[CableDawg]

Most, if not all, FE supporters anchor their beliefs, theories and arguments in perception.

Are your beliefs, theories and arguments of all aspects of life anchored in perception or is perception limited to or specially reserved for FE theory?

For example, say you fall and break your arm.  You know it's broke because it hurts like hell and may be bent at a weird angle, there is no question of your perception.  When you go to the doctor's office he will take an x-ray of your arm and produce an image of your broken arm so that he knows exactly what he's dealing with.

The rub is that human beings are absolutely incapable of perceiving x-rays.  The image produced is a manipulation, by equipment, to produce a visible spectrum image.

Considering that the average person has absolutely no idea of the true machinations of the x-ray equipment and/or the processing equipment, do you believe these images without question or do you disregard them the same as all images of space travel or distant stars/galaxies, which you label, at minimum, as being manipulated in some fashion?  Since you can NOT see inside your arm and actually perceive the broken ends of the bone do you believe that the manipulated image is, in fact, a true representation of your arm?

[Rounder]

I get what you're trying for, but don't see it being very convincing.  The X-ray image of the broken bone lines up with the perception of events, it agrees with and supports the observation of a visible injury and the perception of pain.  In contrast, photos from space are outside the experience of most people, the curvature shown in those photos contradicts the local perception of apparant flatness.

[Pete Svarrior]

the curvature shown in those photos contradicts the local perception of apparant flatness.

And the predicted curvature of RET

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

the curvature shown in those photos contradicts the local perception of apparant flatness.

And the predicted curvature of RET

Exactly. There is no consistency in these "photographs" from space. The curvature changes wildly with no relation to the supposed altitude the photo is taken from.

But yeah, you can't see "x-rays," but you can see the result of them processed on film. I can't see or feel the effects of flying through space at 16,000 mph, while spinning on a curved axis at 1,000mph... and I don't even see any results directly related to these apparent motions.

[rabinoz]

the curvature shown in those photos contradicts the local perception of apparant flatness.

And the predicted curvature of RET

Exactly. There is no consistency in these "photographs" from space. The curvature changes wildly with no relation to the supposed altitude the photo is taken from.

But yeah, you can't see "x-rays," but you can see the result of them processed on film. I can't see or feel the effects of flying through space at 16,000 mph, while spinning on a curved axis at 1,000mph... and I don't even see any results directly related to these apparent motions.

How ever would you notice spinning once in about 24 hours or about 0.0007 rpm! You really must be a bit oversensitive! 

Please explain just what you mean by "There is no consistency in these "photographs" from space."  From space, not just from high altitude aircraft and balloons. Show some examples of just what you mean.

[Hoppy]

Most, if not all, FE supporters anchor their beliefs, theories and arguments in perception.

Are your beliefs, theories and arguments of all aspects of life anchored in perception or is perception limited to or specially reserved for FE theory?

For example, say you fall and break your arm.  You know it's broke because it hurts like hell and may be bent at a weird angle, there is no question of your perception.  When you go to the doctor's office he will take an x-ray of your arm and produce an image of your broken arm so that he knows exactly what he's dealing with.

The rub is that human beings are absolutely incapable of perceiving x-rays.  The image produced is a manipulation, by equipment, to produce a visible spectrum image.

Considering that the average person has absolutely no idea of the true machinations of the x-ray equipment and/or the processing equipment, do you believe these images without question or do you disregard them the same as all images of space travel or distant stars/galaxies, which you label, at minimum, as being manipulated in some fashion?  Since you can NOT see inside your arm and actually perceive the broken ends of the bone do you believe that the manipulated image is, in fact, a true representation of your arm?

It doesn't sound like you trust your own senses. Your arm is bent where there is no joint and hurts like hell. You won't believe your arm is broken until a doctor shows you an x-ray.

[Roundy]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

[BlueMoon]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale.  Why would you FEers believe the doctor?  He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.   

[Woody]

I think I see what you were trying to argue OP, but it was really poorly executed.

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I will try to make the argument I think you attempted.

About a year ago I was driving to Vegas and observed this:

Looking out the drivers window I saw what appeared to be a rather large lake between the mountains and road.

I have made that trip before remember not seeing water there, since it is also the same area I pull over to let my dog go her business and play some.

When I approached the exit for the small road I drive down I noticed the water did not seem to be getting closer but staying the same distance from me.  I exited and drove down a road that shortly before my senses told me should be covered in water, but it was not.  The whole area in fact was dry.

I can draw several conclusions from what I observed.

1. Water can evaporate extremely fast and do so at much lower temperatures than can be normally observed.

2. Water somehow can move relative to the observer. In this case it may have sunk below the surface.

3. Water can become undetectable to the human senses when approached in certain conditions.

4. It was a mirage explained already by science.

Well out of those choices I can say I have never observed water behaving the way in options 1-3. 

So at least for me I go with option 4, since I acknowledge my senses can deceive me at times. Well in this case it my senses were not really deceiving me and my perception told me I was observing a mirage. 

I can look out across the water right now it without taking anything else into account the world looks flat.  That is what my senses tell me and using the above observation as an example I realize my senses/perception may just not be revealing the whole truth.

When I observe the sun rise and set, lunar phases, when perched on the mast seeing things people on the deck can not see, tides, watching container ships, tankers and cruise liners rise and sink over the horizon, when I viewed the ISS through binoculars and made out the solar panels, seeing different stars sailing in different parts of the world, ocean currents that I notice going in different directions depending if I am north or south or the equator as I make crossings, etc.  Well that is my senses telling me the earth may just be a spinning globe.

Human senses are fallible and why they are not used as proof unless that is the only option. Senses IMHO can be used as supporting evidence for things like the shape of the Earth, but calculations, reproducible experiments and making reliable predictions is what proves the shape of the planet we live on.

[Roundy]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale.  Why would you FEers believe the doctor?  He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.   

We FEers have no reason to distrust the establishment either.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.  I don't know how many times REers have told me I'm foolish to believe the Earth is flat just because I perceive it to be flat.  If pressed they often go to great lengths to demonstrate to me that my senses are always lying to me and can never be trusted.  They pull out obvious optical illusions, sets of boxes and vases that look like people and cars that appear to be going uphill while in neutral and all kinds of wacky shit.  I find it a wonder that REers are able to believe anything at all, considering that our senses are really our only way of interacting with the world around us, yet they seem to be believe they can't be trusted for anything.

I don't see where "the establishment" has anything to do with it.  In fact, as I've explained previously, medicine is one of the rare arts that puts practical zeteticism into use on a consistent basis and if anything its practitioners' adherence to a discipline so strongly anti-NASA suggests that they are more friend than foe.  I'm really just not sure I agree that NASA is part of "the establishment".  Their influence has weakened a great deal over the years.  Maybe at one time... but honestly, they are more like a novelty at this point than anything else (like a "Weird Al" song, or fake dog poo), and even at that they have gotten stale.

[BlueMoon]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale.  Why would you FEers believe the doctor?  He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.   

We FEers have no reason to distrust the establishment either.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.  I don't know how many times REers have told me I'm foolish to believe the Earth is flat just because I perceive it to be flat.  If pressed they often go to great lengths to demonstrate to me that my senses are always lying to me and can never be trusted.  They pull out obvious optical illusions, sets of boxes and vases that look like people and cars that appear to be driving uphill and all kinds of wacky shit.  I find it a wonder that REers are able to believe anything at all, considering that our senses are really our only way of interacting with the world around us, yet they seem to be believe they can't be trusted for anything.

I don't see where "the establishment" has anything to do with it.  In fact, as I've explained previously, medicine is one of the rare arts that puts practical zeteticism into use on a consistent basis and if anything its practitioners' adherence to a discipline so strongly anti-NASA suggests that they are more friend than foe.  I'm really just not sure I agree that NASA is part of "the establishment".  Their influence has weakened a great deal over the years.  Maybe at one time... but honestly, they are more like a novelty at this point than anything else (like a "Weird Al" song, or fake dog poo), and even at that they have gotten stale.

In that case, you are one of a rare breed of FEers, as apparently I am with REers.  Most FEers I have spoken with simply charge ahead with their beliefs, with no regard to whether or not they are actually correct.  It would seem many REers do the same. 


It's true, our immediate perception would suggest that the earth is flat.  There was a time when that was enough, when the heavens were simply a source of wonder and stories, and our business lay on the ground.  But today our perception has widened.  We now live in a world with satellites and GPS, where mankind has been to the moon and our machines have left the solar system.  We have reason to believe that there is more than meets the eye.  But rather than accept that their old perception has been phased out, most FEers will accuse pioneering organizations like NASA of deception and fraud, and dismiss our accomplishments in favor of their own perception.  And apparently, most REers will attack their own perceptions of FEers, and only end up reenforcing the FEers beliefs.  Both sides are guilty of this. 


On the other hand, I am in a position with access to vast amounts of third party evidence that the earth is round.  I am a member of the Space Hardware Club at my university, where we send up high-altitude balloons, participate in the ARISS program, and even have our own cubesat in orbit.  I'm qualified to advocate for NASA and RE in a way few others are. 

[Hoppy]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale.  Why would you FEers believe the doctor?  He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.   

We FEers have no reason to distrust the establishment either.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.  I don't know how many times REers have told me I'm foolish to believe the Earth is flat just because I perceive it to be flat.  If pressed they often go to great lengths to demonstrate to me that my senses are always lying to me and can never be trusted.  They pull out obvious optical illusions, sets of boxes and vases that look like people and cars that appear to be driving uphill and all kinds of wacky shit.  I find it a wonder that REers are able to believe anything at all, considering that our senses are really our only way of interacting with the world around us, yet they seem to be believe they can't be trusted for anything.

I don't see where "the establishment" has anything to do with it.  In fact, as I've explained previously, medicine is one of the rare arts that puts practical zeteticism into use on a consistent basis and if anything its practitioners' adherence to a discipline so strongly anti-NASA suggests that they are more friend than foe.  I'm really just not sure I agree that NASA is part of "the establishment".  Their influence has weakened a great deal over the years.  Maybe at one time... but honestly, they are more like a novelty at this point than anything else (like a "Weird Al" song, or fake dog poo), and even at that they have gotten stale.

In that case, you are one of a rare breed of FEers, as apparently I am with REers.  Most FEers I have spoken with simply charge ahead with their beliefs, with no regard to whether or not they are actually correct.  It would seem many REers do the same. 


It's true, our immediate perception would suggest that the earth is flat.  There was a time when that was enough, when the heavens were simply a source of wonder and stories, and our business lay on the ground.  But today our perception has widened.  We now live in a world with satellites and GPS, where mankind has been to the moon and our machines have left the solar system.  We have reason to believe that there is more than meets the eye.  But rather than accept that their old perception has been phased out, most FEers will accuse pioneering organizations like NASA of deception and fraud, and dismiss our accomplishments in favor of their own perception.  And apparently, most REers will attack their own perceptions of FEers, and only end up reenforcing the FEers beliefs.  Both sides are guilty of this. 


On the other hand, I am in a position with access to vast amounts of third party evidence that the earth is round.  I am a member of the Space Hardware Club at my university, where we send up high-altitude balloons, participate in the ARISS program, and even have our own cubesat in orbit.  I'm qualified to advocate for NASA and RE in a way few others are.

I saw a video of a night time high altitude balloon flight . It appeared to go so high as to see the sun far off. Have you seen the video? What is your opinion?

[BlueMoon]

I saw a video of a night time high altitude balloon flight . It appeared to go so high as to see the sun far off. Have you seen the video? What is your opinion?

I haven't yet, but I'd like to.  Could you post the link? 

[CableDawg]

I get what you're trying for, but don't see it being very convincing.  The X-ray image of the broken bone lines up with the perception of events, it agrees with and supports the observation of a visible injury and the perception of pain.  In contrast, photos from space are outside the experience of most people, the curvature shown in those photos contradicts the local perception of apparant flatness.

It lines up with the fact that you have a pain in your arm.  Do you trust the manipulated photo to be truly representative of what the bones in your arm look like simply because you arm hurts?  Is the pain in your arm a direct representation of the way the bone is broken?

They really are the same thing.  You can see the stars in the night sky just as well as you can feel the pain in your arm.  You won't trust the photo of a star that you can see but you'll trust the photo of your broken bone that you can't see?

How is the manipulation of one set of scientific data acceptable yet the manipulation of another set of scientific data is not?

[CableDawg]

Most, if not all, FE supporters anchor their beliefs, theories and arguments in perception.

Are your beliefs, theories and arguments of all aspects of life anchored in perception or is perception limited to or specially reserved for FE theory?

For example, say you fall and break your arm.  You know it's broke because it hurts like hell and may be bent at a weird angle, there is no question of your perception.  When you go to the doctor's office he will take an x-ray of your arm and produce an image of your broken arm so that he knows exactly what he's dealing with.

The rub is that human beings are absolutely incapable of perceiving x-rays.  The image produced is a manipulation, by equipment, to produce a visible spectrum image.

Considering that the average person has absolutely no idea of the true machinations of the x-ray equipment and/or the processing equipment, do you believe these images without question or do you disregard them the same as all images of space travel or distant stars/galaxies, which you label, at minimum, as being manipulated in some fashion?  Since you can NOT see inside your arm and actually perceive the broken ends of the bone do you believe that the manipulated image is, in fact, a true representation of your arm?

It doesn't sound like you trust your own senses. Your arm is bent where there is no joint and hurts like hell. You won't believe your arm is broken until a doctor shows you an x-ray.

Where did I say that I won't believe my arm is broken until a doctor shows me an x-ray?  Did you not see the part where I said it was for his use?  Did you misunderstand that part?

[CableDawg]

the curvature shown in those photos contradicts the local perception of apparant flatness.

And the predicted curvature of RET

Exactly. There is no consistency in these "photographs" from space. The curvature changes wildly with no relation to the supposed altitude the photo is taken from.

But yeah, you can't see "x-rays," but you can see the result of them processed on film. I can't see or feel the effects of flying through space at 16,000 mph, while spinning on a curved axis at 1,000mph... and I don't even see any results directly related to these apparent motions.

Can you not see the weather happening around you?  Weather is caused, in part, by earth's rotation.

[CableDawg]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

I'll ask you the same question I asked Hoppy.

Did you see the part where I said the x-ray was for the doctors use?  Did you misunderstand that part?

[CableDawg]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale.  Why would you FEers believe the doctor?  He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.   

We FEers have no reason to distrust the establishment either.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.  I don't know how many times REers have told me I'm foolish to believe the Earth is flat just because I perceive it to be flat.  If pressed they often go to great lengths to demonstrate to me that my senses are always lying to me and can never be trusted.  They pull out obvious optical illusions, sets of boxes and vases that look like people and cars that appear to be going uphill while in neutral and all kinds of wacky shit.  I find it a wonder that REers are able to believe anything at all, considering that our senses are really our only way of interacting with the world around us, yet they seem to be believe they can't be trusted for anything.

I don't see where "the establishment" has anything to do with it.  In fact, as I've explained previously, medicine is one of the rare arts that puts practical zeteticism into use on a consistent basis and if anything its practitioners' adherence to a discipline so strongly anti-NASA suggests that they are more friend than foe.  I'm really just not sure I agree that NASA is part of "the establishment".  Their influence has weakened a great deal over the years.  Maybe at one time... but honestly, they are more like a novelty at this point than anything else (like a "Weird Al" song, or fake dog poo), and even at that they have gotten stale.

So medicine is the only or one of the very few professions that proceeds by inquiry?

You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?

[Tom Bishop]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale.  Why would you FEers believe the doctor?  He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.   

We FEers have no reason to distrust the establishment either.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.  I don't know how many times REers have told me I'm foolish to believe the Earth is flat just because I perceive it to be flat.  If pressed they often go to great lengths to demonstrate to me that my senses are always lying to me and can never be trusted.  They pull out obvious optical illusions, sets of boxes and vases that look like people and cars that appear to be going uphill while in neutral and all kinds of wacky shit.  I find it a wonder that REers are able to believe anything at all, considering that our senses are really our only way of interacting with the world around us, yet they seem to be believe they can't be trusted for anything.

I don't see where "the establishment" has anything to do with it.  In fact, as I've explained previously, medicine is one of the rare arts that puts practical zeteticism into use on a consistent basis and if anything its practitioners' adherence to a discipline so strongly anti-NASA suggests that they are more friend than foe.  I'm really just not sure I agree that NASA is part of "the establishment".  Their influence has weakened a great deal over the years.  Maybe at one time... but honestly, they are more like a novelty at this point than anything else (like a "Weird Al" song, or fake dog poo), and even at that they have gotten stale.

So medicine is the only or one of the very few professions that proceeds by inquiry?

You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?

And you would have us believe that NASA photographed a rock that looks exactly like a rodent on the surface of mars?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Holy cow life on mars after all! Whats the source for that pic tom?