[Tom Bishop]

Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.

He quotes the distance as 700 miles in EnaG right?
the Wiki on this site quotes about 3,000 miles? Is the Wiki wrong?  If so why are the Zetetic council not correcting it?
The difference is over 4 times the distance stated by EnaG.

At least RE theory has the suns distance pretty much agreed, and there is consensus.

Correct. And I'm not sure how they come to 3k miles, Dr Rowbotham was pretty clear. It does seem like certain people out there cherry pick what they want from Enag and pretend the rest isn't there.

This is what Tom wants to prove the 700 miles:

You need to prove it because you are coming here with a claim that a particular system is accurate. If that is your claim, then you need to do something to demonstrate its accuracy. If you cannot do that, then you cannot claim that it is accurate. We work with evidence here, not assumption.

Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?

[AATW]

Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?

Rowbotham seemed to be pretty clear about it and you generally take his word as gospel.
Do you have doubts about his calculations on this? It's wildly different from the number given in the Wiki.

[Tom Bishop]

Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?

Rowbotham seemed to be pretty clear about it and you generally take his word as gospel.
Do you have doubts about his calculations on this? It's wildly different from the number given in the Wiki.

Why are you so hung up about the distance to the sun and recorded inconsistencies?

Are you aware of the sensitivities of such parallax experiments and the long history of the sun's inconsistent distance in RET? On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.

[AATW]

I'm not. It's just that you generally regard Rowbotham as gospel but here you don't seem to be sure about his result, it's certainly wildly different from what your Wiki says. I'm interested why on this particular subject you don't seem confident in his findings.

And yes, of course I understand that over the history of science lots of things have been refined over time. This is a strength of the scientific method - results are published and can be reviewed and tested until something gains consensus (which should never definitively rule out amendment of an theory)

[Curious Squirrel]

Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?

Rowbotham seemed to be pretty clear about it and you generally take his word as gospel.
Do you have doubts about his calculations on this? It's wildly different from the number given in the Wiki.

Why are you so hung up about the distance to the sun and recorded inconsistencies?

Are you aware of the sensitivities of such parallax experiments and the long history of the sun's inconsistent distance in RET? On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.

Such sensitivity issues go out the window when the sun is closer than the width of some continents as well. FE should have the distance to the sun nailed down pat with little issue.

[Parallax]

Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.

He quotes the distance as 700 miles in EnaG right?
the Wiki on this site quotes about 3,000 miles? Is the Wiki wrong?  If so why are the Zetetic council not correcting it?
The difference is over 4 times the distance stated by EnaG.

At least RE theory has the suns distance pretty much agreed, and there is consensus.

Correct. And I'm not sure how they come to 3k miles, Dr Rowbotham was pretty clear. It does seem like certain people out there cherry pick what they want from Enag and pretend the rest isn't there.

Interesting. So do you believe the moon is translucent? Because that's one of Rowbotham's crazier claims that even the FES have distanced themselves from.

There have certainly been times when stars have been observed through the moon. Dr Rowbotham says it is semi transparent but no, I don't believe it. I realise this is probably me cherry picking, but I can use my own eyes and look at it. It's not semi transparent.

[Stagiri]

Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.

He quotes the distance as 700 miles in EnaG right?
the Wiki on this site quotes about 3,000 miles? Is the Wiki wrong?  If so why are the Zetetic council not correcting it?
The difference is over 4 times the distance stated by EnaG.

At least RE theory has the suns distance pretty much agreed, and there is consensus.

Correct. And I'm not sure how they come to 3k miles, Dr Rowbotham was pretty clear. It does seem like certain people out there cherry pick what they want from Enag and pretend the rest isn't there.

Interesting. So do you believe the moon is translucent? Because that's one of Rowbotham's crazier claims that even the FES have distanced themselves from.

There have certainly been times when stars have been observed through the moon. (...)

Would you be so kind and provided any proof?

[Tontogary]

Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?

Rowbotham seemed to be pretty clear about it and you generally take his word as gospel.
Do you have doubts about his calculations on this? It's wildly different from the number given in the Wiki.

Why are you so hung up about the distance to the sun and recorded inconsistencies?

Are you aware of the sensitivities of such parallax experiments and the long history of the sun's inconsistent distance in RET? On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.

The difference being, that since modern science has resolved the figure under a RE model, there is little discussion and debate. It was resolved pretty accurately when Enag was published, and any adjustment since then has been very minor as the accuracy of the observations and data have improved with the instruments and methods getting ever more accurate. Cassini was able in the 16th century to measure the distance to within 6% of todays figure, and that has been refined further and further. (Note i said refined not changed)

The FE has a couple of different figures, 700 as clearly stated in EnaG, and about 3,000, and no effort seems to be spent on trying to resolve the differences. One would imagine the Zetetic science council would at least discuss it, and try to present a uniform front. If it is determined that it is 700, and the stars at 1,000 then a lot of other theories are thrown into doubt, such as size of the sun, It makes astronomical observations a nonsense, as well as the movement of the planets and stars.

If it is 3,000 then the in disputing Enag in any way would be tearing down a sacred pillar of the movement!

RE believers do not have such quandaries, as nearly, if not all, modern mainstream accepted science backs up the theory, and refines the model, and helps us understand better what we see in our everyday experiences.

[Tom Bishop]

Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?

Rowbotham seemed to be pretty clear about it and you generally take his word as gospel.
Do you have doubts about his calculations on this? It's wildly different from the number given in the Wiki.

Why are you so hung up about the distance to the sun and recorded inconsistencies?

Are you aware of the sensitivities of such parallax experiments and the long history of the sun's inconsistent distance in RET? On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.

The difference being, that since modern science has resolved the figure under a RE model, there is little discussion and debate. It was resolved pretty accurately when Enag was published, and any adjustment since then has been very minor as the accuracy of the observations and data have improved with the instruments and methods getting ever more accurate. Cassini was able in the 16th century to measure the distance to within 6% of todays figure, and that has been refined further and further. (Note i said refined not changed)

The FE has a couple of different figures, 700 as clearly stated in EnaG, and about 3,000, and no effort seems to be spent on trying to resolve the differences. One would imagine the Zetetic science council would at least discuss it, and try to present a uniform front. If it is determined that it is 700, and the stars at 1,000 then a lot of other theories are thrown into doubt, such as size of the sun, It makes astronomical observations a nonsense, as well as the movement of the planets and stars.

If it is 3,000 then the in disputing Enag in any way would be tearing down a sacred pillar of the movement!

RE believers do not have such quandaries, as nearly, if not all, modern mainstream accepted science backs up the theory, and refines the model, and helps us understand better what we see in our everyday experiences.

We are not organized to conduct research. There is no formal society of members. If you would like to help organize efforts, that would be great.

[Tontogary]

Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?

Rowbotham seemed to be pretty clear about it and you generally take his word as gospel.
Do you have doubts about his calculations on this? It's wildly different from the number given in the Wiki.

Why are you so hung up about the distance to the sun and recorded inconsistencies?

Are you aware of the sensitivities of such parallax experiments and the long history of the sun's inconsistent distance in RET? On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.

The difference being, that since modern science has resolved the figure under a RE model, there is little discussion and debate. It was resolved pretty accurately when Enag was published, and any adjustment since then has been very minor as the accuracy of the observations and data have improved with the instruments and methods getting ever more accurate. Cassini was able in the 16th century to measure the distance to within 6% of todays figure, and that has been refined further and further. (Note i said refined not changed)

The FE has a couple of different figures, 700 as clearly stated in EnaG, and about 3,000, and no effort seems to be spent on trying to resolve the differences. One would imagine the Zetetic science council would at least discuss it, and try to present a uniform front. If it is determined that it is 700, and the stars at 1,000 then a lot of other theories are thrown into doubt, such as size of the sun, It makes astronomical observations a nonsense, as well as the movement of the planets and stars.

If it is 3,000 then the in disputing Enag in any way would be tearing down a sacred pillar of the movement!

RE believers do not have such quandaries, as nearly, if not all, modern mainstream accepted science backs up the theory, and refines the model, and helps us understand better what we see in our everyday experiences.

We are not organized to conduct research. There is no formal society of members. If you would like to help organize efforts, that would be great.

But you are organised enough to form a “council”, organised enough to create a website, post Wiki, moderate a forum, and refer to things in the plural ie “we” so either there is an organisation, or there is not.

There is a discussion board on “council” business, why not post the questions there and at least try to resolve the vast inconsistencies in your wiki, compared to EnaG and other publications? Questions are asked, and people are directed to the Wiki, fair enough, but then the wiki references works, such as EnaG, in one hand, and dismisses other parts of the same writings as in accurate.

If you are not organised enough to resolve some of the questions, or have a consistent reply to points posed, surely you are not in the position to use the the term “we” in any answer, as that implies that you speak for a body, and therefore represent them.

There are people who obviously go to some lengths to find Youtube videos and search the net to try to find “proof” of the FE, but the fundamental questions of a unified answer is not able to be provided, and yet by your own admission, have no interest in finding out or resolving the discrepancies in a Zetetic way!

[Tom Bishop]

But you are organised enough to form a “council”, organised enough to create a website, post Wiki, moderate a forum, and refer to things in the plural ie “we” so either there is an organisation, or there is not.

There is a discussion board on “council” business, why not post the questions there and at least try to resolve the vast inconsistencies in your wiki, compared to EnaG and other publications? Questions are asked, and people are directed to the Wiki, fair enough, but then the wiki references works, such as EnaG, in one hand, and dismisses other parts of the same writings as in accurate.

If you are not organised enough to resolve some of the questions, or have a consistent reply to points posed, surely you are not in the position to use the the term “we” in any answer, as that implies that you speak for a body, and therefore represent them.

There are people who obviously go to some lengths to find Youtube videos and search the net to try to find “proof” of the FE, but the fundamental questions of a unified answer is not able to be provided, and yet by your own admission, have no interest in finding out or resolving the discrepancies in a Zetetic way!

No one has posted in the council forum for over 2 years, and it took us 10 years to make the Wiki, of which here were few contributors. You are overestimating our size and manpower. I am saying "we" because I am giving attempting to give the general consensus of the state and status of the society and where things are at present.

There are only a few FE'ers at the moment here who log on at their own leisure and interest, and in no organized or collaborative fashion. It's not "fun" to sit here and talk to 20 people at a time, who have not read the early society's works and expect to be individually tutored and caught up on every topic.

[Tontogary]

But you are organised enough to form a “council”, organised enough to create a website, post Wiki, moderate a forum, and refer to things in the plural ie “we” so either there is an organisation, or there is not.

There is a discussion board on “council” business, why not post the questions there and at least try to resolve the vast inconsistencies in your wiki, compared to EnaG and other publications? Questions are asked, and people are directed to the Wiki, fair enough, but then the wiki references works, such as EnaG, in one hand, and dismisses other parts of the same writings as in accurate.

If you are not organised enough to resolve some of the questions, or have a consistent reply to points posed, surely you are not in the position to use the the term “we” in any answer, as that implies that you speak for a body, and therefore represent them.

There are people who obviously go to some lengths to find Youtube videos and search the net to try to find “proof” of the FE, but the fundamental questions of a unified answer is not able to be provided, and yet by your own admission, have no interest in finding out or resolving the discrepancies in a Zetetic way!

No one has posted in the council forum for over 2 years, and it took us 10 years to make the Wiki, of which here were few contributors. You are overestimating our size and manpower. I am saying "we" because I am giving attempting to give the general consensus of the state and status of the society and where things are at present.

There are only a few people left who log on at their own leisure and interest, and in no organized or collaborative fashion. It's not "fun" to sit here and talk to 20 people at a time, who have not read the early society's works and expect to be individually tutored and caught up on every topic.

Then surely it is time to wind up the site, and call it a day?
Why did the other members leave? Saw the light and converted to Global earth theory in the face of the wealth of Empirical evidence against the FE perhaps?

[Tom Bishop]

But you are organised enough to form a “council”, organised enough to create a website, post Wiki, moderate a forum, and refer to things in the plural ie “we” so either there is an organisation, or there is not.

There is a discussion board on “council” business, why not post the questions there and at least try to resolve the vast inconsistencies in your wiki, compared to EnaG and other publications? Questions are asked, and people are directed to the Wiki, fair enough, but then the wiki references works, such as EnaG, in one hand, and dismisses other parts of the same writings as in accurate.

If you are not organised enough to resolve some of the questions, or have a consistent reply to points posed, surely you are not in the position to use the the term “we” in any answer, as that implies that you speak for a body, and therefore represent them.

There are people who obviously go to some lengths to find Youtube videos and search the net to try to find “proof” of the FE, but the fundamental questions of a unified answer is not able to be provided, and yet by your own admission, have no interest in finding out or resolving the discrepancies in a Zetetic way!

No one has posted in the council forum for over 2 years, and it took us 10 years to make the Wiki, of which here were few contributors. You are overestimating our size and manpower. I am saying "we" because I am giving attempting to give the general consensus of the state and status of the society and where things are at present.

There are only a few people left who log on at their own leisure and interest, and in no organized or collaborative fashion. It's not "fun" to sit here and talk to 20 people at a time, who have not read the early society's works and expect to be individually tutored and caught up on every topic.

Then surely it is time to wind up the site, and call it a day?
Why did the other members leave? Saw the light and converted to Global earth theory in the face of the wealth of Empirical evidence against the FE perhaps?

The major FE proponents have usually been active for a time, and then leave once they find that they are just repeating themselves every day to the endless influx of new people and that it is really of no benefit to their life. I just stay here as an act of education and service, mainly for those people who do want take what we have to say and run with it and attempt to research further. It's not really fun, but it does work.

Look at the Youtube Flat Earth movement. Their content is based on our Flat Earth Society discussions and efforts starting in 2007. Those people should be part of the Flat Earth Society, but because we have never really been inclusive or organized as a research society, the entire Flat Earth movement is presently composed of various independent actors.

It would be nice to be a real research society, but we will need major organizational leadership and effort from the community. The mindset needs to change from "I'm goint to prove these guys wrong!" to "I'm going to help research to see what the truth actually is," which is a tall order for most.

[Obviously]

I just stay here as an act of education

-- I'd say more it's more of an act of misinformation and basically a war on education, what you & your 2 friends are doing... 

Their content is based on our Flat Earth Society discussions and efforts starting in 2007

-- glad you noticed this. It's a clear sign that nothing new has been found or discovered, despite the 11+ years that have passed, not to mention 150 or so years since the Rowbowcop (sp?). Y'all just keep regurgitating the same nonsense, that has been debunked countless times.

"I'm going to help research to see what the truth actually is," which is a tall order for most.

-- hmm, why isn't this your mindset then? Seems like all you wanna do is deny facts and discard evidence, then make claims w/o supporting them. Notice, 4 pages of "blah blah blah" and you still haven't even tried answering the OP question.

[darkensign]

It seems it's not even an organisational problem. Dealing with the distance from the sun issue is as easy as going outside and measuring midday shadows. This can be done with a protractor in a pinch, but a more accurate test using a plumb line and a tray of water is also very easy to do.

Anyone doing such a test can confirm the consistency of RE while also showing the complete lack of consistency if FE.

The process is so easy and accessible there's no excuse not to do it for anyone that wishes to see for themselves whether the earth is round or flat.

[SiDawg]

To be fair, the majority of flat earthers haven't even researched how perspective works... I mean that's a 5 minute google answer and a few simple diagrams, yet most still believe "an arbitrary diagonal line on a side view is how perspective works". They don't even understand the concept of a vanishing point and what it represents. It's very simple to describe mathematically and figuratively with a rudimentary understanding of how an eye works.

I can understand not having the money for detailed scientific research... but there's plenty of room for debate (fittingly, in a forum sub group titled "debate") for a bit of back-and-forth on some very simple concepts with a little bit more of an effort than just "Zetetic writings say so"

I do honestly appreciate your time Tom: you are for the most part very cordial (if not occasionally dismissive) but completely understand you don't HAVE to do this, it's just your free time... it's very gracious for TFES to even have a forum and open it to RE'ers in the first place.

The reason for me joining is that i figured it was at least some attempt at "authority" on the debate (aside from endless you tube arguments). And you have said that you genuinely have a desire to get to the truth. Surely you yourself realise the FE argument is seriously flawed, even without any regard to the more "complex" scientific considerations... Perhaps it's time to start to quantify those items in a genuine attempt to reach a conclusion?

Perhaps people like me are just naive that anyone ever stops and admits "hmm, yeah, i was wrong". I certainly question why I bother wasting so much time trying... So thanks for at least wasting your time answering, but can we not attempt to reach a conclusion so we can BOTH stop wasting our time?

[AATW]

We are not organized to conduct research. There is no formal society of members. If you would like to help organize efforts, that would be great.

Dude, you really have to stop using that excuse. You don’t need an organisation to do research.
The fact you didn’t understand that experiment with the laser (I note you have neither raised any further objections nor retracted the ones I and others have shown to be spurious) is wrapped up in your belief that the horizon is at eye level. So you didn’t understand the difference between a laser being parallel to the ground as it slopes away and looking (slightly) down at and over the horizon. That is the difference between where the laser hits the boat and how much of the boat you can see. It’s really important to understand the difference in order to understand that experiment and how the globe earth works.
The point being, horizon dip is TESTABLE. It is MEASURABLE. And you don’t need expensive equipment, you were shown 2 experiments which did this, one using professional equipment and the other using equipment you could make yourself at almost no cost. Or you could devise your own experiment. But if you really are interested in the truth and empirical measurement and testing things then get out there and try it. It’s a few hours one day, that’s all it will take. You don’t need funding or an organisation. Isn’t it worth it to help you understand more about how the world really works? And the trouble with you saying “well, why don’t you do it” is we both know you won’t accept anyone else’s results. To an extent that’s fair enough but refusing to accept other people’s results (unless they seem to back up a flat earth) and refusing to do any experiments yourself will get you nowhere.