Flat earth theory?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

oh hell - lets see just how evasive you can be

the topic is polaris - and its observed declination above the true horizon from any point in the northern hemisphere

these observations demonstrate that the earth MUST be a spheroid

you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion

what is your alternative and why ?

You might not believe it, but am not being intentionally evasive.

There is no "MUST", anywhere in nature, other than in the stories we invent.

Did not claim to draw an alternative conclusion. Please return to re-read the post you were referring-to.

Am resisting conclusions, by holding-up many different possibilities, and not being obligated to latch onto one in particular.

Many alternatives are interesting to think about, but there is no need (for me) to choose one, and then claim to believe in it.

To be more clear: don't have any single alternative conclusion, that am adhering-to.

His question was perfectly clear, whereas yours was exactly the answer that I expected - evasive. Please answer it in a clear manner.

How do you figure his question was perfectly clear, when it was based off of a false understanding?
(He said: ..."....you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion.."..., but that was never claimed).

But still attempted to answer it anyways.

There is no conclusion here. Is that clear enough?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

what conclusion do you come to - any why ?

The least/fewest possible.
For me: any doubt, prevents conclusion.

Is something that is 0.00000000001% false: true?
We can often see doubt, if we look at some thing, or concept, deep enough.

Ain't never seen no longitudinal line crossing a lake or mountain, but some dude sitting behind a computer-screen, will swear till he's blue in the face that it's there.

Is that truth, belief, 'common-sense', logical-conclusion, or something else?

Say what again? Lines?
Can someone translate this please?

Could you please make your question about lines, a little more specific?

Very well: "Do you really think that lines of longitude - and by implication also latitude - are visible?"

Oh boy!
Since you request simple answers: No. Don't think that.

It was a satirical comment, with a potential secondary level of understanding, for those whom are open to such things.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

oh hell - lets see just how evasive you can be

the topic is polaris - and its observed declination above the true horizon from any point in the northern hemisphere

these observations demonstrate that the earth MUST be a spheroid

you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion

what is your alternative and why ?

You might not believe it, but am not being intentionally evasive.

There is no "MUST", anywhere in nature, other than in the stories we invent.

Did not claim to draw an alternative conclusion. Please return to re-read the post you were referring-to.

Am resisting conclusions, by holding-up many different possibilities, and not being obligated to latch onto one in particular.

Many alternatives are interesting to think about, but there is no need (for me) to choose one, and then claim to believe in it.

To be more clear: don't have any single alternative conclusion, that am adhering-to.

His question was perfectly clear, whereas yours was exactly the answer that I expected - evasive. Please answer it in a clear manner.

How do you figure his question was perfectly clear, when it was based off of a false understanding?
(He said: ..."....you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion.."..., but that was never claimed).

But still attempted to answer it anyways.

There is no conclusion here. Is that clear enough?

Nowhere near good enough. Again, answer the question - do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth? Your obfuscations are revealing your sophistry.

the thread has reduced itself to " sophist troll " and " circular troll "

i am done here - in the interllude before the next outbreak of flat earth idiocy

i shall re-write my argument on the " north pole sunlight issue " - with pics and i probs need to reduce the aircraft flight / VSI argument to a single post

but for now - i am un-sub thread as this one is beyond redemption

toodle pip

a reply to: ignorant_ape

durign the Hiatus and subsequent flat earth threads that will surely follow in the political lull with trump

I plan to head to the Beach in Aberdeen and carry out my experiment for the horizon and curvature
just so I can post the results for us to digest

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

oh hell - lets see just how evasive you can be

the topic is polaris - and its observed declination above the true horizon from any point in the northern hemisphere

these observations demonstrate that the earth MUST be a spheroid

you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion

what is your alternative and why ?

You might not believe it, but am not being intentionally evasive.

There is no "MUST", anywhere in nature, other than in the stories we invent.

Did not claim to draw an alternative conclusion. Please return to re-read the post you were referring-to.

Am resisting conclusions, by holding-up many different possibilities, and not being obligated to latch onto one in particular.

Many alternatives are interesting to think about, but there is no need (for me) to choose one, and then claim to believe in it.

To be more clear: don't have any single alternative conclusion, that am adhering-to.

His question was perfectly clear, whereas yours was exactly the answer that I expected - evasive. Please answer it in a clear manner.

How do you figure his question was perfectly clear, when it was based off of a false understanding?
(He said: ..."....you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion.."..., but that was never claimed).

But still attempted to answer it anyways.

There is no conclusion here. Is that clear enough?

Nowhere near good enough. Again, answer the question - do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth? Your obfuscations are revealing your sophistry.

He made a statement about Polaris, and didn't ask a question about Polaris.
Ridiculous that you think it's me obfuscating, by not answering a non-question, and previously a false-statement.

But you did just ask a question.
..."...do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth?..."...

Simple answer for you: yes.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

oh hell - lets see just how evasive you can be

the topic is polaris - and its observed declination above the true horizon from any point in the northern hemisphere

these observations demonstrate that the earth MUST be a spheroid

you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion

what is your alternative and why ?

You might not believe it, but am not being intentionally evasive.

There is no "MUST", anywhere in nature, other than in the stories we invent.

Did not claim to draw an alternative conclusion. Please return to re-read the post you were referring-to.

Am resisting conclusions, by holding-up many different possibilities, and not being obligated to latch onto one in particular.

Many alternatives are interesting to think about, but there is no need (for me) to choose one, and then claim to believe in it.

To be more clear: don't have any single alternative conclusion, that am adhering-to.

His question was perfectly clear, whereas yours was exactly the answer that I expected - evasive. Please answer it in a clear manner.

How do you figure his question was perfectly clear, when it was based off of a false understanding?
(He said: ..."....you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion.."..., but that was never claimed).

But still attempted to answer it anyways.

There is no conclusion here. Is that clear enough?

Nowhere near good enough. Again, answer the question - do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth? Your obfuscations are revealing your sophistry.

He made a statement about Polaris, and didn't ask a question about Polaris.
Ridiculous that you think it's me obfuscating, by not answering a non-question, and previously a false-statement.

But you did just ask a question.
..."...do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth?..."...

Simple answer for you: yes.

Really? Then why was it further down towards the Northern horizon last week when in Bermuda than where it normally is when I look at it in London?

EDIT: And yes, he asked you a clear question about Polaris.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg


52 pages of this and you still think that science, reason and logic will prevail? I admire your tenacity but it looks like the triumph of hope over experience.

thats what I said before there is a formula here somewhere which explains the full process of flat earth , spherical earth debate

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

oh hell - lets see just how evasive you can be

the topic is polaris - and its observed declination above the true horizon from any point in the northern hemisphere

these observations demonstrate that the earth MUST be a spheroid

you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion

what is your alternative and why ?

You might not believe it, but am not being intentionally evasive.

There is no "MUST", anywhere in nature, other than in the stories we invent.

Did not claim to draw an alternative conclusion. Please return to re-read the post you were referring-to.

Am resisting conclusions, by holding-up many different possibilities, and not being obligated to latch onto one in particular.

Many alternatives are interesting to think about, but there is no need (for me) to choose one, and then claim to believe in it.

To be more clear: don't have any single alternative conclusion, that am adhering-to.

His question was perfectly clear, whereas yours was exactly the answer that I expected - evasive. Please answer it in a clear manner.

How do you figure his question was perfectly clear, when it was based off of a false understanding?
(He said: ..."....you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion.."..., but that was never claimed).

But still attempted to answer it anyways.

There is no conclusion here. Is that clear enough?

Nowhere near good enough. Again, answer the question - do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth? Your obfuscations are revealing your sophistry.

He made a statement about Polaris, and didn't ask a question about Polaris.
Ridiculous that you think it's me obfuscating, by not answering a non-question, and previously a false-statement.

But you did just ask a question.
..."...do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth?..."...

Simple answer for you: yes.

Really? Then why was it further down towards the Northern horizon last week when in Bermuda than where it normally is when I look at it in London?

EDIT: And yes, he asked you a clear question about Polaris.

Because you forgot to bring your Viagra on your vacation?

Ok: just fooling around.
Dozens and dozens of witty remarks flashed-by, but only couldn't refrain from that one.
Giving the subject of a sentence as only a pronoun, kinda opens the door to that, doncha know?
Sorry but seems like you don't like joking much.

Your 2nd question is far too awkward, to give any kind of sensible answer. Please reformulate.

If you insist: please post a quote and link of his question here, and will try to answer it.
Don't recall seeing it.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

oh hell - lets see just how evasive you can be

the topic is polaris - and its observed declination above the true horizon from any point in the northern hemisphere

these observations demonstrate that the earth MUST be a spheroid

you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion

what is your alternative and why ?

You might not believe it, but am not being intentionally evasive.

There is no "MUST", anywhere in nature, other than in the stories we invent.

Did not claim to draw an alternative conclusion. Please return to re-read the post you were referring-to.

Am resisting conclusions, by holding-up many different possibilities, and not being obligated to latch onto one in particular.

Many alternatives are interesting to think about, but there is no need (for me) to choose one, and then claim to believe in it.

To be more clear: don't have any single alternative conclusion, that am adhering-to.

His question was perfectly clear, whereas yours was exactly the answer that I expected - evasive. Please answer it in a clear manner.

How do you figure his question was perfectly clear, when it was based off of a false understanding?
(He said: ..."....you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion.."..., but that was never claimed).

But still attempted to answer it anyways.

There is no conclusion here. Is that clear enough?

Nowhere near good enough. Again, answer the question - do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth? Your obfuscations are revealing your sophistry.

He made a statement about Polaris, and didn't ask a question about Polaris.
Ridiculous that you think it's me obfuscating, by not answering a non-question, and previously a false-statement.

But you did just ask a question.
..."...do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth?..."...

Simple answer for you: yes.

Really? Then why was it further down towards the Northern horizon last week when in Bermuda than where it normally is when I look at it in London?

EDIT: And yes, he asked you a clear question about Polaris.

Because you forgot to bring your Viagra on your vacation?

Ok: just fooling around.
Dozens and dozens of witty remarks flashed-by, but only couldn't refrain from that one.
Giving the subject of a sentence as only a pronoun, kinda opens the door to that, doncha know?
Sorry but seems like you don't like joking much.

Your 2nd question is far too awkward, to give any kind of sensible answer. Please reformulate.

If you insist: please post a quote and link of his question here, and will try to answer it.
Don't recall seeing it.

Nope, you refuse to be sensible so I will descend to your petty level.
The pretty sparkly thing in the sky at the end of the Big Dipper wasn't as high in the big black thing over my head at night in Bermuda than it was at home!
It's that freaking simple. I fail to see how I can make a basic observation of Polaris any simpler.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg


You are forgetting that observations cannot be trusted, etc.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

oh hell - lets see just how evasive you can be

the topic is polaris - and its observed declination above the true horizon from any point in the northern hemisphere

these observations demonstrate that the earth MUST be a spheroid

you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion

what is your alternative and why ?

You might not believe it, but am not being intentionally evasive.

There is no "MUST", anywhere in nature, other than in the stories we invent.

Did not claim to draw an alternative conclusion. Please return to re-read the post you were referring-to.

Am resisting conclusions, by holding-up many different possibilities, and not being obligated to latch onto one in particular.

Many alternatives are interesting to think about, but there is no need (for me) to choose one, and then claim to believe in it.

To be more clear: don't have any single alternative conclusion, that am adhering-to.

His question was perfectly clear, whereas yours was exactly the answer that I expected - evasive. Please answer it in a clear manner.

How do you figure his question was perfectly clear, when it was based off of a false understanding?
(He said: ..."....you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion.."..., but that was never claimed).

But still attempted to answer it anyways.

There is no conclusion here. Is that clear enough?

Nowhere near good enough. Again, answer the question - do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth? Your obfuscations are revealing your sophistry.

He made a statement about Polaris, and didn't ask a question about Polaris.
Ridiculous that you think it's me obfuscating, by not answering a non-question, and previously a false-statement.

But you did just ask a question.
..."...do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth?..."...

Simple answer for you: yes.

Really? Then why was it further down towards the Northern horizon last week when in Bermuda than where it normally is when I look at it in London?

EDIT: And yes, he asked you a clear question about Polaris.

Because you forgot to bring your Viagra on your vacation?

Ok: just fooling around.
Dozens and dozens of witty remarks flashed-by, but only couldn't refrain from that one.
Giving the subject of a sentence as only a pronoun, kinda opens the door to that, doncha know?
Sorry but seems like you don't like joking much.

Your 2nd question is far too awkward, to give any kind of sensible answer. Please reformulate.

If you insist: please post a quote and link of his question here, and will try to answer it.
Don't recall seeing it.

Nope, you refuse to be sensible so I will descend to your petty level.
The pretty sparkly thing in the sky at the end of the Big Dipper wasn't as high in the big black thing over my head at night in Bermuda than it was at home!
It's that freaking simple. I fail to see how I can make a basic observation of Polaris any simpler.

Even Oldcarpy sees through that one.

No third party, can corroborate, prove, nor disprove your claim.

Your claimed observation has no merit, in this format of discussion.

Speaking of your claimed observations: where is that quote and link that was requested?

a reply to: Nothin


I was being sarcastic.

Any third party can go to Bermuda and see for themselves, so you fail.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

oh hell - lets see just how evasive you can be

the topic is polaris - and its observed declination above the true horizon from any point in the northern hemisphere

these observations demonstrate that the earth MUST be a spheroid

you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion

what is your alternative and why ?

You might not believe it, but am not being intentionally evasive.

There is no "MUST", anywhere in nature, other than in the stories we invent.

Did not claim to draw an alternative conclusion. Please return to re-read the post you were referring-to.

Am resisting conclusions, by holding-up many different possibilities, and not being obligated to latch onto one in particular.

Many alternatives are interesting to think about, but there is no need (for me) to choose one, and then claim to believe in it.

To be more clear: don't have any single alternative conclusion, that am adhering-to.

His question was perfectly clear, whereas yours was exactly the answer that I expected - evasive. Please answer it in a clear manner.

How do you figure his question was perfectly clear, when it was based off of a false understanding?
(He said: ..."....you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion.."..., but that was never claimed).

But still attempted to answer it anyways.

There is no conclusion here. Is that clear enough?

Nowhere near good enough. Again, answer the question - do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth? Your obfuscations are revealing your sophistry.

He made a statement about Polaris, and didn't ask a question about Polaris.
Ridiculous that you think it's me obfuscating, by not answering a non-question, and previously a false-statement.

But you did just ask a question.
..."...do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth?..."...

Simple answer for you: yes.

Really? Then why was it further down towards the Northern horizon last week when in Bermuda than where it normally is when I look at it in London?

EDIT: And yes, he asked you a clear question about Polaris.

Because you forgot to bring your Viagra on your vacation?

Ok: just fooling around.
Dozens and dozens of witty remarks flashed-by, but only couldn't refrain from that one.
Giving the subject of a sentence as only a pronoun, kinda opens the door to that, doncha know?
Sorry but seems like you don't like joking much.

Your 2nd question is far too awkward, to give any kind of sensible answer. Please reformulate.

If you insist: please post a quote and link of his question here, and will try to answer it.
Don't recall seeing it.

Nope, you refuse to be sensible so I will descend to your petty level.
The pretty sparkly thing in the sky at the end of the Big Dipper wasn't as high in the big black thing over my head at night in Bermuda than it was at home!
It's that freaking simple. I fail to see how I can make a basic observation of Polaris any simpler.

Even Oldcarpy sees through that one.

No third party, can corroborate, prove, nor disprove your claim.

Your claimed observation has no merit, in this format of discussion.

Speaking of your claimed observations: where is that quote and link that was requested?

Hard cheddar old petunia. If you want to keep making fun of people who are more grounded in facts than you claim to be, have at it.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Nothin


I was being sarcastic.

Any third party can go to Bermuda and see for themselves, so you fail.

Fail at what? Not believing the claim of an unknown inter-webs interlocutor?
Going to Bermuda? Trusting his claim, that is a black void of useful information?

He claims the The ATS FE Expert asked a question, yet refused to post the link to it, and it's a fail on me?

You believe him? Did you go with him to Bermuda?

As was said earlier: some are easier to convince than others.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

oh hell - lets see just how evasive you can be

the topic is polaris - and its observed declination above the true horizon from any point in the northern hemisphere

these observations demonstrate that the earth MUST be a spheroid

you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion

what is your alternative and why ?

You might not believe it, but am not being intentionally evasive.

There is no "MUST", anywhere in nature, other than in the stories we invent.

Did not claim to draw an alternative conclusion. Please return to re-read the post you were referring-to.

Am resisting conclusions, by holding-up many different possibilities, and not being obligated to latch onto one in particular.

Many alternatives are interesting to think about, but there is no need (for me) to choose one, and then claim to believe in it.

To be more clear: don't have any single alternative conclusion, that am adhering-to.

His question was perfectly clear, whereas yours was exactly the answer that I expected - evasive. Please answer it in a clear manner.

How do you figure his question was perfectly clear, when it was based off of a false understanding?
(He said: ..."....you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion.."..., but that was never claimed).

But still attempted to answer it anyways.

There is no conclusion here. Is that clear enough?

Nowhere near good enough. Again, answer the question - do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth? Your obfuscations are revealing your sophistry.

He made a statement about Polaris, and didn't ask a question about Polaris.
Ridiculous that you think it's me obfuscating, by not answering a non-question, and previously a false-statement.

But you did just ask a question.
..."...do you deny that Polaris varies in its height in the sky depending on your location, something that that can only happen on a spherical Earth?..."...

Simple answer for you: yes.

Really? Then why was it further down towards the Northern horizon last week when in Bermuda than where it normally is when I look at it in London?

EDIT: And yes, he asked you a clear question about Polaris.

Because you forgot to bring your Viagra on your vacation?

Ok: just fooling around.
Dozens and dozens of witty remarks flashed-by, but only couldn't refrain from that one.
Giving the subject of a sentence as only a pronoun, kinda opens the door to that, doncha know?
Sorry but seems like you don't like joking much.

Your 2nd question is far too awkward, to give any kind of sensible answer. Please reformulate.

If you insist: please post a quote and link of his question here, and will try to answer it.
Don't recall seeing it.

Nope, you refuse to be sensible so I will descend to your petty level.
The pretty sparkly thing in the sky at the end of the Big Dipper wasn't as high in the big black thing over my head at night in Bermuda than it was at home!
It's that freaking simple. I fail to see how I can make a basic observation of Polaris any simpler.

Even Oldcarpy sees through that one.

No third party, can corroborate, prove, nor disprove your claim.

Your claimed observation has no merit, in this format of discussion.

Speaking of your claimed observations: where is that quote and link that was requested?

Hard cheddar old petunia. If you want to keep making fun of people who are more grounded in facts than you claim to be, have at it.

That is totally incoherent. You call that grounded in facts?
Who is being made fun of? The self-appointed and self-anointed FE debunkers, whom have been shown to just as full of false beliefs, as the ones they attempt to mock?

Another false claim?
Who is grounded, in which facts?

Oh: you once again have not answered the questions asked of you, to defend your claims.
You've done it so many times in this thread: it isn't even funny.

a reply to: Somethingsamiss
Squares believe the earth is flat, because there squares, just not cool, and definitely not hip, no matter how hip they try to be, they are just not hip enough to be that. Some say there just one dimensional, for one dimension people, and so have a one dimensional existence. Basically they are like a prototype hipsters.

As for those who believe in a round earth? Well they just like going in endless circles, and so believe everything else must as well, in everything they do there whole existence, nay in fact there whole solar system and universe all goes in endless circles, and it's all circles that all encompassing other circles. And as such they like to think of themselves as two or even three dimensional, but in reality there just windows version 1.1.

As for what shape it really is? Well. It depends on who's asking, who's responding and who's looking, and off course, your definition of observing.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
I'm pointing at you and laughing, that's what I'm doing, due to your epic trolling. You are in a minority of one, none of what you say makes the least bit of sense, you can conduct the same basic experiment that I did at dusk (but you won't, because it's a quick and easy way to disprove every bit of nonsense that you've been babbling) and you've been proven wrong so many times that I can't even list them.
You have to be trolling. It's the only rational explanation as to why you are defending the hysterically silly theory that was exploded centuries ago.
But please continue to amuse us all.

I've simply asked you to prove your claim, that's all.

You respond with the same old crap about how I'm 'trolling', and ask ME to prove YOUR case!

It's obvious who is trolling here.

But keep on saying how I've been "proven wrong so many times", instead of actually supporting your own claim!


Why would I expect you to prove anything, at this point?