Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. snaphat

    snaphat Member

    Right, there is no anomaly in that data set or the LIDAR paper, so I don't understand where Sandor's claim is coming from regarding the LIDAR paper. Perhaps, he is referring to unreleased LIDAR data that he cannot talk about yet?
     
  2. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    This is more believable but exactly the opposite of what you've been claiming. You've been implying that they think their data agrees with yours, now you're saying you think your data, which they haven't seen, agrees with theirs.

     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned

    OMG
    is this really the debate style here?

    NO I DID NOT SAY THAT! NOR IMPIED

    "They said: the water is truly flat level surface, surely no 465 meters curvature drop is present. "

    I DID NOT REFER TO my experiment here, JUST PUT that 77kms into a drop calculator okay?

    so you do think that 465 meters drop is perfectly fine on the lake surface..

    well, I got tired and sleepy in this "makes no sense" discussion today - good night.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  4. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Yes. It's a truly level surface, not a planar surface. A truly level surface on Earth would have an apparent drop of 465m over 77km.

    However, both ends would still be at the same altitude. They would be equipotential, to use the technical term.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. I see Sandor has been banned. I also see that he has attempted to start the debate in another forum, http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98386-laser-curvature-test-on-lake-balaton/
    (If linking to other forums is against guidlines please let me know and I'll remove)

    It's a pity, but Sandor was never interested in finding out which model is correct, he was only interested in "proving it's flat". His conclusion was always going to be that it's flat, that's clear from his style of conversation. It seems like he expected us to be blown away upon seeing the video and comparing it with the numbers. The term pigeon chess comes to mind, I mean that in a jovial sense rather than outright insulting the man.

    It's clear he not only doesn't want to hear our criticisms, but that he displays the close-minded attitude that flat earthers often accuse people of having. He derailed this discussion all on his own bat. I think a lot of people did very well not to engage him in a dismissive way, he certainly warranted it at times.

    Basically, well done those who engaged in the discussion, and hopefully those that didn't, learned something interesting about research and burden of proof, I know I learned much from following and participating.

    I look forward to mulling over future threads with this interesting group of people.

    "You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic." Robert A. Heinlein
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    I see Steve Torrence has joined in over there too. The members in the other forum seem to be pointing out many of the same issues already explained here. They also seem to be a little less forgiving of Sandor's posting methods.

    Ray Von
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. WHAT'S WRONG WITH HIS POSTING METHODS?? lol omg smh (I only learned what the last one meant a few weeks ago...)

    Yes I hope he's strapped in for the journey this time, but his posts thus far don't indicate he is.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. DougW

    DougW Member

    Why was Sandor banned? I know his posts were being moderated before they could be posted. I thought the last few days he was being more reasonable in his replies and not so 'aggressive'.
    Personally I expected a better prepared experiment and collection of data - I'm not very edumacated to say the least and I understand that we are all bound by where we live but I just thought doing this all on water - it just seemed a hard way to do it in my eyes.
    I also agree with Bernard - once Sandor began sharing his data etc that he was really only interested in 'proving it's flat' and once I saw his attitude, I felt this thread was now just a dead end street.
    Anyway it has been an interesting ride.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Only the moderators know, maybe it's to do with posts that they saw in moderation and warned him about, maybe it's over private messages he's sent, maybe it's a combination, or something completely unrelated. I can only imagine they have their reasons, and the thread really finished two pages ago. The experiment has been debunked enough to say that it was inconclusive as to what it showed, but that the data actually leans more towards the globe model. He's going to do more tests, so I'll check back the YouTube channel every so often for updates, and hopefully they improve things.

    That said, even if they do improve the experiment I can't see Sandor ever agreeing that the earth is a globe.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. DougW

    DougW Member

    As someone mentioned pages ago - if amateurs are picking holes in his data then I can't see how peers will take what he presents with any seriousness!
    I honestly expected more.
     
  11. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Active Member

    I would guess that he was banned because the thread was going nowhere. Sandor could not acknowledge or recognize his own basic errors and would not answer questions satisfactorily, instead just saying "you're wrong, lol" in a number of ways.

    Two examples: Never acknowledging that there might be more beam divergence than he was claiming. Never trying to understand that level surface has a special meaning in the science of Geodesy.

    ( On the other forum he says that the LIDAR study found that the lake surface is level and is still misinterpreting it as meaning flat in the flat earth sense. Although I don't think the members there fully realize that yet.)

    His opening post in the other forum, by design or accident, seems to imply that he was involved in the LIDAR experiment. Hard not to see that as deceptive. And he was at least borderline deceptive here as well.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    I completely disagree.

    There is no real data after C5, so the experiment is equally inconclusive for both Flat Earth and Globe Earth. You cannot estimate the beam height without knowing the beam spread, without knowing the beam center. Even if you knew that, you cannot estimate what is the impact of the refraction if you don't really take that into account.

    This experiment should be considered as a preparation, a Proof of Concept, for the next one. The data itself unfortunately is useless.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    I notice that Sandor has also gone "NUDTZ" over there...which has not yet been called out.

    I am a bit intrigued (being less science-literate than many here) by the discussion (by studiot) of rift lake topography...
    it seems like a red herring...but I don't know enough...
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I asked the lead author of the LIDAR paper, as his email address is in the paper, and he responded with absolute clarity.



    Sandor was banned for a cumulation of violations of the posting guidelines, ending with his blatant misrepresentation of this paper, typified by the following post:

     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2016
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  15. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Wow! At first glance, two guys named "Székely" looks (to this myopic American) :p like a pretty amazing coincidence.

    But a quick search suggests that it's a pretty common name in that neck of the woods:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Székelys
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Székely_(surname)
     
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Sandor's opening post on ScienceForums.net is incredibly misleading, making it seem like he himself was part of the LIDAR study, and presenting that study again as if it detected a flat surface. That post alone is sufficient reason for banning him here.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    How about because he steadfastly avoided answering direct questions about his experiment and refused to acknowledge data gleaned from his own video which demonstrated problems with his experiment? Why let him continue with that?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  18. I did notice that yes. I only stumbled across that forum because I was searching for further info on the LIDAR paper. I'd like to say he's one of a kind but alas he's quite on type for the average flat earthers. And apologies I wasn't intending to turn the tail end of this thread into a one way mud slinging match. I just find his total lack of give on the topic a conundrum.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Interesting to see two science forums debate this with mb being sure the water can't be flat and science forums being sure it can be flat because the bottom is flat. Both sides have explanations for their point. Maybe we should see if science supports either theory. Can the lake be flat and the earth be round?
    Sandor got banned because he doesn't answer 'some' questions? Is that really the policy here? If you are being that strict on posting guidelines then you should have banned quite a few more than Sandor. It looks like he is just being silenced because some don't like where the debate is heading and refuse to even consider that the shape of the earth could be something else than we've been told. That is not science. That is support of dogma.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Insulting someone because of their beliefs is not the way science should be conducted. This looks looks more like a Facebook or youtube discussion with insults being politely lobbed back and forth and no real facts discussed. Especially the ones that some are allergic to.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, he was banned for multiple posting guidelines violations and being misleading. The last straw was him misrepresenting the LIDAR paper, and the authors of that paper.

    Perhaps one participant there thinks the surface of a lake conforms to the bottom, but even the briefest consideration of that idea would show it to be entirely without merit.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  22. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Except that that's not remotely true.
    For 900 posts, posters have politely pointed out hundred of details, including countless minute measurements
    and calculations...heck, posters here appear to have put more thought into Sandor's experiment than he did.
    He claimed to welcome observations, but repeatedly complained--with the CAPS LOCK on--defensively.
    Let's be honest: It was an exercise to promote FE...not a true scientific inquiry.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 5
  23. I have a question for Mick since he seems to be the leader here. If another test is done (and it will be) and all the complaints about the first test are addressed, will you ignore the evidence if it supports the lake being truly planar? Do you already have an explanation prepared for that outcome or is it simply an impossibility in your mind? Will you claim it's refraction causing the beam to wrap around the curved lake or surface tension as claimed in the other forum? You are even welcome to participate and film and monitor it yourself. I'm sure Sandor would extend the invitation to anyone here.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  24. snaphat

    snaphat Member

    The person who said the surface is flat on the other forum misunderstands that elevation doesn't show curvature. Sandor misrepresented the paper on there also and we have confirmation from Mick that indeed the authors' LIDAR data does not show a flat surface. He's working under the misonception that it does because Sandors OP indicates that despite it not being true.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, the entire point of this site is to look at claims of evidence.

    And I'd actually really like to see this test done well.
     
    • Agree Agree x 8
  26. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    I object to this. Sandor responded to one of my posts where I pointed out issues (such as the obvious divergence visible in C11 and C12). Rather than directly respond to those issues he chose to try to take me to task because I'd used phrases like "I think", which I'd only used to try and avoid offending, since saying "Look here, you're wrong" clearly would.

    In the same post I posed a direct question, which again he ignored because, he claimed, I was presuming to try and "teach him". Sandor's responses here have typically been evasive and diversionary, and he's followed up with what looks like a clear attempt at misrepresentation.

    Ray Von
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  27. I wouldn't go so far as to compare here to a Facebook or YouTube thread. Many cordial disagreements have happened between others here, and it has been rationally discussed. Sandor did create most if not all of his own problems here.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  28. I don't see how he misrepresented the LIDAR paper. Someone else posted it here and he said it agreed with our result and that they were interested in further research about it. You decided to contact the lead author, assuming that is who was contacted, and then used his response to insinuate that Sandor was being less than honest.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Sandor said the study showed the lake was flat, and that the authors agreed with him, This was false.

     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 3
  30. You might not but from an outsiders point of view, it started out professional and then when the tests results started coming out, it went south from there and is now just a thread going nowhere. Probably the reason Sandor decided to find another site with maybe a group of more open minded scientists.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  31. He has spoken personally to them and posted what they said. You doubted his honesty so decided to contact them yourself. He never spoke to the individual you emailed and never stated such. That was just your assumption and is disingenuous.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  32. snaphat

    snaphat Member

    It's fairly clear from the discussion there that they've started asking the very same questions asked here. Questions he ignored and did not answer...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  33. Good because the feeling I get from reading the comments here, is that noway nohow is the earth not round so therefor we will pull our hairs out looking for the fault in the data. Hopefully that attitude will result in better testing procedures and not another round of "there must be fault somewhere, because we can't accept your conclusion" type of discussion.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  34. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Bearing in mind that absolutely no one here said:
    "there must be fault somewhere, because we can't accept your conclusion" or anything like it.
    Many, many, many "faults" were detailed.
    And it's been stated that many would love to see the experiment repeated, with those problems fixed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 9
  35. Yes it seems a common style of debate when one side can't accept the other sides conclusion as possible. That to me is not a open fair scientific debate that has the goal of getting to the truth.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 7
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  36. Bear in mind that I never said anyone did. It's just the feeling you get from reading the comments by some.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  37. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    I did not get that feeling.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  38. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    He repeatedly and intentionally avoided questions which went to the very heart of problems with his experiment.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  39. Sandor has been attacked here and not respected as a fellow scientist. He is viewed as a flat earther who deserves to be set straight be more knowledgeable folk.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 7
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  40. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Either there was fault in the data or there was not. Are you saying there was not any real fault found?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.