Remove this Banner Ad

Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

  • Thread starter Thread starter katana
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

What shape is the Earth?

  • Globe

  • Flat circle

  • Unsure

Results are only viewable after voting.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

167 pages... has anyone reported on their own experimentation yet?

Anyone tried to demonstrate that New Zealand, Antarctica, Mount Everest aren't obscured by the Earth's curvature if you try and observe them from Australia?
Anyone tried to demonstrate a ship sailing over the horizon is just an optical illusion?
Anyone demonstrated that measurements of atomic compositions of distant objects by spectroanalysis is fake and/or doesn't confirm that those objects are what conventional science defines them as being?
Anyone documented a circumnavigation of Antarctica and shown that the distance actually reflects the "outer bounds of the planet" FE model rather than the continental circumference of a round Earth model?
Anyone attempted to fly from Australia to South America by crossing Antarctica and found it wasn't possible?



For a bunch of people so passionate about FE, it's a little surprising that that passion doesn't seem to extend beyond reading and watching what's on the internet. This is the difference between science and pseudoscience. Science isn't some sort of global movement or philosophy (although I'll admit the sorts of people who "defend" science on the internet often act like it is)... science is a process by which a hypothesis is formed, an experiment is then conducted to test the hypothesis, and the results are used to assess the truth of the hypothesis. Science is formalised by creating structure around how that process is then documented and verified by peer-reviewed literature so that the scientific body of knowledge is consistent and open to revision, disproof, repetition or to be built upon.

This process can just as easily be applied to the FE hypothesis, but not without experimentation. So I'll keep checking in now and then to see if anyone has done any experimenting.
 
bovs said:
167 pages... has anyone reported on their own experimentation yet?

Anyone tried to demonstrate that New Zealand, Antarctica, Mount Everest aren't obscured by the Earth's curvature if you try and observe them from Australia?
Anyone tried to demonstrate a ship sailing over the horizon is just an optical illusion?
Anyone demonstrated that measurements of atomic compositions of distant objects by spectroanalysis is fake and/or doesn't confirm that those objects are what conventional science defines them as being?
Anyone documented a circumnavigation of Antarctica and shown that the distance actually reflects the "outer bounds of the planet" FE model rather than the continental circumference of a round Earth model?
Anyone attempted to fly from Australia to South America by crossing Antarctica and found it wasn't possible?



For a bunch of people so passionate about FE, it's a little surprising that that passion doesn't seem to extend beyond reading and watching what's on the internet. This is the difference between science and pseudoscience. Science isn't some sort of global movement or philosophy (although I'll admit the sorts of people who "defend" science on the internet often act like it is)... science is a process by which a hypothesis is formed, an experiment is then conducted to test the hypothesis, and the results are used to assess the truth of the hypothesis. Science is formalised by creating structure around how that process is then documented and verified by peer-reviewed literature so that the scientific body of knowledge is consistent and open to revision, disproof, repetition or to be built upon.

This process can just as easily be applied to the FE hypothesis, but not without experimentation. So I'll keep checking in now and then to see if anyone has done any experimenting.
Click to expand...
Morning bovs,was just enjoying a lovely flat white and noticed your naive post.

We are aware we can't just endlessly see NZ or Mt Everest because of the angular limits of perception. This can be proven when a ship half vanishes over the horizon but can be pulled back into view with a set of binoculars or a telescope.

Numerous experiments have been carried out to prove the earth is flat. We have what is known as the Bedford Canal experiments,The Kansas experiments the Bishop experiments and if you take the time to read Thomas Winships Zetetic Cosmogony or A Hundred Proofs The Earth Is Not A Globe by William Carpender you will see numerous experiments carried out proving the Earth is flat. I highly recommend these books and highly suggest you read them.

I think your over selling the old fraudulent science as it is just a global movement and in actual fact is what's known as a religion.
The peer review process sounds good on paper but with so many dodgy websites out there and the advent of social media I think it's best we should be very careful what we read or believe in regards to the spinning,orbiting,hurtling,tilted round ball earth.
Having said that you will find that papers written and published by Samual Birley Rowthbottom regarding his flat earth experiments that were peer reviewed by a woman by the name of Lady Blount.
 
Last edited:
darthbards said:
Morning bovs,was just enjoying a lovely flat white and noticed your naive post.

We are aware we can't just endlessly see NZ or Mt Everest because of the angular limits of perception. This can be proven when a ship half vanishes over the horizon but can be pulled back into view with a set of binoculars or a telescope.

Numerous experiments have been carried out to prove the earth is flat. We have what is known as the Bedford Canal experiments,The Kansas experiments the Bishop experiments and if you take the time to read Thomas Winships Zetetic Cosmogony or A Hundred Proofs The Earth Is Not A Globe by William Carpender you will see numerous experiments carried out proving the Earth is flat. I highly recommend these books and highly suggest you read them.

I think your over selling the old fraudulent science as it is just a global movement and in actual fact is what's known as a religion.
The peer review process sounds good on paper but with so many dodgy websites out there and the advent of social media I think it's best we should be very careful what we read or believe in regards to the spinning,orbiting,hurtling,tilted round ball earth.
Having said that you will find that papers written and published by Samual Birley Rowthbottom regarding his flat earth experiments that were peer reviewed by a woman by the name of Lady Blount.
Click to expand...


Wasn't suggesting experiments you've read about on the internet. Was suggesting experiments you've conducted yourself. Or know someone who has conducted them. Or have seen detailed methodology not just a conclusion that says what you already want to believe.

I would happily through the same comment at those arguing the standard position. I don't understand how anyone can be so passionate as to argue the point over and over again, but not have actually done anything practically to demonstrate what they believe to be true.


I'm not convinced by the argument around angular limits of perception... but I guess when the moon or sun dips over the horizon it should be effected in the same way... and if the moon or sun is further away than whatever land-mass object is in the direction of where it dips over the horizon, then with sufficient magnification you should see that object silhouetted in front of the moon or sun.

Again I'm not arguing the point... I'm just pointing out that you could probably actually design an experiment and go and conduct it and produce some evidence that suggests the nature of the Earth one way or the other. It'd be a far more impressive than 167 pages of argument based purely off what people have seen on the internet.

It doesn't even have to be peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed is a method that served humanity for a long time but I don't disagree that the modern world presents many challenges for the scientific norm. But peer-reviewed isn't the definition of scientific, the method of constructing and testing a hypothesis is what makes something scientific. This thread is exhaustive construction of the hypothesis without any testing. Regardless of which side you've been arguing.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

bovs said:
Wasn't suggesting experiments you've read about on the internet. Was suggesting experiments you've conducted yourself. Or know someone who has conducted them. Or have seen detailed methodology not just a conclusion that says what you already want to believe.

I would happily through the same comment at those arguing the standard position. I don't understand how anyone can be so passionate as to argue the point over and over again, but not have actually done anything practically to demonstrate what they believe to be true.


I'm not convinced by the argument around angular limits of perception... but I guess when the moon or sun dips over the horizon it should be effected in the same way... and if the moon or sun is further away than whatever land-mass object is in the direction of where it dips over the horizon, then with sufficient magnification you should see that object silhouetted in front of the moon or sun.

Again I'm not arguing the point... I'm just pointing out that you could probably actually design an experiment and go and conduct it and produce some evidence that suggests the nature of the Earth one way or the other. It'd be a far more impressive than 167 pages of argument based purely off what people have seen on the internet.

It doesn't even have to be peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed is a method that served humanity for a long time but I don't disagree that the modern world presents many challenges for the scientific norm. But peer-reviewed isn't the definition of scientific, the method of constructing and testing a hypothesis is what makes something scientific. This thread is exhaustive construction of the hypothesis without any testing. Regardless of which side you've been arguing.
Click to expand...
I've done the binoculars experiment.
How's all you're experiments going? Been into outer space to view the earth or to prove we can get out of lower orbit? Discovered magik gravity? Dark matter and energy are important for the fraudulent science mythamatics ,how's all that coming along?
Personally I think there's big hurdles on both sides. It's just the FE has the better scientific evidence and round earth sounds the most ridiculous and on top of that they use to many unproven things in their theories.

Have a read of these books I suggested and I'm sure you'll have your eyes opened.

Also,to suggest the peer review has served us well is a bit rich. The majority of people in this day and age still think the earth is a ball. You can't have a religious organisation running its own review and expect it to work.
Anyway,if you want to give a long and detailed explanation of what you think old fraudulent science is or stands for as opposed to modern science just go tell your riveting theory on the actual science board.

What are you like at poetry by the way?
 
darthbards said:
I've done the binoculars experiment.
How's all you're experiments going? Been into outer space to view the earth or to prove we can get out of lower orbit? Discovered magik gravity? Dark matter and energy are important for the fraudulent science mythamatics ,how's all that coming along?
Personally I think there's big hurdles on both sides. It's just the FE has the better scientific evidence and round earth sounds the most ridiculous and on top of that they use to many unproven things in their theories.

Have a read of these books I suggested and I'm sure you'll have your eyes opened.

Also,to suggest the peer review has served us well is a bit rich. The majority of people in this day and age still think the earth is a ball. You can't have a religious organisation running its own review and expect it to work.
Anyway,if you want to give a long and detailed explanation of what you think old fraudulent science is or stands for as opposed to modern science just go tell your riveting theory on the actual science board.

What are you like at poetry by the way?
Click to expand...


I've made 2 posts... trying in both not to actually argue one way or the other on the actual issue of flat Earth vs round Earth... merely to make the point that 167 pages of "the Earth is flat... no it isn't... yes it is look at this video... no it isn't look at this video... etc." without anyone actually detailing their own experiences or efforts to demonstrate what they believe is a little surprising.

Yet you've managed to (quite rudely) argue with a non-argumentative point both times.


Mathematics isn't a myth. I can assure you of that much. If you're going to throw mathematics out the window then you may as well be trying to have a debate on whether humans really need to breathe oxygen (or that oxygen even exists as a real thing I guess).

In terms of peer-reviewed science, whatever you think of it it has been the foundation of pretty much all technology and social advancement achieved in at least the last 100 years... probably the last 300 years... and depending on how you choose to define the concept of scientific literature for as long as humanity. Again, if you believe that scientific endeavour is a myth, conspiracy or Satanic work and all technology has actually been developed by faking it, aliens on being directly supplied by God then that's fine and you can believe that but there's not much point trying to engage with anyone else if you've taken such an outsider view without any consideration of the alternative.


It's pretty clear from your responses so far that you probably don't even have an interest in the nature of the world as flat or round or anything... you only have an interest in arguing with anyone from the "other team" i.e. "science" which somehow means to you all the people on the internet who like technology or science news or arguing with religious types or something I don't really know what. Maybe you need to spend more time on the politics board where people choose a side and debate it continuously regardless of whether they actually believe with any conviction what they're arguing.
 
Boston tiger said:
How does it work with those youngest yacht people who say they sail solo around the world?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Just think of a round swimming-pool....Instead of going globally, they just do a jolly big circle....Apparently.;)
 
bovs said:
I've made 2 posts... trying in both not to actually argue one way or the other on the actual issue of flat Earth vs round Earth... merely to make the point that 167 pages of "the Earth is flat... no it isn't... yes it is look at this video... no it isn't look at this video... etc." without anyone actually detailing their own experiences or efforts to demonstrate what they believe is a little surprising.

Yet you've managed to (quite rudely) argue with a non-argumentative point both times.


Mathematics isn't a myth. I can assure you of that much. If you're going to throw mathematics out the window then you may as well be trying to have a debate on whether humans really need to breathe oxygen (or that oxygen even exists as a real thing I guess).

In terms of peer-reviewed science, whatever you think of it it has been the foundation of pretty much all technology and social advancement achieved in at least the last 100 years... probably the last 300 years... and depending on how you choose to define the concept of scientific literature for as long as humanity. Again, if you believe that scientific endeavour is a myth, conspiracy or Satanic work and all technology has actually been developed by faking it, aliens on being directly supplied by God then that's fine and you can believe that but there's not much point trying to engage with anyone else if you've taken such an outsider view without any consideration of the alternative.


It's pretty clear from your responses so far that you probably don't even have an interest in the nature of the world as flat or round or anything... you only have an interest in arguing with anyone from the "other team" i.e. "science" which somehow means to you all the people on the internet who like technology or science news or arguing with religious types or something I don't really know what. Maybe you need to spend more time on the politics board where people choose a side and debate it continuously regardless of whether they actually believe with any conviction what they're arguing.
Click to expand...
Sorry,I just didn't get the point to your posts and you quite clearly haven't thought your comments through and are blinded.
Yes,of course we scienctists at the FES would like to be carrying out a whole multitude of further experimentation,but money doesn't grow on trees. I've made my suggestions as to how we could obtain greater funding by closing down LIGO and handing the facility over to the FES, as well as the funding, so we can carry out greater research. Do you think the FES is rolling in money just because the ball lovers are? I told you some of the experiments carried out but it wasn't enough was it?
Your comments tend to be leaning towards saying the round earth is to be believed or given a go. We at the FES do not believe what we have been told by the old fraudulent,religious science. We think their made up theories are laughable with its made up Dark matter,energy and let's not forget gravity. We think your math is wrong. I don't mean to be rude but we don't want a debate any more. Why do ball lovers think our flat earth thread is a great place to debate round earth but on the other science board flat earth discussion not allowed?
The ball lovers have made their garbage point. It's the ball lovers who continuously come, spreading their lies and insulting flat earthers.
The FES is growing,old fraudulent religious science is a failure. Instead of saying I don't have an interest in nature or science you should be pointing the finger at those spreading the lies or those wasting the billions of dollars,the old fraudulent religious science.

We at the FES do listen to other fields of science,but we have no respect for ball lovers. Who would believe that garbage.

Tldr..If you have constructive comments to make feel free,but don't come here saying the old fraudulent religious science is not a global movement and don't come here gobbling off about pseudo science like your some sort of a gatekeeper to how we reach our findings.
 
darthbards said:
Tldr..my point is irrefutable as long as you reject mathematics, at least hundreds of years of scientific discovery, thousands of years of collective human wisdom save for the small fraction that confirms my irrefutable truth and pretty much any real application of my "science".
Click to expand...

EFA


It seems like your FE argument has gone a long way past "conspiracy" and into the realm of "things that can be true if we ignore reality". Maybe it's your argument that needs to move to a different thread... challenging the fabric of human existence isn't really discussing conspiracy.
 
bovs said:
EFA


It seems like your FE argument has gone a long way past "conspiracy" and into the realm of "things that can be true if we ignore reality". Maybe it's your argument that needs to move to a different thread... challenging the fabric of human existence isn't really discussing conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Good on you mate. You fought the good fight, we were proud, however it's time to put you out of your misery. The Flat Earth Theory is the latest internet joke :p
 
Present Not Past said:
Good on you mate. You fought the good fight, we were proud, however it's time to put you out of your misery. The Flat Earth Theory is the latest internet joke :p
Click to expand...
Ummm....I think you mean the latest internet craze or one of the rapidly growing theories in general. Everyday more and more people are joining the FES,as the round earth theory continues fail despite its billion dollar research budget.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

203e844275db4a7b29254276886229a26851c9cefcb17f4bcd1a89d9c4a3f583.jpg
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

bluskyreamin
Conspiracy Theory 2027 The Global Conspiracy for complete control
Replies
2
Views
257
bluskyreamin
bluskyreamin
Gameova_
Conspiracy Theory Clark County coroner's office changes protocol for Tupac Shakurs staged autopsy and the lies that followed
Replies
0
Views
780
Gameova_
Gameova_
A11dAtP0w3R
    • Like
    • Love
NWO/Illuminati Charlie Kirk was assassinated by Mossad and/or the CIA... Change my mind
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
309
Views
13K
UltraEgo
UltraEgo
bzparkes
    • Like
    • Love
Factcheckers: who checks the checkers?
Replies
7
Views
549
Johnny_Dogg4
Johnny_Dogg4
HitTheNailOnTheHead
    • Like
    • Love
Conspiracy Theory The McDonald's Ice Cream Machine Conspiracy
Replies
4
Views
769
ioppolo
ioppolo
HitTheNailOnTheHead
    • Like
Conspiracy Theory You have more chance of winning US lotto than drowning and yet the Obama and the Clinton chefs have both apparently drowned. What is going on?
Replies
14
Views
2K
Del80659
D
HitTheNailOnTheHead
Conspiracy Theory Artificial Sweeteners
Replies
1
Views
88
HitTheNailOnTheHead
HitTheNailOnTheHead

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom