[andruszkow]

Yes.

Please explain. The burden of proof is with you guys.

You must be kidding.

With all of the half-assed assumptions in your reply, like ISS being a tincan orbiting the Earth, "supposedly forever", the burden of proof is on me? Are you new here?

If you regard modern science to be wrong, well that's another thing. Then YOU proof that the math is bad. Many have tried and failed here, sandokhans efforts being the most notable of attempts (well, apart from Rowbotham).

If it's not about bad math, then "The images are obvious fakes" ain't gonna cut it. I'm going to pull a TFES response on that and tell you to "look for the answers in the forum". There's the round earth repository for instance.

You'll probably also find that I supplied photos taken from HAB's as well showing curvature and open sourced the design and code to run it. You'll find plenty of so-called round earthers knowing their math ripping FET apart. The "images are fake and I don't truly know what Composite imaging really means" reply is the tell-tale of someone not making any effort whatsoever.

[Elusive Rabbit]

Yes.

Please explain. The burden of proof is with you guys.

You must be kidding.

At the end of the day, I'm saying that this Earth is as you perceive it-- flat! If you, and others, would like to challenge that and present a theory proposing that the Earth is, in fact, a spinning globe flying through the endless vortex of space around a giant nuclear fusion sphere, then go for it. Try and make it convincing this time.

[andruszkow]

At the end of the day, I'm saying that this Earth is as you perceive it-- flat! If you, and others, would like to challenge that and present a theory proposing that the Earth is, in fact, a spinning globe flying through the endless vortex of space around a giant nuclear fusion sphere, then go for it. Try and make it convincing this time.

Exactly, at the end of the day, you're saying that the Earth is flat - Together with a fairly narrow collection of so-called free thinkers who did their utmost to molest the concept of free thinking, turning it into a BS carte blanche. In essence, I understand why and I actually endorse the thought experiment as long as you as intellectual adults nurse and acknowledge the fact that it's exactly that - An entertaining thought experiment.

As to whether or not I'm supposed to prove to you that Earth is round - That notion itself is quite a few steps ahead of what used to be an intellectual debate attributing core principals and concepts to rational thinking. First of those being supplying one single piece of evidence that comes just remotely close to nurishing any sort of sensible, rational doubt about "what we know" - Then, you carry on to build the foundation of what is to become a fully-fledged theory, ready to be backed up by evidence. Then you present all of the above as a whole, connecting the dots between observation (facts) and theory (explanation) and THEN, but only then, are you eligible to draw the "burden of proof card".

Since none of that is remotely close to resembling reality just yet, the "burden of proof" card is a card that doesn't belong in the deck at all. Even if the burden of proof were on FET. There's nothing to suggest that FET has come close to discovering anything that could rise the slightest bit of doubt about the shape of the Earth. That's your task for now. Personal belief has no place in this realm, and you know that as well.

[Flatout]

Yes.

Please explain. The burden of proof is with you guys.

You must be kidding.

At the end of the day, I'm saying that this Earth is as you perceive it-- flat! If you, and others, would like to challenge that and present a theory proposing that the Earth is, in fact, a spinning globe flying through the endless vortex of space around a giant nuclear fusion sphere, then go for it. Try and make it convincing this time.

I'm pretty convinced that it doesn't matter what most people  actually  believe.    I haven't met very many who have actually had to predict, design, or execute anything that was actually dependant on the shape of the earth or its position in the universe.   They are completely free to believe what they want because nothing is really required of that belief.  There is really no consequence, outside of social, for adhering to it.  Now if one had to calculate ballistics,  put something in orbit, design flight paths for efficiency,  plan a battle 3 months ahead of schedule based on the suns rise and azimuth, create communication networks, design navigation equipment, or generate formulas for engineering and design purposes then we are in the realm of real science not just conjecture.  Here ones understanding of the earth and it position actually matters.

[Elusive Rabbit]

Exactly, at the end of the day, you're saying that the Earth is flat - Together with a fairly narrow collection of so-called free thinkers who did their utmost to molest the concept of free thinking, turning it into a BS carte blanche.

I've never bothered to call myself a free thinker, and I rarely see that term floating around here. The way I see it, who even thinks about the shape of the Earth? There are plenty, plenty of so-called free thinkers that don't even consider the possibility that the Earth is anything but a sphere. It isn't for a lack of intelligence necessarily, but instead because nobody bothers to consider the possibility. That's all.

As to whether or not I'm supposed to prove to you that Earth is round - That notion itself is quite a few steps ahead of what used to be an intellectual debate attributing core principals and concepts to rational thinking. First of those being supplying one single piece of evidence that comes just remotely close to nourishing any sort of sensible, rational doubt about "what we know" - Then, you carry on to build the foundation of what is to become a fully-fledged theory, ready to be backed up by evidence. Then you present all of the above as a whole, connecting the dots between observation (facts) and theory (explanation) and THEN, but only then, are you eligible to draw the "burden of proof card".

Between Atheism and religion, the burden of proof lies with religion. Atheists, in calling upon the senses and including a sensible involvement with reality, readily concludes that there is no god: we have no way of perceiving this supposed being, there is no evidence of a deity, no verifiable encounters, no proof, nothing. Their perception clearly tells them a fundamental truth of this reality. So, when somebody else comes along and presents a much more complicated, perception-defying framework that includes concepts such as god, the burden of proof lies with that somebody to prove such an assertion. I think this analogy illustrates the flat earth and round earth burden of proof issue.

There's nothing to suggest that FET has come close to discovering anything that could rise the slightest bit of doubt about the shape of the Earth. That's your task for now.

The evidence is out there. If you don't think there is even a scrap of evidence, anything at all resembling evidence, that could raise the slightest doubt about the shape of the Earth, that is your issue.

[andruszkow]

Exactly, at the end of the day, you're saying that the Earth is flat - Together with a fairly narrow collection of so-called free thinkers who did their utmost to molest the concept of free thinking, turning it into a BS carte blanche.

I've never bothered to call myself a free thinker, and I rarely see that term floating around here. The way I see it, who even thinks about the shape of the Earth? There are plenty, plenty of so-called free thinkers that don't even consider the possibility that the Earth is anything but a sphere. It isn't for a lack of intelligence necessarily, but instead because nobody bothers to consider the possibility. That's all.

As to whether or not I'm supposed to prove to you that Earth is round - That notion itself is quite a few steps ahead of what used to be an intellectual debate attributing core principals and concepts to rational thinking. First of those being supplying one single piece of evidence that comes just remotely close to nourishing any sort of sensible, rational doubt about "what we know" - Then, you carry on to build the foundation of what is to become a fully-fledged theory, ready to be backed up by evidence. Then you present all of the above as a whole, connecting the dots between observation (facts) and theory (explanation) and THEN, but only then, are you eligible to draw the "burden of proof card".

Between Atheism and religion, the burden of proof lies with religion. Atheists, in calling upon the senses and including a sensible involvement with reality, readily concludes that there is no god: we have no way of perceiving this supposed being, there is no evidence of a deity, no verifiable encounters, no proof, nothing. Their perception clearly tells them a fundamental truth of this reality. So, when somebody else comes along and presents a much more complicated, perception-defying framework that includes concepts such as god, the burden of proof lies with that somebody to prove such an assertion. I think this analogy illustrates the flat earth and round earth burden of proof issue.

There's nothing to suggest that FET has come close to discovering anything that could rise the slightest bit of doubt about the shape of the Earth. That's your task for now.

The evidence is out there. If you don't think there is even a scrap of evidence, anything at all resembling evidence, that could raise the slightest doubt about the shape of the Earth, that is your issue.

There's not. If you believe there is, show me.