellites.)

Note:  I also presume that the history of Rowbotham's movement over the last 175 years will primarily be covered in the flat earth history section of the first volume. 

[Dionysios]

we should ensure that the time we spend answering a question is not wasted or forgotten into the forum abyss by also putting that answer into the book.

That's one of the good purposes of this project.

Although I am currently overwhelmed with a cross country move, events over the past year in my case are good for this project in the long run. I must say the timing here is either a coincidence or providential. Among other factors, I've had a vast personal library located overseas which includes flat earth books that I acquired years ago. It's been in Greece for some time, and I was finally able to ship it home this winter. Once this is all settled in order, it will only help things on this end.

[Dionysios]

Each chapter within a volume should have the following sections:

Background: ...

Theory: ...

At least for the flat earth history section of volume one, I think it makes sense to reverse these two explaining a given model first, such as the ancient Hindu flat earth model (theory) and secondly going into its long history (the background) which will bring it up to the current day. If the historical section is given first in each chapter, it could be viewed as a more boring way to present it.

In each chapter, I'll describe the model first such as the river Styx around Hell and Cerberus in the Egyptian model or celestial Mount Meru of the North in the Hindu model. This stuff will be at the beginning of each chapter immediately followed by any questions and answers that connect such things to their equivalents in the modern world.  The histories are intriguing, but they should constitute the latter part of the historical chapters. The same goes for Rowbotham's system although any description of that model given in the introductory volume will not be exhaustive.

[Dionysios]

Recommendation for the chapter footnotes sections:   
Use the format taught in the 'Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association' popularly known as "APA style":
http://www.apastyle.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APA_style

It is the thorough and uniform format used in professional and scientific journals and will help any one including ourselves who would want to look for any of our sources. 

The Purdue Owl is a user friendly online tool which shows how to put references in APA format:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/


Note:  It is not necessary to have everything in this style from the moment it is written, but the finished product should have it this way if it's done right.