[ScienceFirst]

What I don't understand is how you can take years and years of research that has been conducted and proven by so many scientists with lifelong qualifications in this field, and compare that to 'look out the window doesn't it look flat?'
If any FE-er is a person of science, we understand how science works- it doesn't always depend on what we SEE- it depends on what we can prove. And that doesn't mean pictures and visuals and perception - its pure scientific proof.
I have nothing against FE-ers, I just believe in science.
If FES believes Mars has been demonstrated as spherical ... how?
I'd just say that if you were to prove that the earth is flat, where is the proof? Where is the intro, methods, results, discussion, conclusion research? If you are to be such strong propagators of 'don't believe what is taught, research flat earth', where is the actual, evidence based research?
Everything we know is evidence based. That is where the real science lies.

[Tom Bishop]

What I don't understand is how you can take years and years of research that has been conducted and proven by so many scientists with lifelong qualifications in this field, and compare that to 'look out the window doesn't it look flat?'
If any FE-er is a person of science, we understand how science works- it doesn't always depend on what we SEE- it depends on what we can prove. And that doesn't mean pictures and visuals and perception - its pure scientific proof.
I have nothing against FE-ers, I just believe in science.
If FES believes Mars has been demonstrated as spherical ... how?
I'd just say that if you were to prove that the earth is flat, where is the proof? Where is the intro, methods, results, discussion, conclusion research? If you are to be such strong propagators of 'don't believe what is taught, research flat earth', where is the actual, evidence based research?
Everything we know is evidence based. That is where the real science lies.

We have authored a number of books and a scientific peer review journal, all of which are available online in our literature sections. A summary of that body of work is found in the Wiki.

[Tom Haws]

We have authored a number of books and a scientific peer review journal, all of which are available online in our literature sections. A summary of that body of work is found in the Wiki.

I can't tell by perusing which is the peer review journal. Can you clarify the pages so I can find it?

[Tom Bishop]

We have authored a number of books and a scientific peer review journal, all of which are available online in our literature sections. A summary of that body of work is found in the Wiki.

I can't tell by perusing which is the peer review journal. Can you clarify the pages so I can find it?

It's called "The Earth Not a Globe Review" and was published to review the findings of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

[Tom Haws]

It's called "The Earth Not a Globe Review" and was published to review the findings of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Thank you, Tom. I have some questions. But first let me make it clear that I have NO prior experience with peer review or even with reading peer review journals. In other words, I am unlikely to know what I am talking about below.

1. How many issues of "Earth Not A Globe Review, A Magazine of Cosmographical Science" were published including the first in January 1893?
2. How does the peer review work?
3. How do I know which of the articles were reviewed?
4. Have there been any peer reviewed articles in the past ten years?

[ScienceFirst]

We have authored a number of books and a scientific peer review journal, all of which are available online in our literature sections. A summary of that body of work is found in the Wiki.

I can't tell by perusing which is the peer review journal. Can you clarify the pages so I can find it?

It's called "The Earth Not a Globe Review" and was published to review the findings of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

from my search, I have found that this was published in the 1800s. Is there something more recent that I am missing? Because as I am sure you know, evidence from the 1800s is reasonably questionable! Thanks!

[Roger G]

Unfortunately 'The Earth Is Not A Globe' and 'the Bible' seem to be the only 'reliable' sources of evidence continually referred to by FEs. One is written by a well known confidence trickster well over 100 years ago carrying out very dubious observations, and the other is a collection of stories and myths, handed down and collected over thousands of years in various languages and translated centuries later into the first King James Bible then ammended to make it sound more theological some years later.

Roger

[ShowmetheProof]

What I don't understand is what evidence points to this.  You appear to have no proven information, because if your source of proof is only things from 200 years ago(not exactly), you are out thought and outnumbered.   Show us scientific information that supports the FE! 

[Scroogie]

We have authored a number of books and a scientific peer review journal, all of which are available online in our literature sections. A summary of that body of work is found in the Wiki.

scientific peer review journal - that is, in all likelihood, the most egregious misuse of the term perpetrated to date.

The review is quite obviously a religious tract, nothing more, nothing less.