[3DGeek]

As some of the earlier "Disproof" articles get pushed down the forum - I wanted to collect together some links and summarize them for those who are interested.  If FE'ers have alternative summaries of what happened in these discussions, please do post your points of view.

1) Tides: Why are there two high tides per day?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6229.0
    The only FE response (from Pete Svarrior) actually helped the RE case with some handy diagrams
    He didn't understand that there are TWO tides per day and handily explained why there is only one in FET.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

2) Question about Perspective (Round 1): How is the FE "perspective effect" possible?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6242.0
    No significant FE response.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

3) Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object": Why does the "shadow object" that is required to explain lunar eclipses not obscure any stars? https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6284.0
    Oami said "God can control every photon"...an "interesting" position!
    Joyceclair essentially backed up that "argument".
    Boodidlie agreed.
    CONCLUSION: The FE consensus is that god fakes all of this stuff.\

4) Seeing France from the UK: Observations of Calais from the cliffs of Dover.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6492.0
    No FE response.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

5) Why does the moon appear upside down in the south?  The moon seems to be rotated when viewed at different latitudes how can this be?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6149
    Perhaps "TheTruthIsOnHere" was attempting a response.  Seemed only to confirm RET.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

6) Moon Inversion.  Again, more issues over how the moon appears at different latitudes.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6496
    Neutrino (an RE'er) attempted to explain Tom's position on this...raised more questions than answers.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

7) What is the Sun?  Someone asked about the nature of the FE sun.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6516
    Tom Bishop said "What makes you think that anyone would know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it? Controlled experimentation is required. Until that time, although the motions are visible to us, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown".
    I pointed out that we can indeed know the mechanism "just by looking at it" and showed evidence.
    Tom replied that "Stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab"  (untrue) and that "observation alone just does not cut it."
    Then he "cunningly" hijacked the thread to talk about the Rowbotham experiment and went back to his favorite (but inconclusive) "proof" about view-over-water...dozens and dozens of replies later - and he'd managed to deflect the "What is the Sun?" question entirely without ever saying more than saying (in effect) "I don't know - and I reject any and all evidence you have".
   CONCLUSION: FET doesn't know and tries hard to deflect the debate.  RET wins.

8 ) The Moon.  A thread that started simply enough but was revealing:  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6618
    Someone asked about why we can only see one side of the moon.
    Tom Bishop explained that the moon rocks back and forth and claimed that astronomers were able to map the far side of the moon before Apollo.  Weird.
    I carefully explained what the truth is.
    Tom Bishop posted something REALLY odd...https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6618.msg121514#msg121514 "Can you show us an example of where an receding object 3000 miles in height turned 45 degrees to its side?" - who knows what THAT meant.  But basically he talks about the "altered perspective" thing.
    He posted a couple more times with increasingly weird claims for this "perspective" thing.
    The thread never did come to any conclusions - basically the FE response is "Weird Perspective Effects"
    CONCLUSION: FET claims "weird perspective".

9) Using airline flight data.  This is my step-by-step proof that there cannot be a valid FE map.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0
    Tom first "proves" that a triangle described by three distances has internal angles that add up to 180 degrees on a flat map.  He's proving something obvious.
    This is explained to him.
    In THIS post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121852#msg121852
    I let the 'other shoe drop' and employ a quadrilateral proof to show that no possible FE map can ever exist that is consistent with airline flight data.
    Tom complains that he can't find the data.   We show him how.
    He makes the immortal statement "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."...people find this so funny, they add it into their signatures!
    Then he disputes the airline flight data.
    It is pointed out that it matches GPS data - Tom disputes the reliability of GPS.
    In THIS post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122051#msg122051 - I carefully reiterate the argument and point out that the data for distances is verifiable using the known speed of the airplane and the known flight durations.  I point out other sources to back up the flight distance data.
    Eventually, Tom comes back with a claim that made me burst out loud laughing:  "if you bring up cruising speed, please show how the cruising speed of the aircraft was calculated. Based on a test flight to a location with a "known" distance according to Round Earth Theory in the aircraft's development?"  Basically, he's saying that the only way airlines and airplane manufacturers know how fast a plane flies is to fly it over a "known" (but in his belief, incorrect) distance and use a stopwatch to measure how long it takes.
    Many people explain how we know how fast planes fly...including one airline pilot.   I point out that the speed of an airliner is designed into it before the airplane is ever built.  It's not measured after the plane is actually built!
    Tom acts as though these statements were never made - simply doubling down on his earlier demands for speed proof.
    Tom imagines that airplane speed is only measured as "air speed"...which isn't true.
    Tom claims that the cockpit instruments calculate distances using a round-earth model, and are therefore producing incorrect results.
    This thread has wound on for a very long time...but Tom can only keep his toehold on doubt by repeatedly claiming that airlines and airplane manufacturers have no idea how fast their planes can fly.
    It eventually occurs to me that it doesn't matter.  Even if planes fly twice as fast as everyone thinks - that doesn't change the math in my "quadrilateral cities" claim because you can double all of the distances - and the result is STILL a map that doesn't match the flat earth.
    For Tom to be right, the speeds of aircraft would have to magically vary according to some odd law of physics to make it perfectly seem like the world is round, even though it's flat.  The airplane's drag coefficient and/or thrust would have to be different for North/South versus East/West routes - AND would have to be different in the northern hemisphere versus the south.
    Throughout the LONG thread - no other FE'ers offered any useful contributions.
   Sadly, the debate on that thread has gotten so long, and so badly derailed that the important points have been missed.

10) Disproof of FET using refraction.  This thread proves that you cannot use "refraction" to explain FET sunsets. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6710
      Tom points out that he DOES NOT support "refraction" as the cause of sunsets.   I apologize for assuming this to be the case.
      He explains that the "electromagnetic accelerator" thing is also not his current theory.
      He now supports this "altered perspective" concept - but says that he agrees that light travels in straight lines.
      No other FE'ers offered any contributions.
      While the thread didn't disprove FET (at least not Tom's version of it) - but it did establish that the "altered perspective" idea is "The Current Thing".

11) Another careful proof project: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6699
      Not a tremendously useful thread - but it does demonstrate that GPS data agrees with older pre-GPS maps - as evidenced by old land plat descriptions (which are a matter of public record) and the work of the "Degree confluence project".
      No significant FE input.
      CONCLUSION: FET is now unable to dispute lat/long data derived from GPS, RET can demonstrate it's efficacy any time we want.

12) Alternate maps problems:  Where I show some deep problems with the two standard FET maps:  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6793
      Where it's pointed out that the location of Polaris (and the Southern Cross) cannot agree with directions determined by compass.
      Tom repeats that he doesn't know the true map of the FE...and how "longitude lines curve or orient themselves around the North Pole at great distances".
      Junker makes a rare factual contribution by explaining that many FE'ers still believe in bending light and the Electromagnetic accelerator.
      Tau says that sunset (and hence starset) is complicated and that we shouldn't assume it'll work intuitively.
      Tom sews confusion by asking how we know that longitude lines point North.
      Pete Svarrior makes a valid point about the location of the magnetic pole versus the 'true north'.
      I make more explicit my concerns.
      No further input from FE'ers.
      CONCLUSION: FET has no coherent answer.

13) Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.  Most of the current FE 'defense' centers around this odd "alternate perspective" thing. I attempt to unravel it. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6785
      Tom posts this: "You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof."
      I point out that, no - my proof depends on the idea (which Tom supports) that light travels in straight lines and on Euclidean geometry and nothing else.
      Tom (clearly not understand a darned thing) goes back to simply claiming that perspective is different - but failing to understand that his laws of perspective have to work for a simple pinhole camera - and they DON'T.
      I try to make it even simpler - showing that you can use other ways to prove this.
      Tom makes another bizarre post: "You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view."
      I'm just drawing straight lines showing how light goes through a hole...this seems very much "inside the universe" - but maybe Tom doesn't believe in diagrams?  I dunno.
      Tom abandons the thread.
      No other FE'ers make significant comments.
      CONCLUSION: Definitive win for RET.   FET has no coherent answer.

14) Airliner cruise speeds - and why they matter.   In which I attempt to get the "Airline flight distances" debate back on-topic. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6828
      No FE response.
      CONCLUSION: Definitive win for RET.   FET has no coherent answer.

15) Do passenger airplane windows distort camera photos? In other threads, FE'ers claim that photos taken from airliners are inadmissible because the windows distort the images. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6814
     I demonstrate that they do not.
     Junker says that you can't see earth curvature at 40,000 feet (which is more or less the case).
     StinkyOne points out that you could see that curvature from Concorde.
     Tom says "The Concorde was looking down at a circle"...which is a baffling statement.
     Basically, it seems undisputed that photographs from airliner windows are indeed admissible evidence...but Tom doesn't understand that if the Earth was flat, you'd never see a "circle" from an airplane window.
     CONCLUSION: FET may no longer claim "window distortion".

16) Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.   How could this happen in FET?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6832
     Tom says:  "If the sun is descending into the horizon to perspective, what makes you think that if you were to increase your height shortly after sunset that you would not be able to see the sun again?"
     It's explained that perspective cannot be "wrong"...again...and Tom is asked to explain this "alternative perspective" stuff...because aside from one (Rowbotham?) diagram, nobody ever does.  They just parrot that it's true.
     CONCLUSION: FET falls back on "altered perspective" without coherent explanation as to how this explains the phenomenon.

17) Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric...in which the speed of light is used to measure distances. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6852
     Junker complains (legitimately) that this approach cannot produce accurate distances.
     I explain that it can provide an upper limit on distance - and that this is sufficient to disprove any FET map you can come up with.
     I also point out that the price of an airline ticket (most of which is paying for the cost of fuel) is roughly proportional to the RET distance flown...which also adds credence to the idea that airlines know how far they are flying.
     No further FE input.
     CONCLUSION: RET can now easily disprove any highly distorted FET map...of course FET no longer have any kind of a valid map whatever.

18) Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.  In which the 'alternate perspective' hypothesis is put to the test and fails. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875
     No FE response.
     CONCLUSION: RET win.

19) Disproof using hurricanes.   Hurricanes are caused by the coriolis force - there is no such FE force.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6860
     Tom says that the bit in the Wiki that says that they are caused by the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems grinding together at the equator is correct.
     But then misconstrues the argument and fails to explain why (a) hurricanes never come near the equator and (b) why they rotate in opposite directions north and south of there.
     No further FE input.
     CONCLUSION: RET win.

So far, I don't see any cases where the FE'ers have put up an even halfway valid defense for any of these arguments.

It's clear that the two main arguing points that they have are:

1) Alternate perspective...which is not well explained and doesn't fit with light travelling in straight lines.
2) "We don't know - so we must be right"...which is a VERY odd debate tactic!

It's clear that the way forward in these debates is to firmly define what the FE'ers are trying to explain with their altered theory of perspective - and to try to break the counter-explanation down in to simpler terms so that they may understand.   Pictures and diagrams may help them.

This part of FET is key - because without it, they cannot make sunsets work.  (And, IMHO, even with them sunsets won't work.)

[Danmark]

1) Tides: Why are there two high tides per day?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6229.0
    The only FE response (from Pete Svarrior) actually helped the RE case with some handy diagrams
    He didn't understand that there are TWO tides per day and handily explained why there is only one in FET.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.
Not so fast there partner.  What is the FE explanation for that second daily tide?

The answer is easy.  Both the Sun and the Moon exert an influence on the waters of the flat Earth, thus there are two high tides each day since both the Sun and the Moon cross the dome once a day.   

[Danmark]

2) Question about Perspective (Round 1): How is the FE "perspective effect" possible?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6242.0
    No significant FE response.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.  That no one has bothered to refute such silly claims means nothing.  It likely means no one was challenged sufficiently by it and didn't bother.  For example, I looked at the first claim, about the 2 tides, and easily answered it.  For now I'm not even going to bother to look at the rest of  the questions.  Childsplay is for children.

[Curious Squirrel]

2) Question about Perspective (Round 1): How is the FE "perspective effect" possible?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6242.0
    No significant FE response.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.  That no one has bothered to refute such silly claims means nothing.  It likely means no one was challenged sufficiently by it and didn't bother.  For example, I looked at the first claim, about the 2 tides, and easily answered it.  For now I'm not even going to bother to look at the rest of  the questions.  Childsplay is for children.

But your answer, as I explained in that thread, doesn't work all the time, and thus doesn't answer the question. It's easy to believe you're right all the time I suppose. The thread in question here still had no FET response in any meaningful manner on how perspective works. His conclusion in this post is only in error in that the first part isn't really a 'challenge' to be refuted, but a question being asked.

[Danmark]

Yes, I am right all the time.    You have ignored the central point of my response, that logically a failure to respond does not mean a claim is proved.  If I tell you the moon is made of entirely of the 'cauliflower ears' of dead wrestlers, and you fail to respond, does that mean I am right about the structure of the moon? 

[Curious Squirrel]

Yes, I am right all the time.    You have ignored the central point of my response, that logically a failure to respond does not mean a claim is proved.  If I tell you the moon is made of entirely of the 'cauliflower ears' of dead wrestlers, and you fail to respond, does that mean I am right about the structure of the moon? 

No, I touched on it by showing it's not as easily answered as you claim, unless you simply assume everything you say is correct and there's not more to it. If an answer is easy, why would one not take 5 min or less to supply it? Within a debate structure, not responding to an opponents claims leaves them that point. Now, should the debate forum be treated in such a way? That's up for debate (oh the irony) but that is what 3D is appearing to imply here.

[3DGeek]

1) Tides: Why are there two high tides per day?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6229.0
    The only FE response (from Pete Svarrior) actually helped the RE case with some handy diagrams
    He didn't understand that there are TWO tides per day and handily explained why there is only one in FET.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.
Not so fast there partner.  What is the FE explanation for that second daily tide?

The answer is easy.  Both the Sun and the Moon exert an influence on the waters of the flat Earth, thus there are two high tides each day since both the Sun and the Moon cross the dome once a day.   

That's not true though.  The sun has a TINY influence on tides - when the moon is close to the sun in the sky at midday (say) then there is a high tide at midday AND another tide at almost midnight when both the sun and the moon would be way over on the other side of the flat earth.

If what you said was true then there would ALWAYS be a high tide at noon (when the sun is overhead) and ANOTHER when the moon is overhead...but that simply isn't the case.

If I look up times of the tides in (say) New York for today:

 High   3:39 AM
 Low    9:48 AM
 High   3:58 PM
 Low  10:53 PM

No noontime tide...BUSTED!

I looked at the first claim, about the 2 tides, and easily answered it.  For now I'm not even going to bother to look at the rest of  the questions.  Childsplay is for children.

Your explanation doesn't remotely explain the facts - so it's a non-starter.  In fact, since you CLEARLY didn't look at even a single tide chart to check that you're theory is plausible - we know that you're just guessing the answer...which is just pathetic.

Guessing is certainly childsplay.

[3DGeek]

No, I touched on it by showing it's not as easily answered as you claim, unless you simply assume everything you say is correct and there's not more to it. If an answer is easy, why would one not take 5 min or less to supply it? Within a debate structure, not responding to an opponents claims leaves them that point. Now, should the debate forum be treated in such a way? That's up for debate (oh the irony) but that is what 3D is appearing to imply here.

In a setting where it's NOT a debate - maybe a Q&A session, then failing to respond proves nothing much.   But in a section of the forum called "Flat Earth Debate" - if you post a strongly argued point, and nobody responds to it for many weeks, you have to presume that they are having a hard time refuting it.

It's not a slam-dunk, I agree.  But:

* If you post a question about something like ships vanishing over the horizon - on which they seem fairly sure of their ground - you'll get LOTS of answers and a vigorous debate - many FE'ers will pile onto it and argue vigorously.

* If you ask questions like: "How are hurricanes formed without the coriolis force?" - you get an answer from maybe one person...typically, Tom.  When you can trivially disprove that answer (eg "Hurricanes are formed because of the celestial currents meeting at the equator"...."But there are no hurricanes at the equator!"), it all goes quiet again.

* If you ask questions like the moon rotation issue - you get no response at all.

Since not a one of them ever admits that they're wrong - we have to assume that failure to answer means that they've given up.

[TomInAustin]

As some of the earlier "Disproof" articles get pushed down the forum - I wanted to collect together some links and summarize them for those who are interested.  If FE'ers have alternative summaries of what happened in these discussions, please do post your points of view.

1) Tides: Why are there two high tides per day?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6229.0
    The only FE response (from Pete Svarrior) actually helped the RE case with some handy diagrams
    He didn't understand that there are TWO tides per day and handily explained why there is only one in FET.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

2) Question about Perspective (Round 1): How is the FE "perspective effect" possible?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6242.0
    No significant FE response.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

3) Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object": Why does the "shadow object" that is required to explain lunar eclipses not obscure any stars? https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6284.0
    Oami said "God can control every photon"...an "interesting" position!
    Joyceclair essentially backed up that "argument".
    Boodidlie agreed.
    CONCLUSION: The FE consensus is that god fakes all of this stuff.\

4) Seeing France from the UK: Observations of Calais from the cliffs of Dover.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6492.0
    No FE response.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

5) Why does the moon appear upside down in the south?  The moon seems to be rotated when viewed at different latitudes how can this be?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6149
    Perhaps "TheTruthIsOnHere" was attempting a response.  Seemed only to confirm RET.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

6) Moon Inversion.  Again, more issues over how the moon appears at different latitudes.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6496
    Neutrino (an RE'er) attempted to explain Tom's position on this...raised more questions than answers.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

7) What is the Sun?  Someone asked about the nature of the FE sun.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6516
    Tom Bishop said "What makes you think that anyone would know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it? Controlled experimentation is required. Until that time, although the motions are visible to us, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown".
    I pointed out that we can indeed know the mechanism "just by looking at it" and showed evidence.
    Tom replied that "Stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab"  (untrue) and that "observation alone just does not cut it."
    Then he "cunningly" hijacked the thread to talk about the Rowbotham experiment and went back to his favorite (but inconclusive) "proof" about view-over-water...dozens and dozens of replies later - and he'd managed to deflect the "What is the Sun?" question entirely without ever saying more than saying (in effect) "I don't know - and I reject any and all evidence you have".
   CONCLUSION: FET doesn't know and tries hard to deflect the debate.  RET wins.

8 ) The Moon.  A thread that started simply enough but was revealing:  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6618
    Someone asked about why we can only see one side of the moon.
    Tom Bishop explained that the moon rocks back and forth and claimed that astronomers were able to map the far side of the moon before Apollo.  Weird.
    I carefully explained what the truth is.
    Tom Bishop posted something REALLY odd...https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6618.msg121514#msg121514 "Can you show us an example of where an receding object 3000 miles in height turned 45 degrees to its side?" - who knows what THAT meant.  But basically he talks about the "altered perspective" thing.
    He posted a couple more times with increasingly weird claims for this "perspective" thing.
    The thread never did come to any conclusions - basically the FE response is "Weird Perspective Effects"
    CONCLUSION: FET claims "weird perspective".

9) Using airline flight data.  This is my step-by-step proof that there cannot be a valid FE map.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0
    Tom first "proves" that a triangle described by three distances has internal angles that add up to 180 degrees on a flat map.  He's proving something obvious.
    This is explained to him.
    In THIS post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121852#msg121852
    I let the 'other shoe drop' and employ a quadrilateral proof to show that no possible FE map can ever exist that is consistent with airline flight data.
    Tom complains that he can't find the data.   We show him how.
    He makes the immortal statement "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."...people find this so funny, they add it into their signatures!
    Then he disputes the airline flight data.
    It is pointed out that it matches GPS data - Tom disputes the reliability of GPS.
    In THIS post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122051#msg122051 - I carefully reiterate the argument and point out that the data for distances is verifiable using the known speed of the airplane and the known flight durations.  I point out other sources to back up the flight distance data.
    Eventually, Tom comes back with a claim that made me burst out loud laughing:  "if you bring up cruising speed, please show how the cruising speed of the aircraft was calculated. Based on a test flight to a location with a "known" distance according to Round Earth Theory in the aircraft's development?"  Basically, he's saying that the only way airlines and airplane manufacturers know how fast a plane flies is to fly it over a "known" (but in his belief, incorrect) distance and use a stopwatch to measure how long it takes.
    Many people explain how we know how fast planes fly...including one airline pilot.   I point out that the speed of an airliner is designed into it before the airplane is ever built.  It's not measured after the plane is actually built!
    Tom acts as though these statements were never made - simply doubling down on his earlier demands for speed proof.
    Tom imagines that airplane speed is only measured as "air speed"...which isn't true.
    Tom claims that the cockpit instruments calculate distances using a round-earth model, and are therefore producing incorrect results.
    This thread has wound on for a very long time...but Tom can only keep his toehold on doubt by repeatedly claiming that airlines and airplane manufacturers have no idea how fast their planes can fly.
    It eventually occurs to me that it doesn't matter.  Even if planes fly twice as fast as everyone thinks - that doesn't change the math in my "quadrilateral cities" claim because you can double all of the distances - and the result is STILL a map that doesn't match the flat earth.
    For Tom to be right, the speeds of aircraft would have to magically vary according to some odd law of physics to make it perfectly seem like the world is round, even though it's flat.  The airplane's drag coefficient and/or thrust would have to be different for North/South versus East/West routes - AND would have to be different in the northern hemisphere versus the south.
    Throughout the LONG thread - no other FE'ers offered any useful contributions.
   Sadly, the debate on that thread has gotten so long, and so badly derailed that the important points have been missed.

10) Disproof of FET using refraction.  This thread proves that you cannot use "refraction" to explain FET sunsets. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6710
      Tom points out that he DOES NOT support "refraction" as the cause of sunsets.   I apologize for assuming this to be the case.
      He explains that the "electromagnetic accelerator" thing is also not his current theory.
      He now supports this "altered perspective" concept - but says that he agrees that light travels in straight lines.
      No other FE'ers offered any contributions.
      While the thread didn't disprove FET (at least not Tom's version of it) - but it did establish that the "altered perspective" idea is "The Current Thing".

11) Another careful proof project: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6699
      Not a tremendously useful thread - but it does demonstrate that GPS data agrees with older pre-GPS maps - as evidenced by old land plat descriptions (which are a matter of public record) and the work of the "Degree confluence project".
      No significant FE input.
      CONCLUSION: FET is now unable to dispute lat/long data derived from GPS, RET can demonstrate it's efficacy any time we want.

12) Alternate maps problems:  Where I show some deep problems with the two standard FET maps:  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6793
      Where it's pointed out that the location of Polaris (and the Southern Cross) cannot agree with directions determined by compass.
      Tom repeats that he doesn't know the true map of the FE...and how "longitude lines curve or orient themselves around the North Pole at great distances".
      Junker makes a rare factual contribution by explaining that many FE'ers still believe in bending light and the Electromagnetic accelerator.
      Tau says that sunset (and hence starset) is complicated and that we shouldn't assume it'll work intuitively.
      Tom sews confusion by asking how we know that longitude lines point North.
      Pete Svarrior makes a valid point about the location of the magnetic pole versus the 'true north'.
      I make more explicit my concerns.
      No further input from FE'ers.
      CONCLUSION: FET has no coherent answer.

13) Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.  Most of the current FE 'defense' centers around this odd "alternate perspective" thing. I attempt to unravel it. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6785
      Tom posts this: "You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof."
      I point out that, no - my proof depends on the idea (which Tom supports) that light travels in straight lines and on Euclidean geometry and nothing else.
      Tom (clearly not understand a darned thing) goes back to simply claiming that perspective is different - but failing to understand that his laws of perspective have to work for a simple pinhole camera - and they DON'T.
      I try to make it even simpler - showing that you can use other ways to prove this.
      Tom makes another bizarre post: "You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view."
      I'm just drawing straight lines showing how light goes through a hole...this seems very much "inside the universe" - but maybe Tom doesn't believe in diagrams?  I dunno.
      Tom abandons the thread.
      No other FE'ers make significant comments.
      CONCLUSION: Definitive win for RET.   FET has no coherent answer.

14) Airliner cruise speeds - and why they matter.   In which I attempt to get the "Airline flight distances" debate back on-topic. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6828
      No FE response.
      CONCLUSION: Definitive win for RET.   FET has no coherent answer.

15) Do passenger airplane windows distort camera photos? In other threads, FE'ers claim that photos taken from airliners are inadmissible because the windows distort the images. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6814
     I demonstrate that they do not.
     Junker says that you can't see earth curvature at 40,000 feet (which is more or less the case).
     StinkyOne points out that you could see that curvature from Concorde.
     Tom says "The Concorde was looking down at a circle"...which is a baffling statement.
     Basically, it seems undisputed that photographs from airliner windows are indeed admissible evidence...but Tom doesn't understand that if the Earth was flat, you'd never see a "circle" from an airplane window.
     CONCLUSION: FET may no longer claim "window distortion".

16) Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.   How could this happen in FET?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6832
     Tom says:  "If the sun is descending into the horizon to perspective, what makes you think that if you were to increase your height shortly after sunset that you would not be able to see the sun again?"
     It's explained that perspective cannot be "wrong"...again...and Tom is asked to explain this "alternative perspective" stuff...because aside from one (Rowbotham?) diagram, nobody ever does.  They just parrot that it's true.
     CONCLUSION: FET falls back on "altered perspective" without coherent explanation as to how this explains the phenomenon.

17) Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric...in which the speed of light is used to measure distances. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6852
     Junker complains (legitimately) that this approach cannot produce accurate distances.
     I explain that it can provide an upper limit on distance - and that this is sufficient to disprove any FET map you can come up with.
     I also point out that the price of an airline ticket (most of which is paying for the cost of fuel) is roughly proportional to the RET distance flown...which also adds credence to the idea that airlines know how far they are flying.
     No further FE input.
     CONCLUSION: RET can now easily disprove any highly distorted FET map...of course FET no longer have any kind of a valid map whatever.

18) Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.  In which the 'alternate perspective' hypothesis is put to the test and fails. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875
     No FE response.
     CONCLUSION: RET win.

19) Disproof using hurricanes.   Hurricanes are caused by the coriolis force - there is no such FE force.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6860
     Tom says that the bit in the Wiki that says that they are caused by the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems grinding together at the equator is correct.
     But then misconstrues the argument and fails to explain why (a) hurricanes never come near the equator and (b) why they rotate in opposite directions north and south of there.
     No further FE input.
     CONCLUSION: RET win.

So far, I don't see any cases where the FE'ers have put up an even halfway valid defense for any of these arguments.

It's clear that the two main arguing points that they have are:

1) Alternate perspective...which is not well explained and doesn't fit with light travelling in straight lines.
2) "We don't know - so we must be right"...which is a VERY odd debate tactic!

It's clear that the way forward in these debates is to firmly define what the FE'ers are trying to explain with their altered theory of perspective - and to try to break the counter-explanation down in to simpler terms so that they may understand.   Pictures and diagrams may help them.

This part of FET is key - because without it, they cannot make sunsets work.  (And, IMHO, even with them sunsets won't work.)

This post should get a sticky.  Very thorough.

[Tom Bishop]

Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

[xenotolerance]

I lurked a fair amount in the past month and read these threads as they came through. 3DGeek's work is thorough, and the airline routes proof is pretty stunning. My idea had been to find geometric proofs that did not rely on anything invisible, so to speak, so proving that modeling cities as points on a sphere is consistent with their measured geometry and also that they can never be consistent on a plane is a masterstroke in my view. It's a bulletproof argument, and thoroughly convincing to those with open minds.

The level of discourse in terms of arguments is generally pretty bad, which is not super surprising I guess. But I'm actually learning a fair amount from the discussions anyway! Let us not get bogged down by Tom Bishop's protestations.

[DuniyaGolHai]

Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Where is Junker now, if such a low content post would have come from RE'r he would have jumped on to it. But not this time coz its Tom (FE'r)

[StinkyOne]

Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Oh Tom, have some dignity. You got crushed on these threads. It was worth responding in the beginning, but once you realized you couldn't refute the content of what was being said, it suddenly became rubbish and already covered material. Right.... The fact is, there is no proof for a flat Earth, so you have nothing to prove your silly stance. Science passed your ideas by centuries ago and left them in the dustbin of history.

[3DGeek]

Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

"Your disproofs are rubbish." is the last desperate statement of a man who has run out of arguments...I'm pretty sure that 100% of the people who read this will hear that.

If you stop responding because you've provided a valid conclusion - then fair enough.  But if you simply stop posting when you have no more ideas left - or if your final post is a question that your opposition is able to answer - then people who look here for answers will assume that you've lost.

"You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered." - if so, then instead of posting something worthless like that - why not just post a link to the FET explanation so that I'll be able to understand the existing coverage?   I try VERY hard to find previous explanation here.  I DO dig through previous threads with similar titles - and I HAVE read the Wiki and all of the dusty old junk in the books you put up as evidence.   I post questions that do NOT seem to have been adequately answered - OR - (as is the case with the question of "perspective") I debunk the existing answer comprehensively.

Better still, when an explanation for something like this is made - put it onto the Wiki.  I've scoured the Wiki looking for answers - and where there are answers, I've been responding to them in my "debunk" threads and showing why they are incorrect.

The entire purpose of a Wiki is that it's VERY easy to update quickly so it does not become a dusty repository of outdated ideas.   (The very name "Wiki" comes from the Hawaiian word meaning "Quickly")

The Wiki here is horribly outdated and does not seem to represent the views of the Society at all.  You say that you have no idea what the FE map looks like - yet the (FIRMLY DEBUNKED) unipolar map is presented as truth almost everywhere.

What you should do is to find your most enthusiastic and knowledgeable FE'ers and offer them permission to update the Wiki whenever they see the need.

I would be more than happy to point out MANY discrepancies between what appears to be "current FE theory" and what is presented in the Wiki - and just as I've listed the gaping holes in those arguments, above.   If there are indeed better explanations buried DEEP inside these forums - then put those explanations in the Wiki where they are easy to find and point to in the event that some RE'er comes along with an already-explained answer.

Frankly - I don't believe that there HAVE been good solutions in FET to any of the threads that are left "dangling" in my list above.

Consider my list of topics to be a list of gaping holes in the Wiki - things that either need to be filled with good, solid answers - or placed on a list of "Questions that we don't know the answer to" so that future FE'ers can try to figure out how to plug those gaps.

[3DGeek]

Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Where is Junker now, if such a low content post would have come from RE'r he would have jumped on to it. But not this time coz its Tom (FE'r)

Last night, Parsifal offered me (yes, **ME**!!) the role of "Moderator" for these forums.

I greatly appreciated this offer because it truly demonstrates that these forums are intended to be a place where both sides of the debate can come and discuss the problems and successes of FET fairly.

Not many societies would offer their most vociferous opponent moderation privileges!

I politely declined because I do not wish my name/handle to be presented as "An Officer of The Flat Earth Society" across the Internet.

But this generous and fair offer shows that there *IS* a desire for clean, honest debate here.

If I had accepted the role of moderator - I'd have been seriously conflicted about whether to send Tom's post into oblivion (although it's clearly content-free and therefore in violation of the rules).   I would want to let it stand because it is a clearer statement of the current, rather desperate, state of FE theory than anything posted anywhere here...but the rules say "Nuke it"...and that would be a mental conflict that's inappropriate for a moderator.

If this is all Tom has left - then he is a spent force - out of ideas and no longer driving the bus for TFES.

But who is?

I was thinking of looking back through the threads posted here in the last few months and counting how many FE'ers are still actively posting in support of the FE theory that TFES stands behind.  That would be a lot of work though...you'd probably need a Python program to scrape the thread listings and get numbers of posts per person to Q&A and Debate topics...maybe someone else would like to try that.

To my eyes, it seems that we have the religious types doing most of the pro-FET posting - and it's VERY low content stuff.   Tom's posts no longer defend or explain his theories - they just as for "evidence" and ignore it when it's provided. 

None of the other hard-core FE'ers really seem to want to defend themselves...they post quite a bit into the "Other Discussion Boards" - into non-FE threads - but they never contribute to Q&A or Debate posts where the actual FE discussions are taking place.

There are 2,200 posts and 67,000 views to the "Trump" thread, - but not a single person who wants to explain to us how FE sunsets can illuminate the undersides of clouds!

[xenotolerance]

Yowza, I just tried to quote Tom's most recent to write a response, but his comment was removed. It was something like 'it was already explained to you, and not debunked,' or another similar way of saying his last statement in the sunset thread never got rebutted. I think. My short term memory needs coffee this morning

Anyway for those curious, https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6785.20 will lead you to the sunset argument, where you can find Tom link to a video and get multiple flavors of rebuttal in response.

[juner]

Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Where is Junker now, if such a low content post would have come from RE'r he would have jumped on to it. But not this time coz its Tom (FE'r)

If you have an issue with a post, feel free to report it. Otherwise, low-content posts such as this do not belong in the upper fora. Warned.

[zp0okii]

Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Is this seriously your only response to this post? Not a single counterpoint raised? You really must be stumped. Thanks to 3DGeek for compiling this - very impressive list.

[TomInAustin]

Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Your response is rubbish.   Every point in his list is accurate.   You stop responding when you lose and you know it.

[TomInAustin]

Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Where is Junker now, if such a low content post would have come from RE'r he would have jumped on to it. But not this time coz its Tom (FE'r)

Last night, Parsifal offered me (yes, **ME**!!) the role of "Moderator" for these forums.

I greatly appreciated this offer because it truly demonstrates that these forums are intended to be a place where both sides of the debate can come and discuss the problems and successes of FET fairly.

Not many societies would offer their most vociferous opponent moderation privileges!

I politely declined because I do not wish my name/handle to be presented as "An Officer of The Flat Earth Society" across the Internet.

But this generous and fair offer shows that there *IS* a desire for clean, honest debate here.

If I had accepted the role of moderator - I'd have been seriously conflicted about whether to send Tom's post into oblivion (although it's clearly content-free and therefore in violation of the rules).   I would want to let it stand because it is a clearer statement of the current, rather desperate, state of FE theory than anything posted anywhere here...but the rules say "Nuke it"...and that would be a mental conflict that's inappropriate for a moderator.

If this is all Tom has left - then he is a spent force - out of ideas and no longer driving the bus for TFES.

But who is?

I was thinking of looking back through the threads posted here in the last few months and counting how many FE'ers are still actively posting in support of the FE theory that TFES stands behind.  That would be a lot of work though...you'd probably need a Python program to scrape the thread listings and get numbers of posts per person to Q&A and Debate topics...maybe someone else would like to try that.

To my eyes, it seems that we have the religious types doing most of the pro-FET posting - and it's VERY low content stuff.   Tom's posts no longer defend or explain his theories - they just as for "evidence" and ignore it when it's provided. 

None of the other hard-core FE'ers really seem to want to defend themselves...they post quite a bit into the "Other Discussion Boards" - into non-FE threads - but they never contribute to Q&A or Debate posts where the actual FE discussions are taking place.

There are 2,200 posts and 67,000 views to the "Trump" thread, - but not a single person who wants to explain to us how FE sunsets can illuminate the undersides of clouds!

That is a shame as you would have made a great mod but I get it.  My working theory is Tom never saw your (and a few others) level of logic and detail coming.  The quality of the arguments has been off the charts the last month and really got me thinking about things I haven't touched in years.