Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Redpill me on Flat Earth  (Read 7402 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline St Giles

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Reputation: +91/-16
  • Gender: Male
Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
« Reply #105 on: August 22, 2022, 02:29:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Oh, come on now.  You do what all the Globers do, just post a picture as proof.  You have absolutely no idea what's going on here.  There are all kinds of things that could be in play here, from reflection to optical illusions (such as when you imagine seeing a ray of light directly across the water from the sun, but that's just an optical illusion based on the angles and light), clouds could be at varying elevations, etc.  
    Like you flat earthers have never done so, or posted imperfect videos or imperfect experiments which leave out some variables and considerations? How are your excuses any better than  GE's? I wasn't convinced by the laser reflection experiment because I think it left out some variables. Too often scientific experiments can demonstrate a proof for the wrong reasons. I posted this picture that I personally took after observing the interesting view of the sunset with my own eyes, because I thought it would be more clear of an example of a shadow being cast up by the sun than the shadow of a mountain on the clouds. Of course a 2D image isn't nearly as good as seeing it in person. What I saw at the time made sense to me, and I had never considered at the time that people seriously believe in a flat earth. As far as that goes, I don't know either way, but I still lean towards some sort of globe model.

    You guys don't even try to be scientific, take measurements, and consider all the possible factors.  You just try to throw anything at the wall you think might stick because in your mind it's considered "proof" based on your confirmation bias.

    We could post a dozen pictures that are inconsistent with the sun being 93,000,000 miles away ... but the Globers always explain these away as optical illusion, reflection or some other such thing, but those suddenly go away when you find a picture to your liking.
    I'm not perfect, but I consider a lot more possible factors than you realize, a lot more than most people I know. And that's a thoroughly accurate statement, or I am neither honest or humble. It may be a flaw of mine, but I find common explanations like simple textbook definitions/explanations very insufficient for my understanding, because they often leave a lot of unconsidered loose ends, and don't always get to the very root of how something works. This picture should stick for a little while at least, how else can a shadow be cast up by a low hanging cloud that is under a plane of clouds? The plane of clouds appears to have a slight ripple as seen by the light hitting the lower hanging areas much more than the higher areas. What little light that gets to the higher areas, just barely touches the bottom of each little wisp. I can understand light being reflected down off the side of a cloud and shadowing the ones behind, but this is different because the sky is thoroughly overcast, and far from the direction of the sun are the bottom portions of the clouds being lit up. The source of light must be from below the plane of clouds to look like that, as far as I know.
    "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."
    "Seek first the kingdom of Heaven..."
    "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment"

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33766
    • Reputation: +19880/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #106 on: August 22, 2022, 08:39:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Like you flat earthers have never done so, or posted imperfect videos or imperfect experiments which leave out some variables and considerations?

    Some likely have, but I consider both sides of every debate.  I have rejected some FE "proofs" as weak or contrived (and so has DL).  There's this one guy out there in particular with his videos "Flat Earth Banjo" who's particularly awful.  One wonders of some of them aren't actually shills trying to make FE look bad.

    I wrote an entire thread objectively outlining both sides of the debate on the crucial "see too far" issue.

    At the end of the day, there's way too much "see too far" evidence that's clear, repeatable, consistent ... including two-way laser experiments which destroy the only Glober "argument", "refraction".

    I am open to reviewing real evidence against FE, but it's absolutely clear that you aren't.  That is why you post things that are dubious at best and assert that they're proof.

    I would never consider a single, solitary "see too far" experiment to be compelling.  But there are literally hundreds of them, which are very clear, often where there's a gradual backing away from the object (such as when Skiba rented a boat on Lake Michigan), and the results are consistent and repeatable, a phenomenon that cannot be explained by a an erratic and unpredictable phenomenon like refraction.  Nor do examples of refraction have the kind of clarity that we see in these images.  And the substantial earth/water bulges that are geometrically in between the viewer and the target object are magically erased, rather than conflicting with the allegedly refracted image ... while the horizon line is redrawn somehow behind objects many miles behind where the horizon line should be.

    I'd be open if someone could establish some principle that could explain these observations in a consistent manner, such as some force that bends light right around the curve, say, gravity.  I'd be open (with evidence) even to considering that we live on some gigantic globe, much bigger than we are told, which would explain "see too far" ... as the curvature math would then be wrong.

    But thus far I have seen nothing that credibly explains all (or even most or any) of the "see too far" evidece.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33766
    • Reputation: +19880/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #107 on: August 22, 2022, 09:01:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Every video I've ever seen of refraction entails a distortion of the object ...  Compare 10 seconds with 4:20.

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7397
    • Reputation: +4199/-741
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #108 on: August 22, 2022, 09:03:06 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • When it comes to natural observations, it's the "see too far" phenomena that keeps me on the FE side of things. I mean, if refraction is truly why we can somehow see so far around an apparent curve, then I'd accept it. Yet I don't find it at all convincing.

    The scriptural evidence is what convinces me the most of both a small "universe" and the likelihood of a flat plane within a Firmamental "orb" or "globe".
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8621
    • Reputation: +5211/-1632
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #109 on: August 22, 2022, 09:47:22 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!1

  • Quote
    When it comes to natural observations, it's the "see too far" phenomena that keeps me on the FE side of things. I mean, if refraction is truly why we can somehow see so far around an apparent curve, then I'd accept it. Yet I don't find it at all convincing.
    Looking at it from the opposite perspective, can any earth-baller show a concrete, provable example of the curve?  If "refraction" always shows up so that it "tricks" our senses, (and even high-tech cameras) then how do we know that there even is a curve?  Under what circuмstances, and what kind of technology ISN'T tricked by refraction?  There has to be a way to prove the curve; yet all the earth-ballers just assume it's a given.  In science, nothing is a "given" until it is proven, and can be proven over and over again.


    Offline Philothea3

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 295
    • Reputation: +114/-45
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #110 on: August 23, 2022, 07:50:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • When it comes to natural observations, it's the "see too far" phenomena that keeps me on the FE side of things. I mean, if refraction is truly why we can somehow see so far around an apparent curve, then I'd accept it. Yet I don't find it at all convincing.

    The scriptural evidence is what convinces me the most of both a small "universe" and the likelihood of a flat plane within a Firmamental "orb" or "globe".
    Same here. I doubt if their theory of refraction was ever tested too.
    THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN
    so that we may love you with all our heart, by always having you in mind; with all our soul, by always longing for you; with all our mind, by determining to seek your glory in everything; 
    and with all our strength, of body and soul...

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33766
    • Reputation: +19880/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #111 on: August 23, 2022, 08:25:09 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Same here. I doubt if their theory of refraction was ever tested too.

    Refraction is just an escape mechanism, a deus ex machina, a convenient way out of an otherwise-irrefutable problem for globe earth.

    Refraction certainly exists, but the assertion that it can explain the results of these experiments is borderline absurd.  It's the same thing they do with other preposterous theories, such as evolution, cling to things that sound like they might be remotely possible as if they were in fact true, simply because they don't want to let go of evolution.

    Refraction has been destroyed by the two-way laser experiments.

    Refraction is a random (relatively rare phenomenon), and the results of the FE experiments have been repeated with astonishing regularity.

    Refraction tends to distort images, especially because around a globe, the earth/water bulge would in fact be interfering with the refracted image of the object.  Many of the FE experiments show extremely clear images.

    If they come up with some other explanation that could explain these things, I'm all ears, but refraction is about as preposterous to me as the proposition that random mutations could have resulted in the amazing complexity of life we see in the world.

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7397
    • Reputation: +4199/-741
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #112 on: August 24, 2022, 04:07:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Certainly of interest. From The Flat Earth Reality Telegram group:


    Quote
    John G. Abizaid was born in Lebanon and immigrated to the U.S. in 1889. He published a book about Flat Earth theory in Arabic, which he then translated to English in 1912.

    This map, published in 1920 by John Abizaid, illustrates his idea of a flat, stationary Earth.

    In Abizaid's model, the Earth is divided into 5 zones, with the North Pole at the center. The 5th zone, which he called the South Circle, is dark and icy, which prevents people from crossing it.

    Modern Flat Earth movement was first promoted by English inventor and writer Samuel Rowbotham in 1849. He founded the Zetetic Society, which after his death was succeeded by the Universal Zetetic Society and Abizaid was a president of the Universal Zetetic Society.

    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]


    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7397
    • Reputation: +4199/-741
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #113 on: October 07, 2022, 08:06:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33766
    • Reputation: +19880/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #114 on: October 07, 2022, 09:19:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dave is a clown ... probably on some alphabet agency's payroll.  He tried to smear Professor Robitaille, but that backfired on him, and the Professor absolutely destroyed the guy.



    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33766
    • Reputation: +19880/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #115 on: October 07, 2022, 09:25:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What Dave does, such as when he "destroyed" David Weiss in a debate, is a common tactic that has evolved from a sophistic perversion of Debate, as it's being practice now in High School and College Debate tournaments (which I quit when this stuff was beginning to emerge).

    He talks fast and spews out 50 different points in a couple paragraphs.  Then when, due to lack of time, you can't LOGICALLY address each and every one of them, he declares victory by begging the question that the stuff he said was correct because it had not been refuted.  He also then engages in ridicule, insults, and name-calling as additional distraction.

    Unfortunately, David Weiss was not prepared for the tactic.  There are ways to blow that stuff up if you're expecting it ... mostly by calling out the tactic, and insisting on logically debating each individual point, and also calling out the name-calling.  If it's exposed for what it is, it completely loses its effect.

    I saw the same done by those jerks who debated the guys from Kolbe Institute ... exact same tactic.

    It's the proverbial tactic of throwing handfuls of excrement against the wall (and in this case also at your opponent) hoping that some of it sticks.  If you hurl the stuff fast enough, then it's difficult to avoid getting hit with it.

    Talk fast, engage in ridicule, make about 50 points in 3 minutes, and then when your opponent can't refute each one, you mock him some more and declare victory.

    That's Non-Professor Davestein for you.  PS -- guy looks Jєωιѕн to me.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33766
    • Reputation: +19880/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #116 on: October 07, 2022, 09:31:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm trying to find the video, but there was a guy I saw who probably should debate Dave.  He was doing a version of the same thing right back at them.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33766
    • Reputation: +19880/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #117 on: October 07, 2022, 09:40:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • I love the tactic here to avoid the censorship.  He titles the video "The Himawari satellite proves we live on a globe!" so that it looks like an FE debunking video and you'll notice that it escapes the Youtube algorithm for pasting that "Flat Earth is an archaic ..." debunking statement at the bottom.  :laugh1:

    But this guy conclusively proves that they faked these "satellite" images.  He found the simulated weather (through 2095) and shows how they simply superimposed those onto some blue-marble globe model.

    Offline St Giles

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 207
    • Reputation: +91/-16
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #118 on: November 02, 2022, 06:42:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."
    "Seek first the kingdom of Heaven..."
    "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment"

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33766
    • Reputation: +19880/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Redpill me on Flat Earth
    « Reply #119 on: November 02, 2022, 06:56:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Nonsense.  Firmament is solid, and no tree can break through it.  :laugh1:

    US and USSR both failed to break through it using nukes.