Author Topic: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying? (Read 72833 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #780 on:** December 14, 2021, 02:16:56 PM »

Here are links to some of the interviews:
https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2018/09/14/professionals-and-military-personnel-confirm-the-flat-earth/

Ladislaus · « **Reply #781 on:** December 14, 2021, 02:20:50 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=554945265254988

Marion · « **Reply #782 on:** December 14, 2021, 02:26:23 PM »

Quote from: Tradman on December 14, 2021, 01:58:43 PM

You would not be able to see further from a mountain on a spherical earth because the horizon would drop lower and lower the higher you ascended. Trying to see what is disappearing behind the curve as you climb would be an exercise in futility as earth drops away from view to form the spherical shape.

Could you please make a drawing for me, showing how that works?!

Here again my understanding:

Stanley N · « **Reply #783 on:** December 14, 2021, 02:34:40 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 14, 2021, 02:04:04 PM

You'll forgive my saying so, but your pretended "openness" comes across extremely forced and fake. You're not open at all.

Are you "open" to reconsidering things you investigated for years?

I'm not talking religious topics. I mean natural things, like 9/11, Oklahoma city, JFK, Elvis, covid, reptilian elite, Area 51, and so on.

I expect you're open on these topics to some degree, but not like someone who has NEVER investigated the topic before. You've already thought about it and have conclusions.

A mind is "open" for receiving truth. Once you have truth, you don't keep your mind so open that the truth falls out. You keep it "open" so that if any evidence shows you an error, you can change your mind.

Once you came to a conclusion about 9/11, I doubt you saw any evidence that warranted changing your mind.

Similarly, I have examined the "FE" evidence, and have conclusions. I have yet to see evidence for a flat earth that warrants changing my mind.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #784 on:** December 14, 2021, 02:40:02 PM »

Marion, here's a simple test to prove that a higher viewpoint has nothing to do with globe earth.

1. Imagine your house and your surrounding yard and your neighbors houses ....Let's say, an area of a couple hundred feet.
2. Is this area large enough to be impacted by the curvature of the earth? No.
3. If you stand at your back door, how much of your neighbor's back yard can you see? Most of it or all of it.
4. If you go to your upstairs bedroom and look out the window, how much of your neighbor's back yard can you see. DEFINITELY all of it, and more.
5. Conclusion - the higher up you go, your vision distance increases because you've increased your field of view, since you can look OUT and DOWN. It's a bigger angle of view than just looking OUT (i.e. when you're on the ground).

This has absolutely nothing to do with globe/flat earth.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #785 on:** December 14, 2021, 02:42:05 PM »

Stanley, when are you going to stop trolling and just speak in specific details, like a normal person. Your generalizations are a waste of time. Give us examples or just stop.

Tradman · « **Reply #786 on:** December 14, 2021, 03:18:42 PM »

Quote from: Marion on December 14, 2021, 02:26:23 PM

Could you please make a drawing for me, showing how that works?!

Here again my understanding:

Your drawing doesn't quite show that your visual is greater on a flat earth from the crow's nest, so I would extend the top line. Both views will naturally become limited at some point, due to perspective at least, but will be worse from the deck for two reasons. On the sea you're battling the angle of resolution being lower from the deck and thus limiting your view, from physical things like mist, waves, some of which are pretty high in the distance. With wave on wave on wave over distance it is going to be the equivalent of trying to see through a brick wall. Higher up, you'll have the same problems, just less so because you're higher than many of the waves and even much of the mist and atmospheric muddling so you'll see farther, which is why there is a crow's nest on a ship in the first place. Make no mistake, it will eventually be limited due to angle of resolution shrinking in relation to distance, which is why you can't see forever. The second picture depicts reality in the sense that it shows the horizon falling away, yet both positions are more immediately truncated on a globe because the horizon has to fall away shrinking angle of resolution and everything disappears, especially as you go higher, since the horizon drops away to conform to a sphere. The higher you go, the more your view falls off. If you read the phrase for each drawing, they are true. Visual range for flat earth is not as geometrically limited, but the visual range for a sphere is more immediately limited because the drop off leaves nothing to see the higher you go. A crow's nest wouldn't be much help on a sphere.

Matthew · « **Reply #787 on:** December 14, 2021, 03:38:04 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on December 14, 2021, 02:34:40 PM

I'm not talking religious topics. I mean natural things, like 9/11, Oklahoma city, JFK, Elvis, covid, reptilian elite, Area 51, and so on.

Nice touch there -- putting all those in the same breath. I can tell what YOU think of "conspiracy theories". I'm not stupid, and you don't fool me one bit.

Elvis died of a drug overdose (maybe it was a heart attack, but ultimately it was drug abuse that killed him) in 1977. Aliens are bunk. There is no intelligent life in the UNIVERSE except right here on earth. So there are no "reptilians". Ditto for Area 51.

JFK was *obviously* αssαssιnαtҽd but not by Lee Harvey Oswald. That's why LHO was conveniently αssαssιnαtҽd. There is too much evidence, "cui bono" and what not. JFK went against the bankers.

Dankward · « **Reply #788 on:** December 14, 2021, 04:27:11 PM »

Quote from: Meg on December 14, 2021, 12:57:13 PM

Why is it so important to you that we question or change our belief? I mean, if you want to believe the earth is a ball, that's fine. The Church hasn't ruled on the subject.

Did you even take a look at the attached file? You can completely ignore my words if you like.

Also, re-read what I said:

Quote

I'd advice all convinced Flat Earthers here to have a good read and either refute his arguments or start to question their own beliefs in that regard.

Why did you leave out the first part I marked in bold?

Stanley N · « **Reply #789 on:** December 14, 2021, 05:02:07 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 14, 2021, 03:38:04 PM

Nice touch there -- putting all those in the same breath.

You didn't respond to my point.

My point is not what you think about each topic (we largely agree on those), but that you have already considered some of those topics and already formed an opinion. You're not coming at them "open minded" as if ignorant and tabula rasa.

And neither am I with the flat earth topic.

If you want to call that "not open minded", so be it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #790 on:** December 14, 2021, 05:57:32 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on December 14, 2021, 05:02:07 PM

My point is not what you think about each topic (we largely agree on those), but that you have already considered some of those topics and already formed an opinion. You're not coming at them "open minded" as if ignorant and tabula rasa.

I came to start looking at the evidence as a big skeptic. Matthew was so skeptical that he relegated Flat Earth to one of the hidden "ghetto" subforums that do not appear on the active thread list panel there.

In fact, every single Flat Earther I've heard from started off as a skeptic.

Yet, I thought, "well, I can't simply dismiss it if I don't look into the question and at least see what they've got." I was convinced that it would be a bunch of nonsense, akin to what Matthew said, alien-hybrid technolgy or something along those lines ... a fanciful narrative constructed by weaving together isolated disparate facts until it "sounded good". Well, when I started looking at the evidence, my first reaction was shock. So I kept looking and looking and staying open, until I could no longer credibly defend the notion of the earth as a globe.

I do this kind of "thought experiment" if you will, on a lot of things. I imagine myself as being on a debate team and assigned the topic, "the earth is a globe" to defend. Could I do it to the point that I believed it myself, or would I just be making stuff up to win the rhetorical battle. I used to be on the debate team in both High School and at University. So I often found myself having to take a side on an issue that I didn't believe in, so I know what that feels like to pretend to defend something you don't believe in. In any case, I imagine myself taking the side of the globe and what I would argue to prove it. NOTHING I could come up with was remotely convincing and that I wouldn't feel like a liar for saying ... not unlike when lawyers defend people that they know for sure are actually guilty. I've done the same experiment with, "Argue for evolution." Or "Argue for atheism" Even if I WANTED to believe those things, I could not ... because the case for them is absurd and ridiculous. That's where I've come to with Flat Earth.

This guy here, who has one of the best sites out there on the subject, "Taboo Conspiracy III" ... called that because I and II got deleted by Youtube for no reason. He started out as a guy who would argue on forums that the moon landings were fake. Then a buddy of his brought up flat earth. He concluded that FE was a psy-op to discredit arguments against the moon landings. So he deliberately set out to debunk and discredit it. But at some point, he realized he was losing the argument and eventually gave in and became convinced of Flat Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Z5IVoNE5cP2kka5svUEBw/videos

Here's the story of how he came to believe in Flat Earth after being a skeptic and setting out to expose and debunk it, believing it to be a psyop, in an attempt to "save" his "fellow truthseekers" from it.

Marion · « **Reply #791 on:** December 14, 2021, 06:28:00 PM »

Quote from: Tradman

Quote from: Marion on December 14, 2021, 02:26:23 PM
Could you please make a drawing for me, showing how that works?!

Here again my understanding:

Your drawing doesn't quite show that your visual is greater on a flat earth from the crow's nest, so I would extend the top line.

It shows that a flat earth doesn't geometrically limit the visual range.

I can see mountains, which are more than 30km away. And I can see the same mountains from the beach, in equally dark color. If it starts raining in the area of these mountains, then they get lighter, until one can't see them anymore. Then there's a "white wall" of rain in the distance.

If the weather is sunny and dry, there is no noteworthy mist above the water. If there were such mist, and the surface of the water were flat, then I couldn't see the buildings on the shore several more miles behind the island. But I can.

P.S.: You wrote into the quote of mine, so my answer doesn't provide a link to your post.

Tradman · « **Reply #792 on:** December 14, 2021, 06:41:43 PM »

Quote from: Marion on December 14, 2021, 06:28:00 PM

Your drawing doesn't quite show that your visual is greater on a flat earth from the crow's nest, so I would extend the top line.

It shows that a flat earth doesn't geometrically limit the visual range.

I can see mountains, which are more than 30km away. And I can see the same mountains from the beach, in equally dark color. If it starts raining in the area of these mountains, then they get lighter, until one can't see them anymore. Then there's a "white wall" of rain in the distance.

If the weather is sunny and dry, there is no noteworthy mist above the water. If there were such mist, and the surface of the water were flat, then I couldn't see the buildings at the shore several more miles behind the island. But I can.

You can see mountains because the angle of resolution is probably 30 or more degrees between your eye and the top of the mountain which means nothing obstructs the view and the eye can resolve for enough detail to see it. When that angle gets smaller, as the object viewed is closer to the ground along with the viewer, one can no longer see the object(s) so the mountain is not a great example because it is so large. The fact that you can see buildings is a sure sign earth is not a globe because at 30 km or 18 miles, most, if not the entire building would be below the curve about 250 feet below the line of sight. That is how much curvature must be accounted for at that distance, if earth were a globe.

Marion · « **Reply #793 on:** December 14, 2021, 06:47:30 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 14, 2021, 02:40:02 PM

Marion, here's a simple test to prove that a higher viewpoint has nothing to do with globe earth.

1. Imagine your house and your surrounding yard and your neighbors houses ....Let's say, an area of a couple hundred feet.
2. Is this area large enough to be impacted by the curvature of the earth? No.
3. If you stand at your back door, how much of your neighbor's back yard can you see? Most of it or all of it.
4. If you go to your upstairs bedroom and look out the window, how much of your neighbor's back yard can you see. DEFINITELY all of it, and more.
5. Conclusion - the higher up you go, your vision distance increases because you've increased your field of view, since you can look OUT and DOWN. It's a bigger angle of view than just looking OUT (i.e. when you're on the ground).

This has absolutely nothing to do with globe/flat earth.

I can't see your point. I'm not talking about seeing things surrounding my house. I'm talking about seeing things dozens of kilometers away. Please see my drawing.

Tradman · « **Reply #794 on:** December 14, 2021, 06:56:31 PM »

Quote from: Marion on December 14, 2021, 06:28:00 PM

Your drawing doesn't quite show that your visual is greater on a flat earth from the crow's nest, so I would extend the top line.

It shows that a flat earth doesn't geometrically limit the visual range.

I can see mountains, which are more than 30km away. And I can see the same mountains from the beach, in equally dark color. If it starts raining in the area of these mountains, then they get lighter, until one can't see them anymore. Then there's a "white wall" of rain in the distance.

If the weather is sunny and dry, there is no noteworthy mist above the water. If there were such mist, and the surface of the water were flat, then I couldn't see the buildings on the shore several more miles behind the island. But I can.

P.S.: You wrote into the quote of mine, so my answer doesn't provide a link to your post.

IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circuмference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:

[size=-3]FIG. 1.[/font][/size]

Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every
p. 10
mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 1 The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles.

Curvature	in	1	statute	mile	8	inches.
"	"	2	"	"	32	"
"	"	3	"	"	6	feet.
"	"	4	"	"	10	"
"	"	5	"	"	16	"
"	"	6	"	"	24	"
"	"	7	"	"	32	"
"	"	8	"	"	42	"
"	"	9	"	"	54	"
"	"	10	"	"	66	"
"	"	20	"	"	266	"
"	"	30	"	"	600	"
"	"	40	"	"	1066	"
"	"	50	"	"	1666	"
"	"	60	"	"	2400	"
"	"	70	"	"	3266	"
"	"	80	"	"	4266	"
"	"	90	"	"	5400	"
"	"	100	"	"	6666
"	"	120	"	"	9600	" 2

The chart will help. It shows how much curvature must be accounted for at x distance.

Author Topic: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying? (Read 72833 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Ladislaus

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Marion

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Stanley N

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Tradman

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Matthew

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Dankward

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Stanley N

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Ladislaus

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Marion

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Tradman

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Marion

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Tradman

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?