frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





The Big-Bang Story

1246



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    Erfisflat said:
    "Anyway. This is a debate concerning the "Big Bang"."

    Exactly, and if the earth isn't a ball, this bang story starts with a false assumption. Get it?
    Basically every single debate on this website relies on us assuming that our senses are correct and the world we perceive exists. If that isn't true, then this and pretty much every topic would start with a false assumption. Get it?

    Although the above is true, I would still be a distracting off-topic a-hole if I tried to turn every single topic into a solipsistic discussion of "But how do we know our senses are real, what if we're just butterflies dreaming we're people who have heard information about the big bang/religion/whatever!".

    If you want to argue about the shape of the earth, go back to your thread. it's just basic courtesy.
    ErfisflatEvidence
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    "Anyway. This is a debate concerning the "Big Bang"."

    Exactly, and if the earth isn't a ball, this bang story starts with a false assumption. Get it?
    Basically every single debate on this website relies on us assuming that our senses are correct and the world we perceive exists. If that isn't true, then this and pretty much every topic would start with a false assumption. Get it?

    Although the above is true, I would still be a distracting off-topic a-hole if I tried to turn every single topic into a solipsistic discussion of "But how do we know our senses are real, what if we're just butterflies dreaming we're people who have heard information about the big bang/religion/whatever!".

    If you want to argue about the shape of the earth, go back to your thread. it's just basic courtesy.
    You know, I searched the entire OP for even the slightest mention of being "dreaming butterflies" to no avail. I did however find flat earth reference...
    "
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    I mean, this is what is required in the few posts on the first page, proving something via the scientific method... Since globular earth is an improved assumption in the equation that equals the big bang, I think it is entirely relevant, if not totally dependant...
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    I mean, this is what is required in the few posts on the first page, proving something via the scientific method... Since globular earth is an improved assumption in the equation that equals the big bang, I think it is entirely relevant, if not totally dependant...

    So you won’t mind confirming that your mobile Alabama “experiment” you cited is valid, you have analyzed the results, and can’t find the correct curvature; and if anyone finds obvious and demonstrable curvature that is exactly what it should be given the distance: that you and they both missed, it would therefore confirm you’re either incompetent, a fool, or dishonest?
    ErfisflatEvidence
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I mean, this is what is required in the few posts on the first page, proving something via the scientific method... Since globular earth is an improved assumption in the equation that equals the big bang, I think it is entirely relevant, if not totally dependant...

    So you won’t mind confirming that your mobile Alabama “experiment” you cited is valid, you have analyzed the results, and can’t find the correct curvature; and if anyone finds obvious and demonstrable curvature that is exactly what it should be given the distance: that you and they both missed, it would therefore confirm you’re either incompetent, a fool, or dishonest?
    I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? We were actually talking about a new test, as it were, but by all means, take center stage with some more rhetorical nonsense and magical "muh refraction", it's bound to be better than magical lenses. 
    GooberryEvidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    I figured it was about time for your red herrings.
    Gooberry
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I mean, this is what is required in the few posts on the first page, proving something via the scientific method... Since globular earth is an improved assumption in the equation that equals the big bang, I think it is entirely relevant, if not totally dependant...

    So you won’t mind confirming that your mobile Alabama “experiment” you cited is valid, you have analyzed the results, and can’t find the correct curvature; and if anyone finds obvious and demonstrable curvature that is exactly what it should be given the distance: that you and they both missed, it would therefore confirm you’re either incompetent, a fool, or dishonest?
    I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? We were actually talking about a new test, as it were, but by all means, take center stage with some more rhetorical nonsense and magical "muh refraction", it's bound to be better than magical lenses. 
    Excellent, so just to confirm: you performed detailed analysis on the video of mobile? You didn’t miss any basic, obvious information out?
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    "Anyway. This is a debate concerning the "Big Bang"."

    Exactly, and if the earth isn't a ball, this bang story starts with a false assumption. Get it?
    Basically every single debate on this website relies on us assuming that our senses are correct and the world we perceive exists. If that isn't true, then this and pretty much every topic would start with a false assumption. Get it?

    Although the above is true, I would still be a distracting off-topic a-hole if I tried to turn every single topic into a solipsistic discussion of "But how do we know our senses are real, what if we're just butterflies dreaming we're people who have heard information about the big bang/religion/whatever!".

    If you want to argue about the shape of the earth, go back to your thread. it's just basic courtesy.
    You know, I searched the entire OP for even the slightest mention of being "dreaming butterflies" to no avail. I did however find flat earth reference...
    "
    Are you conceding your original argument then and retreating to a separate one or just making a meaningless non-sequiter? Your original argument - as show in the quote trail - is that flat earth arguments are valid because the earth being round is an assumption that other observations rest on. The same applies to being able to trust our senses.


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    "Anyway. This is a debate concerning the "Big Bang"."

    Exactly, and if the earth isn't a ball, this bang story starts with a false assumption. Get it?
    Basically every single debate on this website relies on us assuming that our senses are correct and the world we perceive exists. If that isn't true, then this and pretty much every topic would start with a false assumption. Get it?

    Although the above is true, I would still be a distracting off-topic a-hole if I tried to turn every single topic into a solipsistic discussion of "But how do we know our senses are real, what if we're just butterflies dreaming we're people who have heard information about the big bang/religion/whatever!".

    If you want to argue about the shape of the earth, go back to your thread. it's just basic courtesy.
    You know, I searched the entire OP for even the slightest mention of being "dreaming butterflies" to no avail. I did however find flat earth reference...
    "
    Are you conceding your original argument then and retreating to a separate one or just making a meaningless non-sequiter? Your original argument - as show in the quote trail - is that flat earth arguments are valid because the earth being round is an assumption that other observations rest on. The same applies to being able to trust our senses.


    I do believe that you've constructed a strawman here, I've made no mention of ANY observations that prove either big bangism or spherical earth. My senses and observations say the earth is a motionless plane... 
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    "Anyway. This is a debate concerning the "Big Bang"."

    Exactly, and if the earth isn't a ball, this bang story starts with a false assumption. Get it?
    Basically every single debate on this website relies on us assuming that our senses are correct and the world we perceive exists. If that isn't true, then this and pretty much every topic would start with a false assumption. Get it?

    Although the above is true, I would still be a distracting off-topic a-hole if I tried to turn every single topic into a solipsistic discussion of "But how do we know our senses are real, what if we're just butterflies dreaming we're people who have heard information about the big bang/religion/whatever!".

    If you want to argue about the shape of the earth, go back to your thread. it's just basic courtesy.
    You know, I searched the entire OP for even the slightest mention of being "dreaming butterflies" to no avail. I did however find flat earth reference...
    "
    Are you conceding your original argument then and retreating to a separate one or just making a meaningless non-sequiter? Your original argument - as show in the quote trail - is that flat earth arguments are valid because the earth being round is an assumption that other observations rest on. The same applies to being able to trust our senses.


    I do believe that you've constructed a strawman here, I've made no mention of ANY observations that prove either big bangism or spherical earth. My senses and observations say the earth is a motionless plane... 
    Please confirm or deny if you are conceding your original argument.

    Are you arguing that it is okay to argue about the flat earth in a big bang thread because:

    a) As per your original argument if the earth isn't a ball then the big band theory has false assumptions in it

    or

    b) As per your new revised argument it is okay to focus in on anything that is mentioned in the OP.

    When it's pointed out that your arguments are wrong, running away from them and just throwing more stuff at the wall to see what sticks isn't a valid form of debate.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    "Anyway. This is a debate concerning the "Big Bang"."

    Exactly, and if the earth isn't a ball, this bang story starts with a false assumption. Get it?
    Basically every single debate on this website relies on us assuming that our senses are correct and the world we perceive exists. If that isn't true, then this and pretty much every topic would start with a false assumption. Get it?

    Although the above is true, I would still be a distracting off-topic a-hole if I tried to turn every single topic into a solipsistic discussion of "But how do we know our senses are real, what if we're just butterflies dreaming we're people who have heard information about the big bang/religion/whatever!".

    If you want to argue about the shape of the earth, go back to your thread. it's just basic courtesy.
    You know, I searched the entire OP for even the slightest mention of being "dreaming butterflies" to no avail. I did however find flat earth reference...
    "
    Are you conceding your original argument then and retreating to a separate one or just making a meaningless non-sequiter? Your original argument - as show in the quote trail - is that flat earth arguments are valid because the earth being round is an assumption that other observations rest on. The same applies to being able to trust our senses.


    I do believe that you've constructed a strawman here, I've made no mention of ANY observations that prove either big bangism or spherical earth. My senses and observations say the earth is a motionless plane... 
    Please confirm or deny if you are conceding your original argument.

    Are you arguing that it is okay to argue about the flat earth in a big bang thread because:

    a) As per your original argument if the earth isn't a ball then the big band theory has false assumptions in it

    or

    b) As per your new revised argument it is okay to focus in on anything that is mentioned in the OP.

    When it's pointed out that your arguments are wrong, running away from them and just throwing more stuff at the wall to see what sticks isn't a valid form of debate.
    Maybe a bit of both. and just for the record, you are backing @Fredsnephew argument of magical lenses and very wrong math "as pointing out my arguments are wrong"?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    ErfisflatEvidence
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Are you now conceding that "muh refraction" argument is a load? Would you like to discuss some axiom from the experiment, or are you just going to bait me until I ignore you again?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    "Anyway. This is a debate concerning the "Big Bang"."

    Exactly, and if the earth isn't a ball, this bang story starts with a false assumption. Get it?
    Basically every single debate on this website relies on us assuming that our senses are correct and the world we perceive exists. If that isn't true, then this and pretty much every topic would start with a false assumption. Get it?

    Although the above is true, I would still be a distracting off-topic a-hole if I tried to turn every single topic into a solipsistic discussion of "But how do we know our senses are real, what if we're just butterflies dreaming we're people who have heard information about the big bang/religion/whatever!".

    If you want to argue about the shape of the earth, go back to your thread. it's just basic courtesy.
    You know, I searched the entire OP for even the slightest mention of being "dreaming butterflies" to no avail. I did however find flat earth reference...
    "
    Are you conceding your original argument then and retreating to a separate one or just making a meaningless non-sequiter? Your original argument - as show in the quote trail - is that flat earth arguments are valid because the earth being round is an assumption that other observations rest on. The same applies to being able to trust our senses.


    I do believe that you've constructed a strawman here, I've made no mention of ANY observations that prove either big bangism or spherical earth. My senses and observations say the earth is a motionless plane... 
    Please confirm or deny if you are conceding your original argument.

    Are you arguing that it is okay to argue about the flat earth in a big bang thread because:

    a) As per your original argument if the earth isn't a ball then the big band theory has false assumptions in it

    or

    b) As per your new revised argument it is okay to focus in on anything that is mentioned in the OP.

    When it's pointed out that your arguments are wrong, running away from them and just throwing more stuff at the wall to see what sticks isn't a valid form of debate.
    Maybe a bit of both. and just for the record, you are backing @Fredsnephew argument of magical lenses and very wrong math "as pointing out my arguments are wrong"?
    There isn't a quantum uncertainty theory of debating - you can't choose to 'maybe' make 'a bit' of an argument. You either do or you don't make an argument so man up and say what you think.

    Also I'm backing me having showed the flaw in your original argument and you trying to backslide into a different one without acknowledging you were wrong.
    ErfisflatEvidence
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    If you have never shied away from it; why haven’t you explicitly said:

    ”this video is 100% accurate, and I have personally validated and confirmed that the claims in the video are accurate.”

    You seem to be giving politician responses.
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    If you have never shied away from it; why haven’t you explicitly said:

    ”this video is 100% accurate, and I have personally validated and confirmed that the claims in the video are accurate.”

    You seem to be giving politician responses.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    If you have never shied away from it; why haven’t you explicitly said:

    ”this video is 100% accurate, and I have personally validated and confirmed that the claims in the video are accurate.”

    You seem to be giving politician responses.
    because I won't repeat what you say word for word? Maybe you missed my last response. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you now conceding that "muh refraction" argument is a load? Would you like to discuss some axiom from the experiment, or are you just going to bait me until I ignore you again?

    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  


    It's a rather pertinent argument really.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    If you have never shied away from it; why haven’t you explicitly said:

    ”this video is 100% accurate, and I have personally validated and confirmed that the claims in the video are accurate.”

    You seem to be giving politician responses.
    because I won't repeat what you say word for word? Maybe you missed my last response. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you now conceding that "muh refraction" argument is a load? Would you like to discuss some axiom from the experiment, or are you just going to bait me until I ignore you again?

    You’re giving a politicians answer because you’re refusing to unambiguously or explicitly say that the video is 100 accurate; and that you have validated that what it claims is accurate.

    Thats a politicians answer: it’s like you’re now not sure whether the video is correct, you didn’t bother to check it; and are wanting to give yourself enough wiggle to so that if it is disproven: you can say “well that’s not what I meant...”

    I’m just looking for you to actually stand behind your claims by explicitly stating that the video’s claims are correct, and you have personally validated that the claims are correct. 

  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    If you have never shied away from it; why haven’t you explicitly said:

    ”this video is 100% accurate, and I have personally validated and confirmed that the claims in the video are accurate.”

    You seem to be giving politician responses.
    because I won't repeat what you say word for word? Maybe you missed my last response. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you now conceding that "muh refraction" argument is a load? Would you like to discuss some axiom from the experiment, or are you just going to bait me until I ignore you again?

    You’re giving a politicians answer because you’re refusing to unambiguously or explicitly say that the video is 100 accurate; and that you have validated that what it claims is accurate.

    Thats a politicians answer: it’s like you’re now not sure whether the video is correct, you didn’t bother to check it; and are wanting to give yourself enough wiggle to so that if it is disproven: you can say “well that’s not what I meant...”

    I’m just looking for you to actually stand behind your claims by explicitly stating that you have personally validated that the claims are correct. 



    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Big bang theory is real but the bang is the beginning of the first dimension. The bang immediately made the second and third dimensions as it made 3D objects. From outside the universe,the ten dimensional God(s) decided nothing made sense without flowing time so they added the fourth to this universe (some universes are stand-still 3D models). We also had more come later with Angels that are nine dimensional and demons that are eight as well as the alien demigods.

    Infinite God has no 'dimension', simply because He Is Infinite.

    dimension:
    noun
    noun: dimension; plural noun: dimension
    1. a measurable extent of some kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height.

    Q.
    1. What was it that Big-Banged?
    2. What did it Big-Bang, or "suddenly inflate" in, or into? We know that it created a vacuum, so how can a vacuum expand?





    This OP is about the BB-story, why can't you Big-Bangers not answer my two simple questions so we could move on?
    As for @Erfisflat comments on the Flat Earth, it is very relevant to this OP, .. because the Flat earth is observable reality, while the Big-Bang story creates the globe-earth which only exists in, .. in umm, .. in a science fiction story, how millions and billions of years ago a quantum-speck fluctuated in and out of nothing story that people like Carl Sagan spent his entire life brainwashing us with. This video collection is 100% proof of the MK-Ultra used on us;



    So again, please, .. 1. What was it that Big-Banged?
    2. What did it Big-Bang, or "suddenly inflate" in, or into?

    From the story we know that the Big-Bang created a vacuum, which suddenly inflated, so my next question is, how can a vacuum cause a sudden-expansion?
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    If you have never shied away from it; why haven’t you explicitly said:

    ”this video is 100% accurate, and I have personally validated and confirmed that the claims in the video are accurate.”

    You seem to be giving politician responses.
    because I won't repeat what you say word for word? Maybe you missed my last response. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you now conceding that "muh refraction" argument is a load? Would you like to discuss some axiom from the experiment, or are you just going to bait me until I ignore you again?

    You’re giving a politicians answer because you’re refusing to unambiguously or explicitly say that the video is 100 accurate; and that you have validated that what it claims is accurate.

    Thats a politicians answer: it’s like you’re now not sure whether the video is correct, you didn’t bother to check it; and are wanting to give yourself enough wiggle to so that if it is disproven: you can say “well that’s not what I meant...”

    I’m just looking for you to actually stand behind your claims by explicitly stating that you have personally validated that the claims are correct. 



    The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.
    Gooberry
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    If you have never shied away from it; why haven’t you explicitly said:

    ”this video is 100% accurate, and I have personally validated and confirmed that the claims in the video are accurate.”

    You seem to be giving politician responses.
    because I won't repeat what you say word for word? Maybe you missed my last response. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you now conceding that "muh refraction" argument is a load? Would you like to discuss some axiom from the experiment, or are you just going to bait me until I ignore you again?

    You’re giving a politicians answer because you’re refusing to unambiguously or explicitly say that the video is 100 accurate; and that you have validated that what it claims is accurate.

    Thats a politicians answer: it’s like you’re now not sure whether the video is correct, you didn’t bother to check it; and are wanting to give yourself enough wiggle to so that if it is disproven: you can say “well that’s not what I meant...”

    I’m just looking for you to actually stand behind your claims by explicitly stating that you have personally validated that the claims are correct. 



    The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.
    So you don’t stand by the claims you make?

    And you just post videos without bothering to check them?
    ErfisflatEvidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Evidence Aliens are the ones we want to surrender to. AI and other humans are not.

    @someone234 ; aliens are not the ones who are putting up all these 5-G cell towers and spraying us with all the metals that we breathe in and get imbedded in our brain making us susceptible to microwave attacks, it is our NWO (NaziWorldOrder) government. And I don't mean the ones the poor sheeple vote on, the ones we see in office either. The ones behind this are our neighbors, coworkers, friends and even could be close as our relatives. Humans who have sold their souls to Satan, gave up all their rational God given free will reasoning.
    You need "eyes to see" to actually see them.
    What is even more surreal is that "They" know the ones that can see, which this scene from the Movie "They Live" portrays frighteningly accurately:



    This is almost EXACTLY how I go through life every day now, .. only God keeps me alive for whatever reason/plan He has for me!?
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    If you have never shied away from it; why haven’t you explicitly said:

    ”this video is 100% accurate, and I have personally validated and confirmed that the claims in the video are accurate.”

    You seem to be giving politician responses.
    because I won't repeat what you say word for word? Maybe you missed my last response. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you now conceding that "muh refraction" argument is a load? Would you like to discuss some axiom from the experiment, or are you just going to bait me until I ignore you again?

    You’re giving a politicians answer because you’re refusing to unambiguously or explicitly say that the video is 100 accurate; and that you have validated that what it claims is accurate.

    Thats a politicians answer: it’s like you’re now not sure whether the video is correct, you didn’t bother to check it; and are wanting to give yourself enough wiggle to so that if it is disproven: you can say “well that’s not what I meant...”

    I’m just looking for you to actually stand behind your claims by explicitly stating that you have personally validated that the claims are correct. 



    The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.
    So you don’t stand by the claims you make?

    And you just post videos without bothering to check them?
    Is this going to be another pictures of earth red herring? If you by chance ever do end this obvious red herring with an actual argument or explanation of any sort, where you think I, or anyone here has missed this "obvious observation" you're welcome to the very many tests available If you're convinced the information is some how false, please state your arguments, and the conversation can then proceed.

    I checked this one.

    Gooberry
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    If you have never shied away from it; why haven’t you explicitly said:

    ”this video is 100% accurate, and I have personally validated and confirmed that the claims in the video are accurate.”

    You seem to be giving politician responses.
    because I won't repeat what you say word for word? Maybe you missed my last response. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you now conceding that "muh refraction" argument is a load? Would you like to discuss some axiom from the experiment, or are you just going to bait me until I ignore you again?

    You’re giving a politicians answer because you’re refusing to unambiguously or explicitly say that the video is 100 accurate; and that you have validated that what it claims is accurate.

    Thats a politicians answer: it’s like you’re now not sure whether the video is correct, you didn’t bother to check it; and are wanting to give yourself enough wiggle to so that if it is disproven: you can say “well that’s not what I meant...”

    I’m just looking for you to actually stand behind your claims by explicitly stating that you have personally validated that the claims are correct. 



    The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.
    You know what's funny, that I literally copy and pasted the definition of shifting the burden fallacy, and you flag the definition as fallacy...
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    If you have never shied away from it; why haven’t you explicitly said:

    ”this video is 100% accurate, and I have personally validated and confirmed that the claims in the video are accurate.”

    You seem to be giving politician responses.
    because I won't repeat what you say word for word? Maybe you missed my last response. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you now conceding that "muh refraction" argument is a load? Would you like to discuss some axiom from the experiment, or are you just going to bait me until I ignore you again?

    You’re giving a politicians answer because you’re refusing to unambiguously or explicitly say that the video is 100 accurate; and that you have validated that what it claims is accurate.

    Thats a politicians answer: it’s like you’re now not sure whether the video is correct, you didn’t bother to check it; and are wanting to give yourself enough wiggle to so that if it is disproven: you can say “well that’s not what I meant...”

    I’m just looking for you to actually stand behind your claims by explicitly stating that you have personally validated that the claims are correct. 



    The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.
    You know what's funny, that I literally copy and pasted the definition of shifting the burden fallacy, and you flag the definition as fallacy...
    You were making the claim.

    You claimed that the video of mobile bay proved the earth is flat.

    you claimed that the video showed no curvature.

    I am literally asking you to confirm that the claims you’re making are true, and whether you have bothered to validate your claims.


    We both know that the claims you made are wrong, and you haven’t bothered to validate what you have claimed; and are now desperately trying to avoid being called on it.

    How you’ve managed to contort reality to believe that me asking you confirm you have validated your claims is shifting the burden of proof.

    you either validated the claims you made, or you didn’t.

    which is it?

    Note: if you refuse to answer a straight up question like this, it’s pretty clear that the answer is “no, you don’t bother to check your claims”.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    @Evidence Aliens are the ones we want to surrender to. AI and other humans are not.

    @someone234 ; aliens are not the ones who are putting up all these 5-G cell towers and spraying us with all the metals that we breathe in and get imbedded in our brain making us susceptible to microwave attacks, it is our NWO (NaziWorldOrder) government. And I don't mean the ones the poor sheeple vote on, the ones we see in office either. The ones behind this are our neighbors, coworkers, friends and even could be close as our relatives. Humans who have sold their souls to Satan, gave up all their rational God given free will reasoning.
    You need "eyes to see" to actually see them.
    What is even more surreal is that "They" know the ones that can see, which this scene from the Movie "They Live" portrays frighteningly accurately:



    This is almost EXACTLY how I go through life every day now, .. only God keeps me alive for whatever reason/plan He has for me!?
    You think there are that many of them? @gooberry has some pertinent information he trying to share with us! Something along the lines of proof for curvature...
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Evidence said:
    @Evidence Aliens are the ones we want to surrender to. AI and other humans are not.

    @someone234 ; aliens are not the ones who are putting up all these 5-G cell towers and spraying us with all the metals that we breathe in and get imbedded in our brain making us susceptible to microwave attacks, it is our NWO (NaziWorldOrder) government. And I don't mean the ones the poor sheeple vote on, the ones we see in office either. The ones behind this are our neighbors, coworkers, friends and even could be close as our relatives. Humans who have sold their souls to Satan, gave up all their rational God given free will reasoning.
    You need "eyes to see" to actually see them.
    What is even more surreal is that "They" know the ones that can see, which this scene from the Movie "They Live" portrays frighteningly accurately:



    This is almost EXACTLY how I go through life every day now, .. only God keeps me alive for whatever reason/plan He has for me!?
    You think there are that many of them? @gooberry has some pertinent information he trying to share with us! Something along the lines of proof for curvature...
    Just waiting for you to confirm that you check your claims before posting them.

    That you’ve gone like 20 posts refusing to say whether you bother to check your claims, kinda tells everyone you don’t.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I mean, this is what is required in the few posts on the first page, proving something via the scientific method... Since globular earth is an improved assumption in the equation that equals the big bang, I think it is entirely relevant, if not totally dependant...

    So you won’t mind confirming that your mobile Alabama “experiment” you cited is valid, you have analyzed the results, and can’t find the correct curvature; and if anyone finds obvious and demonstrable curvature that is exactly what it should be given the distance: that you and they both missed, it would therefore confirm you’re either incompetent, a fool, or dishonest?
    I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? We were actually talking about a new test, as it were, but by all means, take center stage with some more rhetorical nonsense and magical "muh refraction", it's bound to be better than magical lenses. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you now conceding that "muh refraction" argument is a load? Would you like to discuss some axiom from the experiment, or are you just going to bait me until I ignore you again?

    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....



    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I mean, this is what is required in the few posts on the first page, proving something via the scientific method... Since globular earth is an improved assumption in the equation that equals the big bang, I think it is entirely relevant, if not totally dependant...

    So you won’t mind confirming that your mobile Alabama “experiment” you cited is valid, you have analyzed the results, and can’t find the correct curvature; and if anyone finds obvious and demonstrable curvature that is exactly what it should be given the distance: that you and they both missed, it would therefore confirm you’re either incompetent, a fool, or dishonest?
    I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? We were actually talking about a new test, as it were, but by all means, take center stage with some more rhetorical nonsense and magical "muh refraction", it's bound to be better than magical lenses. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=earth+curvature+test
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you now conceding that "muh refraction" argument is a load? Would you like to discuss some axiom from the experiment, or are you just going to bait me until I ignore you again?

    So another post, and you still won’t actually explicitly say whether you bothered to check the video?

    This is kinda hilarious: it’s like you know what’s about to happen next.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    What's hilarious is that you've once again gained the attention from the whole thread and have made a claim that you are refusing to support, instead demanding that I repeat as you say. You're not actually making an argument at all. Once again, please state your argument, if there is one.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Would you like me to walk you through the experiment and data?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    maybe you could perhaps pick your argument out of a line up?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    I'm assuming that you've changed your stance from refraction, and have found innacurate measurements or information from the test? Can you share this information, as is customary in any debate, so that we may analyze the claim? Or you could push this red herring into it's own 3rd entire page now...
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    I'm assuming that you've changed your stance from refraction, and have found innacurate measurements or information from the test? Can you share this information, as is customary in any debate, so that we may analyze the claim? Or you could push this red herring into it's own 3rd entire page now...
    Let’s ignore the your repeated insanity, of claiming this is a red herring, shifting the burden of proof, or that I’m making some sort of argument claim here.

    Yet again, it’s a case of you simply blurting our whatever nonsense claims you want, whilst providing utterly no argument.

    In addition you don’t check anything you say, and you don’t validate your sources. In essence anything you angrily assert other people must do to prove a spherical earth? you don’t bother to do yourself, to any degree

    And this is the crux: you deflect, obfuscate, and dissemble through all of your arguments (as your doing here), but you rarely, if ever, actually bother to defend your claims. You’ve asserted people use straw men multiple times in a thread, but when challenged ever explain why.

    What you’re doing here is simply the same thing.

    You've claimed the video was accurate: yet refuse to actually defend your claims. You won’t explicitly say you validated the claims, you won’t explicitly say that the video is 100% accurate, and I doubt you’d even go so far as to claim the video doesn’t show empirical evidence of refraction as I (and the rest of science) claim it work.

    I’m trying to actually pin you down, to make you defend something you’ve claimed.

    ironically, like you’ve tried to say I’m not doing.


    If you have so little confidence in the arguments and videos you post that spend two pages refusing to state where you think that they are valid, and refusing to state that you have even bothered to check that they are valid yourself, why should anyone take one of your claims seriously?




    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    I really thought he was going to post an argument that time...

    It's probably just as I suspected, there isn't one.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "Let’s ignore the your repeated insanity, "



    How about, let's ignore your repeated rhetorical fallacies and get on with the argument.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    For anyone half paying attention, the conversation between myself and @gooberry thus far can be summarized as so:

    Flat earth proponent:
    "This video records evidence that disproves the alleged curvature required of a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference!"


    Globetard:
    "nuh-uh, there's some wrong or misleading information therein! The test actually proves the earth is a globe!"

    Flat earth proponent:
    "I'll be glad to have a look at it again, which information do you feel is wrong or misleading?"

    Globetard rhetorically dances around proclaiming he's proved curvature but hasn't done anything.

    Since the opponent now proclaims that I haven't provided an argument at all, (after pointing specifically to the video I referenced as an argument, claiming the test was somehow botched, with absolutely no explanation) I will now step out on a limb and thoroughly explain the test, and the results, in hopes of coaxing his counterargument from him, similar to the "pictures from space argument" this is like pulling teeth.

    From North Beach park in Fairhope, AL to Mobile, AL, there is a distance, depending on what you are looking at, of 12.5-13 miles. 

    http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html

    This information has been analyzed, and is correct.

    With an observer height estimated at 6 feet,


    an object 12.5 miles away should be hidden behind 60 feet of curvature, IF the earth was a ball that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference, according to the curvature calculator. 


    https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=12.5&h0=6&unit=imperial

    As the video shows, and the opponent, for whatever secretive reason disagrees, there is absolutely no curvature, proving that in this test, the water over 13 miles in Mobile is flat, where there should be plenty.




    http://deanodle.org/articles/article/41/gods-flat-earth-the-firmament-of-his-power

    The information provided here is accurate to my knowledge. Maybe this conversation can move away from the 3-4 page red herring "argument" that my opponent is adhering to.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you now conceding that "muh refraction" argument is a load? Would you like to discuss some axiom from the experiment, or are you just going to bait me until I ignore you again?

    If the opponent will continue to ignore the repeated pleas to explain his counterargument, I can only conclude that there isn't one, and will, as promised, ignore his fallacious responses, and allow the more fruitful posts to take back the OP.


    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Stridulation.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  

    The lesson of this post, is never, never underestimate the dishonesty, or incompetence of pseudoscientists. 


    I’ve made that mistake with Erf before, working under assumption that the images he posts are of exactly what they say the are: but in this example, as with so many others; both he and the people on the video he shows are just scientifically incompetent, or intellectually dishonest, as I will show.



    Erf produced this video in order to give evidence that “earth is flat”, and in part later to claim that we are asserting that refraction happens; the best part of that video is that it provably demonstrates both of those facts.


    This is why I have asked Erf whether he still supports this claim, and whether he bothered to check the claim before posting it. His repeated refusal to answer that question, combined with this disproof below demonstrably shows he doesn’t bother checking his claims, and implicitly knows that the claims are invalid and makes them anyway.


    This post will both refute Erfs claims, and point out the pseudoscience strategy he uses to make the claims. The video shows two things:

    1.)    Almost exactly the right amount of curvature for the viewed distance.

    2.)    Almost exactly the same type of refraction I’ve explained and reproduced with other evidence.

     

    As Erf, or the video hasn’t bothered to check or make any measurements, and have simply unscientifically declared that the image “doesn’t look like there is curvature”, let’s do the science for him. 


    To determine what, if any, curvature there is, you need, given a known distance to the object you need:

    1.)  Known geometry about the object in question, enough to work out how tall it is.

    2.)  A comparison image with multiple points you can use to compare the image with the image you take, multiple points required to determine the refraction occurring.

    3.) A detailed scientific comparison between the two to determine the changes in size/shape/cut off.


    This video simply posts a comparison image, and leaves it there...

     

    The video shows 5 images. Let’s deal with these one at a time:


    1.) claim: “the image with the black cranes, boat, and gantry doesn’t show 60 feet of cut off”


    This claim is . Not only is it , when the cut off is explained: it proves that you didn’t bother to even google the object you were looking at.



    This image, is taken of downtown mobile, and the BAE systems boat yard (You can tell this because the gantry on the right even says “BAE Systems”. This is part of a larger “dry dock” complex, there are plenty of images on the internet of it, and some as you will see that explain exactly what you’re seeing…



    Here is an image from the video and a comparison photo of a close up of the gantry. We can provide scale here, by copying and pasting the top bar of the gantry and attempting to use it to estimate how many times the width that gantry is high: and then comparing the two images to see if they are the same relative height:


    The answer is no they are not: The “video” shows the gantry at 6 times its own height, with the real image showing 9 and a bit times its real height. Given this, we can actually estimate where the cut off is occurring (shown by the red line).


    If the cut off was because of water: it would mostly look like the boat that is currently hoisted up out of the water because it’s in a dry dock.


    The most interesting part of this is that as I will show: the height of the dock above the water (the concrete), is around 15 feet around the corner of the island: It looks like the cut off is around 4 times the height of the dock wall: so about 60 feet.


    How much curvature did they claim was missing again???


    You can cross reference this again with the image on the right-hand side: this is showing the dry dock, with the cranes sitting on concrete barriers so that they can actually be ABOVE the boat they are servicing. This corresponds nicely with the image on the left: the cranes stand well above the water line and appear to be on the water line in the other image.


    1/1 Debunked!


    2.)   The images of the cranes is a really great one. 


    This is another example of Flat earthers and you not bothering to check anything that they post. Any simple google or even LOOKING at the image would reveal the curvature. The curvature, once revealed, indicates that the claims are desperate and unverified nonsense that anyone with a brain that bothered to check the images should have noticed




    Let's try and establish some scale here… According to the port authority, the boom of the crane has a reach of 150 feet; we can use this to come up with approximate sizes: the bottom looks around 50% larger than the bottom part: so we can estimate 120feet and 80 feet. 


    In the “cut off image” the bottom part is the same size as the top part; meaning that 40 feet of the bottom of the crane is missing.


    Add in the bottom of the dock: which we can see based on the car in the foreground is about 3-4 truck heights high, making it around 15-20 feet, gives us missing curvature of between 55-60 feet.


    2/2 debunked.


    This image also proves that there is refraction going on. Look at the bottom portion of the image compared to the top. Measuring the higher portions for scale reference gives us the right numbers: but you can see what’s happening lower down; even though the bottom and top portions are roughly the same height in the video, the top of the horizontal bar is much higher up than it should be in a direct image comparison:


    If the image was the same scale at the top as it was at the bottom: for example non-magnification, or constant magnification: the geometry of the cranes you see in the real image would mean that the horizontal bar at the bottom in the video should appear lower than it is.


    This is demonstrable and visible proof of the refraction you have scoffed at; proven by a flat earth video, no less!


    How can I tell that? Easily: look at the far right: I have copied and pasted the crane on the right; and drawn lines from the top/middle and bottom bars to it.


    The top two bars are exactly in line: on the video image: looking through the atmosphere over water…. The bottom bar in the video is HIGHER than the bar on the closeup image.

     

    It’s not simply magnification, that would change the top bars: The lower portion of the image is refracted more than the top: refuting your unsupported assertions that objects only ever appear lower, and measurably demonstrating that objects appear HIGHER due to refraction. 


    3/3 Debunked

     

    3.) The third image is of the USS Alabama the video says this should be hidden by 50-60 feet of curvature (based on its actual distance)


    Again: no one bothered to check anything. You’ve just swallowed the claims verbatim and not checked the height and position of the ship. The video slapped a line high through the ship at at least 40-45m and asserted that this is where the cut off should be. This is again just claim by people too or too dishonest to scientifically analyze their claims.




    The draft of the ship is 11m, and it’s height from keel to the truck is just a shade under 60m, meaning the entire ship is 49m above the water line. (It could also be up to 1m higher than this: different images I have seen show the draft might markers - the white numbers on the front of the ship, showing it is higher out of the water)


    The 1/4 line of the ship will be around 45 feet and the 1/3rd point of the ship will be a fraction under the 60 feet point.


    I have an image of the ship, and it’s real-life counterpart for reference (actually 2): drawing a red line at around the ¼ and 1/3rd point give or take.


    I’ve drawn comparison points (in green), a thin orange line JUST BELOW the waterline on the video image; and a pink, black and orange line from the truck, to three different points of reference. This is so we can compare sizes in one image with the other for scale in 3 different ways


    What we can do, is what I’ve done in the second set of images: resize the ship until the comparison lines are the same size: and then compare where the water line is.


    Note: despite Erf lying by repeatedly asserting this experiment “accounted for refraction” when it obviously doesn’t: using multiple points of reference does account for refraction, by measuring the ship from different points, it allows you to quantify the distortion of the ship due to refraction.


    If we use the orange line as reference: the water is Faaarrr below the red line, if we use the black line, for some odd reason; the water line is a little closer: just a shadow below the ¼ line, which is closer.


    The pink line, the water line is around the red line where the boat should be cut off; and appears to be showing a tiny bit less than the 50 feet of cut off or so expected.


    Which is almost exactly the amount of curvature you’d expect at the distance to the USS Alabama (which is the closest of the mobile images), as the refraction appears to decrease as you go up (and as the image is the grainiest, especially when measuring the top portion which will reduce the perceived cut off), being a few feet from exactly the curvature that should be seen, it could be accounted by even small measurement error (such as if their camera is 6 feet rather than 7feet off the ground)


     

    4/4 Debunked.


    In addition, as I mentioned with the cranes before; there is measurable refraction: you can see it in the image: as the lines from the top to different positions on the boat do not scale the same way:


    The bottom of the boat is measurably compresses compared to the top. 


    This is exactly how science explains how refraction over water works, and exactly how I have described it.


    5/5 debunked.


    4.)    The final set of crane images is harder than it looks.


    Again, however; the claims made have made absolutely no analysis: they have literally ignored all the evidence that is perfectly visible in the comparison image that demonstrates the cranes are cut off by 60 feet.

     

    I believe I have found the same images, but it’s impossible to find any images on the line of cranes that look the same, and have the same red/white pattern, as a result, I’ve decided to use the image the video provided; because you’re more likely to find that trustworthy!


    In that image, we clearly see the cranes cut off below the red line on the image I’ve provided. Given the truck in the foreground as a reference, the distance in the image to the red line from the water, is about 5-6 trucks high: 


    Using this to calculate the hidden height appears around 60ish feet give or take is being cut off in this portion of the image.


    6/6 Debunked

     

    5.)The final image, I tried to google exactly what boat was shown. It appears to be the boat “Grand Canyon II”, or a similar profile: a boat that appears to operate around the Gulf of Mexico and matches the image profile exactly.

    https://www.fleetmon.com/vessels/grand-canyon-ii_9653874_9736784/photos/1966419/

    I can’t tell what the height of the ship is, nor how much is hidden. But I can tell you one thing though; the flat earther that edited the video mistook the descending treeline as the bow of the ship.


    The image is likely of deer river/bayview - as this appears to be the only location that matches the image (there Grand Canyon is likely to be docked at one of the servicing companies with docks at the location) - This is 10.7 miles away and when you actually look at the boat (or any similar boats), it’s obvious that there could very, very easily be 40 feet - 4 stories - cut off the boat in that image, given how tall the boat actually appears to be.



     7/7 Debunked



    @erfisflat is obviously lying or flat out when he claimed he “validated” the images shown. He has done no such thing, as everything I’ve noted is revealed with less than 5-10 minutes of basic google searching and looking at images.


    As shown: EVERY claim he and the video makes is flat out false; and when you do the science, they are objectively false. Every image show the amount of cut off and curvature that would be expected on a spherical earth.


    In addition, the video provides proof that refraction produces measurable effects which are identical to how I’ve described them.


    This experiment proved that the required cut off due to curvature is almost identical to what you’d expect on a spherical earth: because the video and Erf spectacularly and embarrassingly failed to perform even basic analysis.


    I mean come on; how stuoid do you have to be to decide not to google how tall the USS Alabama is? Or to not google what you’re looking at to know that you’re taking an image of a dry dock?


    On what planet are you on where you think just looking at an image is justification for saying there is no curvature? When even a basic analysis demonstrates the curvature is right there in the image. 


    This was just an unfounded assertion: Erf wanted to believe it was true, so asserted it was true.


    This is, in general, the flat earth strategy: throw out insane and incorrect claims with no justification or scientific validity or analysis: and simply rely on the actual scientific minded individuals to refute their claims: then instead of defending the poor claims they make, simply attack the analysis without any acknowledgement that the original claim has been destroyed which I’m sure is what erf will do now.


    ErfisflatEvidenceAmpersand
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    "Anyway. This is a debate concerning the "Big Bang"."

    Exactly, and if the earth isn't a ball, this bang story starts with a false assumption. Get it?
    Basically every single debate on this website relies on us assuming that our senses are correct and the world we perceive exists. If that isn't true, then this and pretty much every topic would start with a false assumption. Get it?

    Although the above is true, I would still be a distracting off-topic a-hole if I tried to turn every single topic into a solipsistic discussion of "But how do we know our senses are real, what if we're just butterflies dreaming we're people who have heard information about the big bang/religion/whatever!".

    If you want to argue about the shape of the earth, go back to your thread. it's just basic courtesy.
    You know, I searched the entire OP for even the slightest mention of being "dreaming butterflies" to no avail. I did however find flat earth reference...
    "
    Are you conceding your original argument then and retreating to a separate one or just making a meaningless non-sequiter? Your original argument - as show in the quote trail - is that flat earth arguments are valid because the earth being round is an assumption that other observations rest on. The same applies to being able to trust our senses.



    @Ampersand
    MK-Ultra 101 - Create enough False Flag operations to where the sheeple will no longer trust their senses.
    Ampersand swinging a pocket watch: "keep your eyes on the watch, .. now repeat after me; I am now a butterfly, .. I am now a butterfly!"

    Hey @Erfisflat don't we feel much lighter now, .. more illuminated?
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:

    The lesson of this post, is never, never underestimate the dishonesty, or incompetence of pseudoscientists. 


    I’ve made that mistake with Erf before, working under assumption that the images he posts are of exactly what they say the are: but in this example, as with so many others; both he and the people on the video he shows are just scientifically incompetent, or intellectually dishonest, as I will show.



    Erf produced this video in order to give evidence that “earth is flat”, and in part later to claim that we are asserting that refraction happens; the best part of that video is that it provably demonstrates both of those facts.


    This is why I have asked Erf whether he still supports this claim, and whether he bothered to check the claim before posting it. His repeated refusal to answer that question, combined with this disproof below demonstrably shows he doesn’t bother checking his claims, and implicitly knows that the claims are invalid and makes them anyway.


    This post will both refute Erfs claims, and point out the pseudoscience strategy he uses to make the claims. The video shows two things:

    1.)    Almost exactly the right amount of curvature for the viewed distance.

    2.)    Almost exactly the same type of refraction I’ve explained and reproduced with other evidence.

     

    As Erf, or the video hasn’t bothered to check or make any measurements, and have simply unscientifically declared that the image “doesn’t look like there is curvature”, let’s do the science for him. 


    To determine what, if any, curvature there is, you need, given a known distance to the object you need:

    1.)  Known geometry about the object in question, enough to work out how tall it is.

    2.)  A comparison image with multiple points you can use to compare the image with the image you take, multiple points required to determine the refraction occurring.

    3.) A detailed scientific comparison between the two to determine the changes in size/shape/cut off.


    This video simply posts a comparison image, and leaves it there...

     

    The video shows 5 images. Let’s deal with these one at a time:


    1.) claim: “the image with the black cranes, boat, and gantry doesn’t show 60 feet of cut off”


    This claim is . Not only is it , when the cut off is explained: it proves that you didn’t bother to even google the object you were looking at.



    This image, is taken of downtown mobile, and the BAE systems boat yard (You can tell this because the gantry on the right even says “BAE Systems”. This is part of a larger “dry dock” complex, there are plenty of images on the internet of it, and some as you will see that explain exactly what you’re seeing…



    Here is an image from the video and a comparison photo of a close up of the gantry. We can provide scale here, by copying and pasting the top bar of the gantry and attempting to use it to estimate how many times the width that gantry is high: and then comparing the two images to see if they are the same relative height:


    The answer is no they are not: The “video” shows the gantry at 6 times its own height, with the real image showing 9 and a bit times its real height. Given this, we can actually estimate where the cut off is occurring (shown by the red line).


    If the cut off was because of water: it would mostly look like the boat that is currently hoisted up out of the water because it’s in a dry dock.


    The most interesting part of this is that as I will show: the height of the dock above the water (the concrete), is around 15 feet around the corner of the island: It looks like the cut off is around 4 times the height of the dock wall: so about 60 feet.


    How much curvature did they claim was missing again???


    You can cross reference this again with the image on the right-hand side: this is showing the dry dock, with the cranes sitting on concrete barriers so that they can actually be ABOVE the boat they are servicing. This corresponds nicely with the image on the left: the cranes stand well above the water line and appear to be on the water line in the other image.


    1/1 Debunked!


    2.)   The images of the cranes is a really great one. 


    This is another example of Flat earthers and you not bothering to check anything that they post. Any simple google or even LOOKING at the image would reveal the curvature. The curvature, once revealed, indicates that the claims are desperate and unverified nonsense that anyone with a brain that bothered to check the images should have noticed




    Let's try and establish some scale here… According to the port authority, the boom of the crane has a reach of 150 feet; we can use this to come up with approximate sizes: the bottom looks around 50% larger than the bottom part: so we can estimate 120feet and 80 feet. 


    In the “cut off image” the bottom part is the same size as the top part; meaning that 40 feet of the bottom of the crane is missing.


    Add in the bottom of the dock: which we can see based on the car in the foreground is about 3-4 truck heights high, making it around 15-20 feet, gives us missing curvature of between 55-60 feet.


    2/2 debunked.


    This image also proves that there is refraction going on. Look at the bottom portion of the image compared to the top. Measuring the higher portions for scale reference gives us the right numbers: but you can see what’s happening lower down; even though the bottom and top portions are roughly the same height in the video, the top of the horizontal bar is much higher up than it should be in a direct image comparison:


    If the image was the same scale at the top as it was at the bottom: for example non-magnification, or constant magnification: the geometry of the cranes you see in the real image would mean that the horizontal bar at the bottom in the video should appear lower than it is.


    This is demonstrable and visible proof of the refraction you have scoffed at; proven by a flat earth video, no less!


    How can I tell that? Easily: look at the far right: I have copied and pasted the crane on the right; and drawn lines from the top/middle and bottom bars to it.


    The top two bars are exactly in line: on the video image: looking through the atmosphere over water…. The bottom bar in the video is HIGHER than the bar on the closeup image.

     

    It’s not simply magnification, that would change the top bars: The lower portion of the image is refracted more than the top: refuting your unsupported assertions that objects only ever appear lower, and measurably demonstrating that objects appear HIGHER due to refraction. 


    3/3 Debunked

     

    3.) The third image is of the USS Alabama the video says this should be hidden by 50-60 feet of curvature (based on its actual distance)


    Again: no one bothered to check anything. You’ve just swallowed the claims verbatim and not checked the height and position of the ship. The video slapped a line high through the ship at at least 40-45m and asserted that this is where the cut off should be. This is again just claim by people too or too dishonest to scientifically analyze their claims.




    The draft of the ship is 11m, and it’s height from keel to the truck is just a shade under 60m, meaning the entire ship is 49m above the water line. (It could also be up to 1m higher than this: different images I have seen show the draft might markers - the white numbers on the front of the ship, showing it is higher out of the water)


    The 1/4 line of the ship will be around 45 feet and the 1/3rd point of the ship will be a fraction under the 60 feet point.


    I have an image of the ship, and it’s real-life counterpart for reference (actually 2): drawing a red line at around the ¼ and 1/3rd point give or take.


    I’ve drawn comparison points (in green), a thin orange line JUST BELOW the waterline on the video image; and a pink, black and orange line from the truck, to three different points of reference. This is so we can compare sizes in one image with the other for scale in 3 different ways


    What we can do, is what I’ve done in the second set of images: resize the ship until the comparison lines are the same size: and then compare where the water line is.


    Note: despite Erf lying by repeatedly asserting this experiment “accounted for refraction” when it obviously doesn’t: using multiple points of reference does account for refraction, by measuring the ship from different points, it allows you to quantify the distortion of the ship due to refraction.


    If we use the orange line as reference: the water is Faaarrr below the red line, if we use the black line, for some odd reason; the water line is a little closer: just a shadow below the ¼ line, which is closer.


    The pink line, the water line is around the red line where the boat should be cut off; and appears to be showing a tiny bit less than the 50 feet of cut off or so expected.


    Which is almost exactly the amount of curvature you’d expect at the distance to the USS Alabama (which is the closest of the mobile images), as the refraction appears to decrease as you go up (and as the image is the grainiest, especially when measuring the top portion which will reduce the perceived cut off), being a few feet from exactly the curvature that should be seen, it could be accounted by even small measurement error (such as if their camera is 6 feet rather than 7feet off the ground)


     

    4/4 Debunked.


    In addition, as I mentioned with the cranes before; there is measurable refraction: you can see it in the image: as the lines from the top to different positions on the boat do not scale the same way:


    The bottom of the boat is measurably compresses compared to the top. 


    This is exactly how science explains how refraction over water works, and exactly how I have described it.


    5/5 debunked.


    4.)    The final set of crane images is harder than it looks.


    Again, however; the claims made have made absolutely no analysis: they have literally ignored all the evidence that is perfectly visible in the comparison image that demonstrates the cranes are cut off by 60 feet.

     

    I believe I have found the same images, but it’s impossible to find any images on the line of cranes that look the same, and have the same red/white pattern, as a result, I’ve decided to use the image the video provided; because you’re more likely to find that trustworthy!


    In that image, we clearly see the cranes cut off below the red line on the image I’ve provided. Given the truck in the foreground as a reference, the distance in the image to the red line from the water, is about 5-6 trucks high: 


    Using this to calculate the hidden height appears around 60ish feet give or take is being cut off in this portion of the image.


    6/6 Debunked

     

    5.)The final image, I tried to google exactly what boat was shown. It appears to be the boat “Grand Canyon II”, or a similar profile: a boat that appears to operate around the Gulf of Mexico and matches the image profile exactly.

    https://www.fleetmon.com/vessels/grand-canyon-ii_9653874_9736784/photos/1966419/

    I can’t tell what the height of the ship is, nor how much is hidden. But I can tell you one thing though; the flat earther that edited the video mistook the descending treeline as the bow of the ship.


    The image is likely of deer river/bayview - as this appears to be the only location that matches the image (there Grand Canyon is likely to be docked at one of the servicing companies with docks at the location) - This is 10.7 miles away and when you actually look at the boat (or any similar boats), it’s obvious that there could very, very easily be 40 feet - 4 stories - cut off the boat in that image, given how tall the boat actually appears to be.



     7/7 Debunked



    @erfisflat is obviously lying or flat out when he claimed he “validated” the images shown. He has done no such thing, as everything I’ve noted is revealed with less than 5-10 minutes of basic google searching and looking at images.


    As shown: EVERY claim he and the video makes is flat out false; and when you do the science, they are objectively false. Every image show the amount of cut off and curvature that would be expected on a spherical earth.


    In addition, the video provides proof that refraction produces measurable effects which are identical to how I’ve described them.


    This experiment proved that the required cut off due to curvature is almost identical to what you’d expect on a spherical earth: because the video and Erf spectacularly and embarrassingly failed to perform even basic analysis.


    I mean come on; how stuoid do you have to be to decide not to google how tall the USS Alabama is? Or to not google what you’re looking at to know that you’re taking an image of a dry dock?


    On what planet are you on where you think just looking at an image is justification for saying there is no curvature? When even a basic analysis demonstrates the curvature is right there in the image. 


    This was just an unfounded assertion: Erf wanted to believe it was true, so asserted it was true.


    This is, in general, the flat earth strategy: throw out insane and incorrect claims with no justification or scientific validity or analysis: and simply rely on the actual scientific minded individuals to refute their claims: then instead of defending the poor claims they make, simply attack the analysis without any acknowledgement that the original claim has been destroyed which I’m sure is what erf will do now.


    You just going to leave all those errors? Proofread much? If so, I'll start on the rebuttal.
    Ampersand
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -   edited March 2018

    You’re not going to write a rebuttal. We both know that. I don’t think you’d even know where to begin, scientifically.


    Your claim is that these images show no curvature. The videos claim is that these images show no curvature.


    My claim: supported by detailed actual analysis, demonstrates that there is almost exactly the right amount of curvature. This is the type of analysis you should have done but obviously didn’t.


    As I’m confident that my data, measurements are correct within an acceptable margin of error no better or worse than the estimates made by the video, and I’m confident that my analysis is valid: and I know for absolutely sure you’re too lazy and too incompetent to be able to provide anything logical to refute this; a rebuttal will not be forthcoming.


    What you will do, I’m sure, and I will call out before you do it, is one or more of the following:


    1.) You will assert, with no argument or justification, that “I haven’t proven anything”, or you will dismiss the measurement or analysis out of hand without an explanation why in some way. You may claim the flat out refutation of the claims with a detailed analysis is a “straw man”, or “red herring”: with no explanation, or justification.


    2.) You may complain that my conclusions are invalid because you will claim that I made a 1-2 pixel error drawing a line, or rounded a height up. You won’t make any attempt to show how that error would impact the conclusion.


    In reality, a couple of pixels or rounding errors are not going to effect my conclusion more than a foot or too).


    3.) Even though I have provided an explanation of how refraction works, provided an experiment that validated how it works, pointed out how and why your claims contradict science and sometimes themselves, and showed how this video can be used to show the refraction effect I claim exists appears to be present and working in exactly the way I say it is in several of your images: you will assert, without any justification or evidence, that I haven’t accounted for your refraction that you refuse to explain and cannot show to be happening in this image.


    Obviously this would be an attempt to change the subject, as you would be admitting that the curvature appears to be present: despite you claiming it didn’t appear to be present before, or in the video.


    4.) You will make no attempt whatsoever to provide your own analysis, or post how you originally concluded there was no curvature, because you don’t seem to be scientifically competent enough to do so. You will do little more than point and say “no curvature”, you will not reference the objects that I am, and will conveniently forget what claims the video makes. You will focus on making new claims and objections: and won’t bother to actually defend the original claim with your own analysis.


    5.) You will object to the analysis or methods I’m using, without explaining how or why they are wrong, or showing that they are inaccurate enough to produce answers of 60ft of curvature when there is apparently none.


    6.) Despite the video getting multiple claims flat out wrong (claiming the dry dock cranes were shipping cranes, that a tree line was the front of the boat, that the cut off of the uss alabama was much lower than claimed, and more), you will claim that everything else is 100% accurate, and will not acknowledge that they could be off observer height by, say 1.5 feet: which would produce a change in observed cut off far in excess of any measurement error.


    7.) anything not supported by a link, but is trivially googleable: will be asserted to be incorrect. You won’t bother trying to confirm or validate/disprove any of the core data I’ve used so will solely rely on saying “nuh-uh” and not bothering to check anything yourself: obviously, in the process of validating the claims, you should have obtained all this information yourself. 


  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Evidence said:
    @Evidence Aliens are the ones we want to surrender to. AI and other humans are not.

    @someone234 ; aliens are not the ones who are putting up all these 5-G cell towers and spraying us with all the metals that we breathe in and get imbedded in our brain making us susceptible to microwave attacks, it is our NWO (NaziWorldOrder) government. And I don't mean the ones the poor sheeple vote on, the ones we see in office either. The ones behind this are our neighbors, coworkers, friends and even could be close as our relatives. Humans who have sold their souls to Satan, gave up all their rational God given free will reasoning.
    You need "eyes to see" to actually see them.
    What is even more surreal is that "They" know the ones that can see, which this scene from the Movie "They Live" portrays frighteningly accurately:



    This is almost EXACTLY how I go through life every day now, .. only God keeps me alive for whatever reason/plan He has for me!?
    You think there are that many of them? @gooberry has some pertinent information he trying to share with us! Something along the lines of proof for curvature...

    Yes, .. there are that many of them buddy, it was when we moved to Texas, to a beautiful, green Austin suburb when God opened my eyes to just what demon-possessed apocalyptic world we live in. It was EXACTLY like the scene in "They Live", .. a world where child molestation, Satan worship, .. ah, I could write an entire book on what we experienced there, .. and if you want to see "supernatural events", I could tell you some that would make your skin craw, because it did for my fishing-buddy  neighbor there where he wouldn't want to even talk about it anymore! It literally felt like one of those vampire horror flicks where you move into a beautiful town, clean, the people are beautiful and friendly, and just weird things start happening around you which you could chalk off as "coincidence", .. until God opened my eyes.

    I can tell you all about it if you wish, maybe in an e-mail or PM? But yes, the movie "They Live" is eerily accurate, and this latest global elite celebration certifies that everything in the movie is accurate, and very real.




    The ONLY thing that is not actual is the skeleton like alien looks, but that part can be seen with our opened spiritual eyes. You know, like Dahmer, until you "know/see" who he really was, he looked like a gentle, nice good looking fellow, right? Check this out, sounds interesting;



    and people who find this horror as art


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch