Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2017, 03:22:34 AM »
The operation of GPS systems is known, understood and documented.

Also the measurement of the angle of the sun from multiple positions at different times proves a round earth.

Why not post the measurements for us then?
Refer to the various websites that do.  Also see those that give the angles for aligning satellite dishes.

Provide the links rather than saying "various websites." Thank you.
http://www.geosats.com/lookangle.html
https://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php?lang=en
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_of_the_Sun
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2017, 03:30:15 AM »
The operation of GPS systems is known, understood and documented.

Also the measurement of the angle of the sun from multiple positions at different times proves a round earth.

Why not post the measurements for us then?
Refer to the various websites that do.  Also see those that give the angles for aligning satellite dishes.

Provide the links rather than saying "various websites." Thank you.
http://www.geosats.com/lookangle.html
https://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php?lang=en
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_of_the_Sun
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/

Thise are calculators, not "measurements of the angle of the sun from multiple positions at different times." Please post the real proof this time, thanks!

Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2017, 03:40:58 AM »
The operation of GPS systems is known, understood and documented.

Also the measurement of the angle of the sun from multiple positions at different times proves a round earth.

Why not post the measurements for us then?
Refer to the various websites that do.  Also see those that give the angles for aligning satellite dishes.

Provide the links rather than saying "various websites." Thank you.
http://www.geosats.com/lookangle.html
https://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php?lang=en
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_of_the_Sun
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/

Thise are calculators, not "measurements of the angle of the sun from multiple positions at different times." Please post the real proof this time, thanks!
We know the shape of the earth and these use that to calculate the results.  If you have any proof that the earth is any other shape then please provide it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_path describes the path of the sun, is there anything you disagree with?

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 652
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2017, 04:48:59 AM »
"No one would believe?"  The FE side claims that the whole world already believes things the FE find ridiculous, why would no one believe this?  Airplanes reach targets thousands of miles away slowly; I don't think anyone would have trouble accepting that a missile could go higher and faster in order to reach that same target quickly.

Airplanes fly via lift. Rockets follow a ballistic trajectory, and a rocket full of rocket fuel only has enough power for about 100 miles before it starts dropping. Unless it gets into earth orbit or on a sub-orbital velocity, it's not going to go very far.

Yes, thank you Tom, I actually do know how rockets and airplanes work.  What I'm saying is that on a flat earth where nothing goes to space, the US and Soviet ICBM's DID NOT GO TO SPACE either.  Therefore, it must be true (on a flat earth) that missiles get where they're going by flying high and fast in the thin upper atmosphere, and if you are China or India why not just say so instead of joining the US and USSR in their big space lie?  Most people have only a vague idea of how things work outside their own areas of expertise, and most FE think the average person is pretty easily fooled by the round earth you find so preposterous; why wouldn't those same sheeple easily accept yet another preposterous explanation, this time covering a false description of how ICBM's work?


Quote
Quote
If I pretend I have a back yard full of fire-breathing dragons threatening the kids next door, the neighbors wouldn't feel the need to also pretend to have their own dragons in an effort to comfort their kids; they would prove that dragons aren't a thing and therefore I don't actually have any.

How are you supposed to prove to your kids that dragons don't exist? That's called proving a negative and is incredibly difficult/impossible.

Well, they could start with your proof that the earth isn't a globe.  "Have you ever seen these 'dragons' that Rounder claims to have?  No?  Okay then, have you ever seen ANY dragons, anywhere?  No?  Well, why do you believe Rounder then?"  Plus, if this is what it takes to calm their kids down, I bet my neighbors would be willing to fly a drone into my 'dragon barns' to show the kids that they're empty, no dragons at all.  Even if it meant losing their drone.


Quote
Quote
By the same token, if China or North Korea could prove that the nations with ICBMs are making the whole thing up, there is no need to pretend to have ICBMs of their own, because they aren't even a real thing (in that world)!

If North Korea said that our ICBM system was fake, how do you really see it playing out?

That would be far and away the most reasonable lie in the collection of crap the "Dear Leader" feeds his people.  I think it would be quite eagerly accepted. 
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Offline Smokified

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2017, 12:25:17 AM »
a) There are multiple foreign nations who have travelled to space - many of whom are openly hostile to the USA.  None of them blabbed?

During the cold war the US expressed open skepticism against the Soviet Space Program, and vice-versa.

Quote
b) There are multiple non-government agencies (SpaceX, for example) who would have to have been in collusion.  None of them blabbed?

NASA is actually composed entirely of non-governmental agencies called government contractors, public-private arms of the state which operate within the government's secure realms.

Quote
c) Not one "death bed" confession from an astronaut?  Really?  Not a single one?

Buzz Aldrin's entire personal and professional life revolves around the fact that he was an Apollo astronaut. It has brought him fame and fortune and he has traveled around the country inspiring adults and children alike. Do you really think he would admit that he was a phoney?

Also, when people are sick they generally believe that they will pull out of it.

Quote
d) What about all of those astronomers - they'd all have to be in on it.  Nobody blabbed?

Astronomers merely observe the sky and interpret. They are not scientists who put their subject matter under controlled conditions to come to the truth of a matter --they can't. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists.

Quote
e) What about all of the people who build and sell GPS equipment, without satellites in orbit, GPS can't work the way it's claimed - but the people who write the software for these things would also have to be a part of the conspiracy.

The military built the GPS satellites and the military is publishing the spec.

Quote
f) Ditto satellite TV companies.

Do you really think that Dish network is building and launching their own satellites single handedly?


Quote
g) All of those ships, drones and aircraft that are claimed to be patrolling The Great Ice Barrier have to be in on the conspiracy - so do the people who build those ships, the people who supply them, the people who crew and repair them.   So do all of the countries who have navies down there who'd have spotted them.  So do all of the air-traffic control people who watch these aircraft land and take off in huge numbers.

Who claimed that the wall was guarded? Why are you making stuff up?

Quote
h) Navigation by the stars can't work the same way in FE as it does in RE.  But sailing ships going back to the 1600's used this navigation technique...and their sailors wrote manuals about it - there are copious books on the subject.  Every commercial shipping company and every navy in the world would have had to be a part of the conspiracy.

Celestial navigation works by looking at the North Star and gauging where East and West are based on that. For the South it involves finding the Southern Cross.

Quote
i) But hold on - the ancient Chinese had fleets that sailed around the pacific and indian oceans using celestial navigation - and they did this BEFORE they met the Europeans who were doing the same exact thing.   This means that they both, independently, discovered that the world is flat and separately decided to collude on this (seemingly) more bizarre round-earth solution to whatever problem caused them to do this coverup.

The North Star is North in the Flat Earth model. To find the direction of North the Chinese just had to find the North Star. It's the brightest one. Simple!

Quote
j) Now add all of those sailors - not a single one of them came home from years at sea and told their wives and family that there was an enormous cover-up to hide the flat earth?

See above.

Quote
k) The pirates of the caribbean and south seas had to navigate by the stars.  They LOVED upsetting the apple cart.   Why didn't a single one of them expose the secret FE navigation charts and whatever stood in for a theodolite?

See above.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!

How long did it take you to come up with this complete shit?

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5682
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2017, 03:19:05 AM »
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!

How long did it take you to come up with this complete shit?

Last warning. Next one is a week-long ban since you are coming off a 3-day ban for the exact same childish behavior.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2017, 03:42:20 AM »
Yes, thank you Tom, I actually do know how rockets and airplanes work.  What I'm saying is that on a flat earth where nothing goes to space, the US and Soviet ICBM's DID NOT GO TO SPACE either.  Therefore, it must be true (on a flat earth) that missiles get where they're going by flying high and fast in the thin upper atmosphere, and if you are China or India why not just say so instead of joining the US and USSR in their big space lie?  Most people have only a vague idea of how things work outside their own areas of expertise, and most FE think the average person is pretty easily fooled by the round earth you find so preposterous; why wouldn't those same sheeple easily accept yet another preposterous explanation, this time covering a false description of how ICBM's work?

Well, there was a World War, in which people believe that the only reason Hitler couldn't reach the United States with his rockets is that he couldn't get them into orbit. It's not some obscure topic.

Quote
Well, they could start with your proof that the earth isn't a globe.  "Have you ever seen these 'dragons' that Rounder claims to have?  No?  Okay then, have you ever seen ANY dragons, anywhere?  No?  Well, why do you believe Rounder then?"  Plus, if this is what it takes to calm their kids down, I bet my neighbors would be willing to fly a drone into my 'dragon barns' to show the kids that they're empty, no dragons at all.  Even if it meant losing their drone.

How would that prove that there are no such things as dragons? You see them all the time on TV and there are rumors around school that there is a dragon living in the forest.

Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2017, 08:58:21 AM »
The operation of GPS systems is known, understood and documented.

Also the measurement of the angle of the sun from multiple positions at different times proves a round earth.

Why not post the measurements for us then?
Refer to the various websites that do.  Also see those that give the angles for aligning satellite dishes.

Provide the links rather than saying "various websites." Thank you.
http://www.geosats.com/lookangle.html
https://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php?lang=en
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_of_the_Sun
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/

Thise are calculators, not "measurements of the angle of the sun from multiple positions at different times." Please post the real proof this time, thanks!
Well, easily doable. Let's commit on a specific time and measure it. I'm in!
Flat Earth is one of the following:
- nonsense
- bullshit
- garbage
- trash
- junk
- crap

Choose to your liking.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 652
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #28 on: July 19, 2017, 12:54:15 PM »
Well, they could start with your proof that the earth isn't a globe.  "Have you ever seen these 'dragons' that Rounder claims to have?  No?  Okay then, have you ever seen ANY dragons, anywhere?  No?  Well, why do you believe Rounder then?"  Plus, if this is what it takes to calm their kids down, I bet my neighbors would be willing to fly a drone into my 'dragon barns' to show the kids that they're empty, no dragons at all.  Even if it meant losing their drone.

How would that prove that there are no such things as dragons? You see them all the time on TV and there are rumors around school that there is a dragon living in the forest.

TV (photos are easily faked) and schoolyard gossip (shills) will not make my neighbors spend a gazillion dollars building dragon barns and buying dragon food to compete in a dragon arms race when they know there's no such thing as dragons.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2017, 06:24:21 PM »
Also, when people are sick they generally believe that they will pull out of it.

Wait, what? Is this your own anecdotal experience, or are you referencing some proven claim? And how does this random assertion buttress the flat-earth argument?

Quote
Astronomers merely observe the sky and interpret. They are not scientists who put their subject matter under controlled conditions to come to the truth of a matter --they can't. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists.

Huh. I wasn't aware that astronomers didn't make testable, predictive hypotheses, and then test them. But...still...I'll start taking FE seriously, when you predict the time, date, and path of future earth-visible solar eclipses.

Where are those predictions?

Where are the open-source, flat-earth equivalents of Stellarium (whose Newtonian and Einsteinian math can be viewed and verified by anyone to see how they predict future sky events)?

Quote
The military built the GPS satellites and the military is publishing the spec.

Remind me again how GPS works? I'm sure it's in the Wiki, and I've seen you explain it a decade ago, but there are so many conflicting and nonsensical hand-wavy answers that I'm confused.

Quote
Who claimed that the wall was guarded? Why are you making stuff up?

You know this is an intellectually dishonest answer. Just because you believe Antarctica may be a continent, doesn't mean all or most FE'ers do. Using the Zetetic method, I can confidently say that most FE'ers believe in the ice wall model. But then again, for at least a decade your approach has been to attack and distract, rather than offer up your own coherent, consistent hypotheses and testable predictions that you can be - gasp - tested and called out on.

So, instead of pretending that you have no idea what the ice wall model is, why not honestly address the question from that perspective? And/or your own opinion of that model?

Quote
Celestial navigation works by looking at the North Star and gauging where East and West are based on that.

Huh? After all these years you still have no idea how celestial navigation works? That might explain why celestial navigation works under your vague, hand-wavy "dual swirling star domes" hypothesis works in your mind, in spite of the fact that it can't explain away the parallax problem for observers in different locations.

Quote
The North Star is North in the Flat Earth model. To find the direction of North the Chinese just had to find the North Star. It's the brightest one. Simple!

Really? The North Star is the brightest? Are you sure about that?

This statement helps support my hypothesis that the main problem with FE'ers is that they don't get out much, and didn't spend much time outside as kids. People that spend much time outside at night (e.g. camping, star-gazing, or just hanging out) understand things like the basic geometry of celestial bodies, sunrises and sunsets, the relative apparent brightness of objects such as polaris, etc. (All using the Zetetic method.)
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 12:29:08 AM by JoeTheToe »

Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2017, 06:39:13 PM »
Well, there was a World War, in which people believe that the only reason Hitler couldn't reach the United States with his rockets is that he couldn't get them into orbit. It's not some obscure topic.

Are you saying you believe that ICBMs go into orbit, or that "people" believe that? You do know what the acronym "ICBM" actually stands for, and pretty much rules out - or strongly suggests not - entering orbit, right?

Are you saying that your FE model rules out the existence of ICBMs?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2017, 07:37:59 PM by JoeTheToe »

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 369
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2017, 06:42:36 PM »
The operation of GPS systems is known, understood and documented.

Also the measurement of the angle of the sun from multiple positions at different times proves a round earth.

Why not post the measurements for us then?

Why not post proof NASA is fake?
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

Online 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 564
    • View Profile
Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2017, 07:50:45 PM »
Quote
The North Star is North in the Flat Earth model. To find the direction of North the Chinese just had to find the North Star. It's the brightest one. Simple!

Really? The North Star is the brightest? Are you sure about that?

This statement helps support my hypothesis that the main problem with FE'ers is that they don't get out much, and didn't spend much time outside as kids. People that spend much time outside at night (e.g. camping, star-gazing, or just hanging out) understand things like the basic geometry of celestial bodies, sunrises and sunsets, the relative apparent brightness of objects such as polaris, etc. (All using the Zetetic method.)

Ha ha!  I hadn't noticed that blunder.  But indeed, Polaris is the 53rd brightest star and the 24th brightest in the northern hemisphere.

If you find the brightest star (Sirius) and follow that, you'd sail round in circles.

I think I can forgive Tom for this one though...it's a claim that's untrue in both FET and RET - so we'll just call it a mistake.  In truth, to navigate by Polaris, you have to find the right constellations and locate it from there.  In the patch of the sky it occupies, Polaris is quite bright and it's hard to mistake it for some other star once it's been pointed out to you.

Bad problem is, if you use Tom's approach, in FE you sail along a circular route that's much longer than the shortest route.

What makes him BADLY wrong about this one is that he's assuming that navigation is all about using the stars as a compass...which is kinda pointless since you already have one of those.   Navigation is about finding POSITION - which in RET means latitude and longitude - but in FET, it's a horrible mess because the huge optical distortions implied by "The Bishop Equation" make stellar navigation quite impossible without fully understanding that the earth is flat - and the seamen of yesteryear either didn't know that or there was a conspiracy back in the 1600's and throughout the long history of chinese sailors that would have encompassed vastly too many people to be plausible.

Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2017, 10:51:39 PM »
Quote
The North Star is North in the Flat Earth model. To find the direction of North the Chinese just had to find the North Star. It's the brightest one. Simple!

Really? The North Star is the brightest? Are you sure about that?

This statement helps support my hypothesis that the main problem with FE'ers is that they don't get out much, and didn't spend much time outside as kids. People that spend much time outside at night (e.g. camping, star-gazing, or just hanging out) understand things like the basic geometry of celestial bodies, sunrises and sunsets, the relative apparent brightness of objects such as polaris, etc. (All using the Zetetic method.)

Ha ha!  I hadn't noticed that blunder.  But indeed, Polaris is the 53rd brightest star and the 24th brightest in the northern hemisphere.

If you find the brightest star (Sirius) and follow that, you'd sail round in circles.

I think I can forgive Tom for this one though...it's a claim that's untrue in both FET and RET - so we'll just call it a mistake.  In truth, to navigate by Polaris, you have to find the right constellations and locate it from there.  In the patch of the sky it occupies, Polaris is quite bright and it's hard to mistake it for some other star once it's been pointed out to you.

Bad problem is, if you use Tom's approach, in FE you sail along a circular route that's much longer than the shortest route.

What makes him BADLY wrong about this one is that he's assuming that navigation is all about using the stars as a compass...which is kinda pointless since you already have one of those.   Navigation is about finding POSITION - which in RET means latitude and longitude - but in FET, it's a horrible mess because the huge optical distortions implied by "The Bishop Equation" make stellar navigation quite impossible without fully understanding that the earth is flat - and the seamen of yesteryear either didn't know that or there was a conspiracy back in the 1600's and throughout the long history of chinese sailors that would have encompassed vastly too many people to be plausible.

Exactly, on celestial navigation. Tom can't answer that one, other than to grossly mischaracterize celestial navigation.

But his gaffe on polaris is an important and illuminating clue, IMO. I don't think it was a gaffe. I think we should read it exactly as he wrote it, and take him at his word. I think he literally has no idea how bright it is, and thinks that it is an important star because it is literally "the brightest". In the whole sky.

In the ten years I've read his posts (mostly off and occasionally on), it seems painfully, pitifully obvious that he doesn't get out much. He has a profoundly naive understanding of basic physical and geometric things in the world - not even relating to flat vs spheroid earth - that anyone who has spend much time outdoors, intrinsically understands. (Like the relative brightness of Polaris.) I think he literally sits inside all day stewing over the RE conspiracy and watching Youtube videos - completely oblivious to things like the movement of trees in the wind, the flocking of birds, the resistance of water to your body in it, the eerie glow of moonlight in a forest. (Though I seem to recall he had a professional occupation at one time, maybe still.) I haven't compiled a list, obviously, it's just an impression I've formed over the years. Via the Zetetic Method. He seems "booksmart" (arguably), but profoundly - dangerously - naive. I mean, he seems to not have noticeable cognitive deficiency - he seems to be not brain-damaged or mentally impaired. And yet at times you're left scratching your head, asking, "what the f--- is he talking about? Has he ever once been outdoors"?

I feel profoundly sorry for him. But back to the topic at hand: In summary, I don't think at all that the Polaris flub was a grammar mistake or other failure to adequately communicate. Besides, he has a long history of picking apart and dismissing arguments, based on obvious, trivial grammatical mistakes, and using it as pretext to abandon a debate that is leading to intellectually uncomfortable places. "Intellectual dishonesty" is his trademark. I'm not calling him a liar. There's a difference. He uses intellectually dishonest tactics to avoid honest, legitimate, fact and issues-based debate. And rather than submit his own theories to detailed analysis and constructive debate, he uses hand-wavy assertions, vague ad hominem attack, puts forth strawmen attacks that he clearly knows are such, and puts forth blatantly pedantic arguments to pick apart imperfect presentations of well-established RE arguments.

And yet, for those reasons, he's the perfect FE advocate. Also, he's online 24-7, 365, for the last ten years. (It would seem at least from random sampling.)

(He also uses an avatar photo that is at least ten years old, and I strongly suspected was that old then. Nothing wrong with being "old", just be honest. I don't use an avatar because 1] I don't plan on being here for years or even months, 2] I don't want anyone knowing that the real me even has time to engage such lunacy, etc. But I'm not dishonest in my presentation of who I am. I have a cousin who is seriously cognitively impaired not only from birth but through decades of heavy drug use. He believes that aliens are everywhere and abducting people all the time. He is very active online and uses a 30 year-old photo of himself! He was a reasonably handsome middle-age man then. Now he just looks like a fat old useless blob. That's not proof that Tom's photo is 20 years old. But if his avatar was, say, that of a 300 lbs 75 year-old man with a droopy stroke-face on one side, I'd have a heck of alot more empathy for him!)
« Last Edit: July 25, 2017, 11:05:25 PM by JoeTheToe »

Online 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 564
    • View Profile
Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #34 on: July 26, 2017, 05:06:42 PM »
There is no doubt that Flat Earthers are not well travelled people.

Far *FAR* too many of their claims (moon rotation being my personal favorite) are completely obvious proofs of round earth - but unless you've travelled beyond Europe and North America - you'll never see the profound weirdness of the moon "on it's side".

Their maps of the round earth also reveal this.   The maps are a reasonable (although FAR from perfect) representation of Europe and North America - but become increasingly untenable once you go further south.

Their total failure to grasp how the stars appear in areas further South than about 45N show that they have never travelled far beyond their own backyards.

Growing up as I did in the UK, then spending a few years in Nairobi, Kenya brought a PROFOUND feeling of oddness when looking at the crescent moon looking like a cup or a hat instead of a letter 'C'.    Right now, when I look at the sun in Texas, it seems wrong.   When I spent time with a cousin in NewZealand and the whole thing was upside down...it's downright freaky.

That visual evidence brings it home in a visceral way that the Earth is round.

But unless you've seen that - preferably with your own eyes - it's possible to deny it or to come up with an explanation (as Tom did) that completely fails to produce the results that you can actually see.

So yes - we have people who have not experienced much of the world - or who have gone around with their eyes shut for much of the time.

However, this does not excuse them from listening to the experiences of people who have had that luxury.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 369
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #35 on: July 26, 2017, 07:34:07 PM »
There is no doubt that Flat Earthers are not well travelled people.

Far *FAR* too many of their claims (moon rotation being my personal favorite) are completely obvious proofs of round earth - but unless you've travelled beyond Europe and North America - you'll never see the profound weirdness of the moon "on it's side".

Their maps of the round earth also reveal this.   The maps are a reasonable (although FAR from perfect) representation of Europe and North America - but become increasingly untenable once you go further south.

Their total failure to grasp how the stars appear in areas further South than about 45N show that they have never travelled far beyond their own backyards.

Growing up as I did in the UK, then spending a few years in Nairobi, Kenya brought a PROFOUND feeling of oddness when looking at the crescent moon looking like a cup or a hat instead of a letter 'C'.    Right now, when I look at the sun in Texas, it seems wrong.   When I spent time with a cousin in NewZealand and the whole thing was upside down...it's downright freaky.

That visual evidence brings it home in a visceral way that the Earth is round.

But unless you've seen that - preferably with your own eyes - it's possible to deny it or to come up with an explanation (as Tom did) that completely fails to produce the results that you can actually see.

So yes - we have people who have not experienced much of the world - or who have gone around with their eyes shut for much of the time.

However, this does not excuse them from listening to the experiences of people who have had that luxury.


Where is Texas are you? Austin here (duh).

As for FEers not being well traveled, the majority of You Tubers (and a lot of passers by here) that I have seen seem to be flat out illiterate.  The types you can imagine handling snakes in a back woods church.  That's why it freaks me out that some of the FE posters seem to be educated and claim to have advanced degrees that require a lot of science courses.  Hmmm

The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #36 on: July 26, 2017, 07:52:26 PM »
Huh. I wasn't aware that astronomers didn't make testable, predictive hypotheses, and then test them. But...still...I'll start taking FE seriously, when you predict the time, date, and path of future earth-visible solar eclipses.

Where are those predictions?

Check NASA's eclipse website. They are using a method created by a society of people who believed that the earth was flat.

Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2017, 08:38:28 PM »
Huh. I wasn't aware that astronomers didn't make testable, predictive hypotheses, and then test them. But...still...I'll start taking FE seriously, when you predict the time, date, and path of future earth-visible solar eclipses.

Where are those predictions?

Check NASA's eclipse website. They are using a method created by a society of people who believed that the earth was flat.
Firstly, as pointed out in another thread, NASA doesn't rely strictly upon the Saros cycle for predictions. They also use a solved variation of the three body problem. But I'll leave that there.

Secondly, and more importantly since you like to bring it up, Babylonian atronomers and astrologers may have actually thought of the Earth as round. Unfortunately our knowledge of their society and culture is severely lacking. To blanketely say they believed the Earth was flat isn't very accurate. There are about a dozen ideas on how they thought of the Earth's shape, from a round hemisphere, to a series of up to 7 Earth's in some fashion. While the Earth being flat may have been a belief of the less educated of the populace, astronomers and their like appeared to mostly agree upon some form of spherical nature to the Earth.

In fact, during the Neo-Babylonian period (from whence Saros cycles come) the only surviving model we have is one that is Heliocentric, one most frequently put to/with Seleucus of Seleucia.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2017, 08:44:16 PM »
Firstly, as pointed out in another thread, NASA doesn't rely strictly upon the Saros cycle for predictions. They also use a solved variation of the three body problem. But I'll leave that there.

That is incorrect. The book that describes the methods used for compiling the eclipse predictions describes the Saros Cycle as being the mechanism for finding the time of the eclipse.

Secondly, and more importantly since you like to bring it up, Babylonian atronomers and astrologers may have actually thought of the Earth as round. Unfortunately our knowledge of their society and culture is severely lacking. To blanketely say they believed the Earth was flat isn't very accurate. There are about a dozen ideas on how they thought of the Earth's shape, from a round hemisphere, to a series of up to 7 Earth's in some fashion. While the Earth being flat may have been a belief of the less educated of the populace, astronomers and their like appeared to mostly agree upon some form of spherical nature to the Earth.

In fact, during the Neo-Babylonian period (from whence Saros cycles come) the only surviving model we have is one that is Heliocentric, one most frequently put to/with Seleucus of Seleucia.

Since you claim to know more about Babylonia than leading scholars who tell us that they believed in a Flat Earth, maybe you should start a new thread with your findings.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 08:47:34 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2017, 08:48:54 PM »
Firstly, as pointed out in another thread, NASA doesn't rely strictly upon the Saros cycle for predictions. They also use a solved variation of the three body problem. But I'll leave that there.

That is incorrect. Half of the book that describes the methods used for compiling the eclipse predictions describes the Saros Cycle as being the mechanism for finding the time of the eclipse.

Secondly, and more importantly since you like to bring it up, Babylonian atronomers and astrologers may have actually thought of the Earth as round. Unfortunately our knowledge of their society and culture is severely lacking. To blanketely say they believed the Earth was flat isn't very accurate. There are about a dozen ideas on how they thought of the Earth's shape, from a round hemisphere, to a series of up to 7 Earth's in some fashion. While the Earth being flat may have been a belief of the less educated of the populace, astronomers and their like appeared to mostly agree upon some form of spherical nature to the Earth.

In fact, during the Neo-Babylonian period (from whence Saros cycles come) the only surviving model we have is one that is Heliocentric, one most frequently put to/with Seleucus of Seleucia.

Since you claim to know more about Babylonia than leading scholars who tell us that they believed in a Flat Earth, maybe you should start a new thread with your findings.
What I stated is all laid out right here and I'm not speaking about Babylonia as a whole, but the astronomers and astrologers of the time. Even in Greece the idea of a round Earth was (at least early on) largely a view among the higher educated populace. At least based on what I've read while looking into this.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work