round vs. flat II: the recknoning

  • 119 Replies
  • 28743 Views
?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« on: October 31, 2007, 01:16:20 PM »
after my brief time here, and beyond that via lurking, and reading the faq, i've noticed some real problems with fe that people like bishop pretend don't exist. i know other people have done this too, and for re'ers it won't be much of a lesson. but this is different. first, it's my own (slightly) unique observations. second, it's table rather than faq style. third, i think it is a decent concentration of fe problems.

where possible (in most cases), i've used actual quotes and paraphrases from fe'ers. when you look at it this way, how could anyone possibly believe the fe model? it boggles the mind.

any particularly outrageous fe explanation came from actual quotes; i can't make this shit up. my own interpretations of fe theory are very conservative and unremarkable.

phenomenon

round earth

flat earth

sun

an ordinary star powered by fusion; earth and other planets orbit in a non-geocentric universe

a sphere or a disk, either way a "spotlight", 32 miles diameter, orbiting a common barycenter with moon; power for light unknown; mechanism keeping it aloft above surface of earth unknown

sunrise/set

earth rotation makes it visibly rise from and set below horizon without changing size, just as observed

sun shrinks into distance until it disappears, or some other undefined optical illusion; furthermore shrinking into distance is not consistent with observation

solar eclipse

moon passes in front of sun as predicted in advance by well-established orbital mechanics; only happens during new moon

undefined mystery object moves in front of sun; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics

lunar eclipse

earth aligns between moon and sun as predicted in advance by orbital mechanics; only happens during full moon

undefined mystery object moves in front of moon; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics

shape of earth

spherical, slightly oblate due to rotation, finite mass and gravity

variously flat or slightly curved; infinite plane or finite disk; finite mass, infinite mass, or massless; fe cannot agree on even the most basic, fundamental properties - even within the range of zero to infinity

shape of sun/moon/planets

spherical

can't agree on spherical or flat

other stars

similar to sun, of varying size and mass, scattered throughout the milky way in various non-random densities

tiny motes of chemical energy the size of dust grains, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits, violating laws of physics as all motes at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours

other galaxies

similar to the galaxy in which we reside, the milky way; scattered throughout the known universe; formations of stars, gas, and dust; having various sizes, shapes, and aggregate masses; complies with observational evidence

tiny swirling light shows, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits along with the dust motes of stars, violating laws of physics as all swirling light shows at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours

formation of earth and solar system

condensed out of gas and dust, orbits and rotations preserving original overall angular momentum

unknown, maybe god

sinking ship effect

through high magnification, the tops of sails of sailboats appear below surface of even calm water (e.g. toronto pics); due to curvature of earth, partially compensated for by terrestrial refraction

trick of perspective because the sails are white and ships are dark and disappear against water, even though actual modern sailboats are mostly white and stand out against dark sea more than white sails against a light sky

clouds lit by sun from bottom at sunset

at sunset the clouds are angled slightly away from sun due to curvature of earth, furthermore crystal-clear evidence that the sun gets "below" the level of clouds as it sets

unexplained

satellites visible to naked eye crossing the sky at certain times on clear moonless nights

there are man-made satellites in orbiting around the earth; they reflect light from the sun when it is well below observer's horizon, during a range of time between dark, and before the satellites fall behind earth's shadow; usually dim (depending on satellite) but easily visible in motion against background stars with the naked eye

satellites don't exist (contrary to easy naked-eye observation), or they are pseudolites (by current definition ground-based), or the stratellite, requireing sheer conjecture and blind, evidence-free acceptance of conspiracy theory, as the stratellite manufactururer publicly states they are not yet operationaland there is only conjecture to the contrary; either way, the mechanism for which flying psuedolites / stratellites are lit from below is undefined

north celestial pole, every object beyond solar system completes one orbit in one day

an easy-to understand artifact of earth's orbit; requires nothing extra to explain, and no magical physics that every object in the observable universe must obey

a star cluster of tiny chemical dust motes; every one of millions of objects having a perfectly circular orbit in gross defiance of odds; violation of known orbital physics[/red], farthest star completes orbit as fast as nearest, even though nothing else in observable universe behaves this way[/red]

south celestial pole

same as north, but in southern hemisphere; like the north, it's relative location in the sky is the same, at any time, any month, any place in southern hemisphere

like north, also star cluster of tiny chemical motes; location in sky unknown or undefined; different places in sky according to time of night and/or month and/or location

why do we see the same face of the moon

like every major moon in our solar system (and mercury with the sun), our moon is tidally locked with its orbited planet; like the other moons, "locked" is a slight misnomer as there is a slight wobble throughout the course of a lunar month

unexplained; bishop once tried to pass off an animated gif showing lunar libration (month-long wobble) as "this is what it looks like when it passes overhead" (in one night); explained with lies

moon phases

unlit side of the moon as we see (the shadow) from 360 degrees, one night at a time, throughout the moon's orbit of earth

moon is either self-luminous, or lit from the reflection of the sun off of various places of earth; while somehow not changing "phase" over the course of a night; all fe explanations rely on relative positions which in their model change over the course of 24 hours, not 28 days, thus unable to explain moon phase changes consistent from all locations on earth, that take a 28.x day cycle to complete

moon stays the same size as it crosses the sky

basic orbital mechanics predicts this

unexplained

rotation of hurricanes depending on hemisphere

corilois effect as result of a rotating round earth

unexplained or undefined celestial eddies influence

things experimentally weigh less high on mountains

slightly smaller effect of gravitational attraction farther from the majority of earth's mass

chemical dust motes in sky pull in other direction

shape and size of earth determined regularly by global earthquake monitoring stations, and man-made seismic experiment

delays in and directions of primary readings, as well as secondary reflections and refractions, are consistent with a round earth

undefined

nasa photos

hundreds of thousands, if no millions of photos from hundreds of missions, with not a single one demonstrating something other than a consistent picture of round earth orbital mechanics

every single one was faked, including those published in the '60s which were computer-generated or altered (presumably with "vacuum tube photoshop")

strange wanderings of planets over weeks, months, and years

round-earth orbital mechanics, of which earth is part of, worked this out hundreds of years ago, and with highly predictable precision decades ago

unexplained

seasons

easily explained with the tilt of earths axis and it's effect as the earth orbits the sun

spiraling in and back out of sun and moon around a common barycenter, via unexplained physics

tides

gravitational effect readily predictable based on location of sun and moon relative to earth, and earth's rotation

sloshing of the earth back and forth; unpredictable

midnight sun in antactic circle

same explanation as perpetual night/day in antarctic - tilt of earth's axis relative to position in orbit

doesn't exist; all photos and accounts are lies or optical illusions


?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2007, 02:39:18 PM »
You are about to get loads and loads of shit from TB, you do realise that, don;t you? I however understand and agree with your post on the most part.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2007, 02:45:45 PM »
Notice how almost EVERYTHING is unexplained, bullshit, or more than likely related to God.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2007, 02:47:32 PM »
You are about to get loads and loads of shit from TB, you do realise that, don;t you? I however understand and agree with your post on the most part.

i do expect that, if i hear anything from bishop (which i don't expect because he is a coward), it will be nothing but loads and loads of shit. probably mostly quotes from robot ham.

however, it's dawning on me that this forum is absolutely nothing more than a colossal waste of time. fe'ers believe what they believe and no one can change that. bishop is a troll, nothing can change that. arguing with him is about as productive, or fulfilling, or meaningful as chewing sand. (and i've done alot of that.)

Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2007, 02:52:10 PM »
however, it's dawning on me that this forum is absolutely nothing more than a colossal waste of time.

JACKPOT!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17534
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2007, 02:58:09 PM »
Quote
cpt_bthimes

All that and you couldn't reference one piece of experimental evidence which suggests that the earth is a globe? I'll stop posting and leave this forum forever once you guys give me that.

You came here and sought us out. We did not seek you out. Therefore the onus is on you to demonstrate that your hypothetical model of the earth is correct.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2007, 03:05:58 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2007, 03:16:20 PM »
Quote
cpt_bthimes

All that and you couldn't reference one piece of experimental evidence which suggests that the earth is a globe? I'll stop posting and leave this forum forever once you guys give me that.

You came here and sought us out. We did not seek you out. Therefore the onus is on you to demonstrate that your hypothetical model of the earth is correct.
WOW! You totally avoided the topic completely! Btw, I have prof of a round earth, but since you aren't coming back I won't waist my time.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17534
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2007, 03:18:42 PM »
Quote
WOW! You totally avoided the topic completely! Btw, I have prof of a round earth, but since you aren't coming back I won't waist my time.

What? You have "prof" of a Round Earth?

What are you talking about?

Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2007, 03:23:52 PM »

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2007, 03:24:06 PM »
Quote
WOW! You totally avoided the topic completely! Btw, I have prof of a round earth, but since you aren't coming back I won't waist my time.

What? You have prof of a Round Earth?
Let's see; Greeks, Galileo, NASA, photos, sky divers, stratosphere sky divers, sinking ships, renaissance explorers, flight paths, books, rockets....Oh why the hell am I saying this? You will just ignore the point, discredit, say 'photos aren't evidence,' or say '_____ isn't the earth.'
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2007, 03:32:42 PM »
Quote




Taken this month.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2007, 03:33:38 PM »

Taken this month.
All the proof I'll ever need.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2007, 03:38:18 PM »

Taken this month.
All the proof I'll ever need.

kudos for your name and avatar.  But yea beautiful eh?  Maybe if Tom was one of those guys he would be less of a dumbshit.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2007, 03:39:12 PM »
Quote




Taken this month.
Photoshop hax, lol.   ::)


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2007, 03:42:16 PM »
What else do you expect? I don't see any other way of bringing relevant and clear evidence into a forum like this.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2007, 03:43:38 PM »

Taken this month.
All the proof I'll ever need.

kudos for your name and avatar.  But yea beautiful eh?  Maybe if Tom was one of those guys he would be less of a dumbshit.
Why thank you. Darth Bishop created my avatar. As for the rest of the post, yeah, very good views. Oh, Tom Bullshit, please reply.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1524
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2007, 03:44:22 PM »
So TomB can you explain why tides, eclipses, moon phases, and why we always see the same side of the moon?  And if the moon is only a couple thousand miles above the earth why is it that we cannot see the surface of it clearly with telescopes that can focus in on things that are hundreds of thousands of miles away?  
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17534
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2007, 03:52:47 PM »
http://web2.kwangju.ac.kr/~tak/cosmos/planets/Earth-Globe.jpg

NASA propaganda.

Quote
Taken this month.

NASA propaganda.

Quote
Let's see; Greeks, Galileo, NASA, photos, sky divers, stratosphere sky divers, sinking ships, renaissance explorers, flight paths, books, rockets....

And none of which involves controlled experiments in the least.

Quote
So TomB can you explain why tides, eclipses, moon phases, and why we always see the same side of the moon?  And if the moon is only a couple thousand miles above the earth why is it that we cannot see the surface of it clearly with telescopes that can focus in on things that are hundreds of thousands of miles away? 

You came here and sought us out. We did not seek you out. Therefore the onus is on you to demonstrate that your hypothetical model of the earth is correct.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2007, 09:09:51 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1524
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2007, 03:59:38 PM »
So are you saying that you cannot prove any of theses false except by saying that its a conspracy?  Wow thats powerful evidence.
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2007, 03:59:55 PM »
Quote
Quote
Let's see; Greeks, Galileo, NASA, photos, sky divers, stratosphere sky divers, sinking ships, renaissance explorers, flight paths, books, rockets....

And none of which involve controlled experiments in the least.
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it! You ignored everything! I am beginning to loss it now just like cpt. Tom Bullshit! I want YOU to present YOUR experiments you keep telling us. I want YOU to show us photos of a Flat Earth. I want YOU to get out of your shell and start debating and contradict our model. It is us that is calling you out. YOU MUST PRESENT YOUR FACTS!
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2007, 04:00:31 PM »
NASA propaganda.
Wrong.

NASA propaganda.
Wrong.

And none of which involve controlled experiments in the least.
Wrong.

You came here and sought us out. We did not seek you out. Therefore the onus is on you to demonstrate that your hypothetical model of the earth is correct.
Looks like your keyboard only has two keys.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2007, 04:09:58 PM »
NASA propaganda.
Wrong.

NASA propaganda.
Wrong.

And none of which involve controlled experiments in the least.
Wrong.

You came here and sought us out. We did not seek you out. Therefore the onus is on you to demonstrate that your hypothetical model of the earth is correct.
Looks like your keyboard only has two keys.
Yeah, B and S.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1524
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2007, 07:48:46 PM »
Oh Tom do you have anymore half-baked explanations?
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.

?

Iskaros

  • 70
  • Flat Earth Cover up
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2007, 08:06:03 PM »
his keyboard says BS mine says truthiness
"Always take an oblique approach" General Flavius Belisarius

I'm a teenager big whoop teenagers can be smart (every once in a million years)

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2007, 09:05:23 AM »
I also think this thread should be stickied.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2007, 01:58:59 PM »
I'll stop posting and leave this forum forever once you guys give me that.
:o

Awesome. Now go keep your promise. WE HAVEN'T PROVED YOU YET.


?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1524
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2007, 02:43:02 PM »
I think he's ignoring this post for some reason.  Is it possible that he's out of bull answers?
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2007, 02:46:37 PM »
I think he's ignoring this post for some reason.  Is it possible that he's out of bull answers?

Yeah, that's his strategy, he just goes and copies and pastes somewhere else.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2007, 04:44:55 PM »
http://web2.kwangju.ac.kr/~tak/cosmos/planets/Earth-Globe.jpg

NASA propaganda.

Quote
Taken this month.

NASA propaganda.

Quote
Let's see; Greeks, Galileo, NASA, photos, sky divers, stratosphere sky divers, sinking ships, renaissance explorers, flight paths, books, rockets....

And none of which involves controlled experiments in the least.

Quote
So TomB can you explain why tides, eclipses, moon phases, and why we always see the same side of the moon?  And if the moon is only a couple thousand miles above the earth why is it that we cannot see the surface of it clearly with telescopes that can focus in on things that are hundreds of thousands of miles away? 

You came here and sought us out. We did not seek you out. Therefore the onus is on you to demonstrate that your hypothetical model of the earth is correct.

1) Hypothetical to YOU, not the rest of the world. 

2) All the evidence presented is either "part of the conspiracy" or explained through bullsh*t physics-doesn't-work-that-way explanations. 

3) YOU are the one with the crackpot theory.  YOU are the one that speaks of a world-wide conspiracy.  We have provided evidence, and even cursory reviews of what makes sense according to what we know of science contradicts your theory.  Time for you to step up and make sense of the jumbling mess of your theory!

4) Don't wonder why your numbers are dwindling!  It isn't because "the conspiracy is getting better pseudo-evidence."  It's because there are glaring holes in your own precious theory that you refuse to address.  Give some reasonable explanations to the above points, for they ARE valid. 

5) Just because the evidence of experiments made don't agree with your flat world does not make it "uncontrolled." 

Please answer the points in the above post.  They are valid and hurt your position greatly!

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2007, 07:32:34 PM »
My human friends. My name is Optimus Prime. Upon scanning the world wide web to learn your languages and customs I have come accross these discussions and wish to impart information which may be helpful in your concerns regarding your planet.

Upon our distant approach and then, entry into your planets atmosphere in our cometary proto-forms, my comrades and I can tell you with certainty that your planet like most others is a spherical object. Yours in particular containing life of an interesting variety and nature to us.

Although your arguments are well spirited, we wish to help you in your times of need. We feel that perhaps Megatron may have tried to sway humankind's minds with misinformation sometime in the past and wish to rectify the damage he has done now that he has been defeated.

Please understand that all of our travels throughout the galaxy, other than small asteroidical colinizations of certain species, have proven to us that all planets in all solar systems capable of supporting life are spherical in nature. This is a simple process of time and the methods of the universe.

From all of us our very best. Roll Out!

Optimus Prime.


Dyslexics are teople poo!