The earth is round

[Eliza Thomason]

From my time on their home site, I can tell you're likely a Flat Earther attempting to play Devil's Advocate..

Nope. The first day I ever HEARD of Flat Earth Theory was day I posted here. That was FOUR days ago. I must be an extremely intelligent person if I can make you think I have adopted this theory and have been involved in debating it for some time, and with you, even. Either that or you are not very good at discerning.

... this isn't advanced mathematics, it's basic geometry and trig... ... each line of measurement gets longer when ... the dark red lines are the Z axis and they get longer as the angle of Z increases from the 90 degree right angle.. ... the Earth that curves to which shapes the horizon line.. And you are incorrect here.. You were already given direct proof..
If you need to see it yourself, buy a camera and balloon, or getect that there is no proof that the Earth curves..,

Okay, you are trying to appeal to what I don't know. You are telling me to brush up on my geometry and trigonometry, and buy a camera and a WEATHER BALLOON. I don't think so.

How do you know I won't use the trigonometry and weather balloon and get the same results as the flat-earthers? Because they are using the SAME TOOLS AS YOU to say its proved flat, and not curved at all.

I suppose if I don't brush up on my trig and don't buy a weather balloon and perform your experiments, then that proves you are right. Right?

you're attempting the game of appealing to ignoran a drone

No

... and measure the horizon along the center focal point of your lens.. Again this would take nothing more than basic mathematics... you can get the barrel distortion information for your camera directly from the manufacturer. ... use the drone to measure approaching objects over the horizon via approach vector.. You also know that the Earth is curved because what is below the horizon is well below your eye level just on angle alone..

I know all about "below the horizon" because I have not been living in a bubble. However, for the sake of understanding this theory I am considering there IS NO SUCH THING and, instead, its vanishing perspective. Which does make sense to me, as an artist.

The fact that the horizon is just at or below eye level for the average 6ft male tells you it is curved...

You would think that's the final answer. But in this theory I am finding the idea rather appealing that things might be exactly what they seem to be.

Hence to have a sinking ship effect over a flat plane would require introducing the observer in a parabolic bowl, and that would mean the horizon would be well above eye level.. There would further be warping effects as you either increased or decreased the distance between you and the object just over the horizon.. Hence the further away you get, the ground would appear to rise like a growing mound .. See the following diagram:

Hence, we don't look up to see the horizon ..

You would do better arguing this on the flat earth forum.

You refuted your own argument. A working curved Earth theory cannot work at all if the planet were flat.. O.o

No, I mean a theory you can work with, and keep working on.

For example, you cannot use GPS coordinates to navigate a flat Earth without having to account for the curvature in your calculations on an equal area map.. Such accounting in itself would invalidate it entirely.

F.E.T. says we can do all those GPS things with the existing ground towers. And that sounds believable to me. I notice there has been a vast increase of ground towers commiserate with the increase in technology. You'd think it would be less, with all the thousands upon thousands of satellites.

I notice you ignore a lot of the pertinent points, like the flight routes. How do you explain that?

The fact I can use a coordinate system for a globe / sphere to successfully navigate, this to which I have, automatically in itself invalidates your argument..

There are maps, diagrams and videos of how that works on the flat earth map, too. Not hard to understand.

How do you explain the emergency landing of the plane from Japan to L.A. to ALASKA? I linked it above. That's a pretty unexplained stop when you consider the globe route. Pretty hard to find a plausible reason for that stop!

Yeah, you could of course appeal to ignorance of not having done so yourself to try and invalidate any and all evidence ..., but that would be intellectual laziness and ineptitude on your part.

Well, I wouldn't want that!

Either that, or your intellectual credibility would be as crank as the guy in the video who quote mines science papers he has no comprehension of.

Interesting. I am actually not at all concerned about my intellectual credibility in this. However, I am not stupid. People like to be superior, as one can see. No one likes the black sheep. I told my husband he better dare not tell anyone I am interested in this!

If you can't accept a consensus, then you are responsible to do the science...

No, not buying that responsibility statement. I can observe the persons who believe this theory, and consider the credibility of their persons, their possible motives, and their integrity that comes through their person when they write or speak, use my inner b.s. meter, which is pretty good, actually, and trust my own brain as I listen to their theories and explanations and wonder if this sounds plausible to me or not. I do not think the only good brains are the ones that are formally trained in academia (or make a hobby of conventional academic learning). I think others of us have pretty good brains, too.

You don't have to accept any consensus, but appeals to ignorance is not an argument against any scientific consensus. That is not how science works, and if you want to be take seriously academically, you will be expected to do the science..

That's the thing, I am not bidding anyone to take me seriously. I am just finding the topic interesting, intriguing, and surprisingly PLAUSIBLE. That latter part would explain why in this age of academia, when we consider ourselves are so much smarter than the people of old, this crazy-sounding theory is getting growing attention.

I am sorry, I am all out of time for crank conspiracy theories and assertions..

Good for you!

Incoherent nonsense.. Ships that are over the physical horizon will not be restored by using a telescope.. You can use a telescope however to see if the ship has gone over the physical horizon, but even the most powerful telescope you can buy will not save you from the ship going below the physical horizon.. Just measuring the angle in itself would be hilarious, and that would be long before reaching any supposed vanishing point.. Hence a sinking ship through telescope, as an example, isn't going to get much smaller as it would be required if it where going off into an infinite vanishing point.. Though one of the most amusing things about your link is that they had use a curved surface for their diagram.. Apparently they don't know the difference between the x and z axis.

It makes sense to me. It was explained very clearly. I don't know why it does not to you.

Prove it!

You want me to prove Socionics to you? You are a very smug person. It seems to me you did not come to this site for any reason of integrity. You were arguing with flat earth people and you were getting nowhere because they are in a position to refute your particular narrow "scientific arguments" since they know their trig and geometry, and they use weather balloons and cameras. And they kept throwing thing at you that you could not refute. Since refute is what you want to do, you got bored, and came here, where you felt comfortable acting superior. Also they threw things at you that you prefer to ignore. Lots of things!

I think you are not a very smart person. In fact you are rather stupid, if you discount a thing without learning a thing about it. Stupid and arrogant, is how that reads.

Its up to you to disprove Socionics. And since you think its all stupid mythology and science fiction, then why do you come here? Not to argue with me because I am soon going to start ignoring you.

I would agree, but at the same time, you're speaking from a position of Irony

Nope.

Feel free to demonstrate a working computer without energy.. Temperature is a fundamental property of energy..., you do realize this right? Rub your hands together really hard and fast.., the friction causes your hands to heat up.. Temperature didn't cause the friction, it's a product there of.. Your conspiracy theories are nonsensical, and at most amusing.. Btw the video is crank.., and the man is a well known crank that doesn't just involve the Flat Earth movement.. He uses this medium to make money as most cranks do such as Creationists like Ken Ham etc..

I think FEers aren't denying that kind of energy that runs a computer. But really, you ought to sort this out with them.

And I know its conventional to mock creationists, but I am already not in that boat. Do you think you were just a mistake? It takes a LOT of faith to believe that. I don't proscribe to your bleak religion.

{re:link to matthew boylan "shill"

Well, I would rather read the conversation than try to discern it from this. Also I cannot judge a person as fast as you can, and also I am not willing to believe what someone tells me I am supposed to believe about a person. I take each person on their own merit, and I take stock in how they present themselves. For example, you present yourself a certain way here and I accept you on that.

But I will check out the "flat earth wall of shame" website some other time. Right now I just want to understand the theory I DON'T know, not prove the one I already know. And I am not in any big rush. It is not as important to defend conventional science to me as it is to you. That's your gig, not mine. I don't have all that much faith in it like you do. It TRULY is religion to so many, and it certainly appears to be your religion. Only if someone attacks your religion can you get so offended as you do. I mean, this is just a theory. And its conventional science that gives us the patented pharmaceutical approach to "health", and conventional science that brings us dinosaurs and prehistoric half man half animal....

Worse still, there isn't a single flat Earther that has ever provided any actual academic science, evidence, or material..

Um, no. You are so busy trying to defend your religion that you cannot read what they write. They present evidence. All your religion of science info is not irrefutable. You do have unanswerable questions in your religion, and FE does answer a lot of them!

Their entire base is founded on conspiracy theory, appeals to ignorance, quote mining science, using intellectually dishonest fallacies to cast what is known as "shadows of doubt"...

My, what a broad brush you stroke with!

They are also often linked to the Creationist movement in regards to the Bible.

Those people! They're not scientists!

They don't understand the principles of science, and nor do they conduct any..

Of course not!

A good number of them don't even seem to have much more than a 3rd grade education in mathematics..

They must be stupid!

If you can't even tell the difference between the X and Z axis, I dare say I don't think I am going to take you anymore seriously than a 3 year old trying to discuss quantum physics..

It comes out cute, but is all gibberish..

I mean it was a decent appeal to vanishing point, but I don't think they actually understand how that actually works lol. No kids,

silly kids!

the ship would shrink into a little point / dot along the horizon line proportional to its distance from the observer.. It would not actually appear to sink, it would appear to shrink into a small dot, and this is not the effect you see on a sinking ship.. Yeah, get your telescope out and prepare to giggle..

You certainly must be smarter than me, but the vanishing point perspective does make sense to me.

Did YOU take any art in college?

Incorrect, I was fundamental part in why they ditched their bendy light theory after having long debates with "Clock Tower".. They don't even use it anymore, and that is why they are now all reverting to that other pile of crap you linked to because it's easier to appeal to people's ignorance.. They also had since deleted their FAQ entry where they cited the circumference of their posted flat Earth map... Again this was largely due to a debate I had with them on their forums.. What do you think my article on the subject came from, the one you linked to on my blog? I can go back to their forum and cite you these discussions of course.. It's rather amusing to see them suddenly delete shit and change their bull shit. Hell, the discussion on flat glass was hilarious, but that's ok, they are cranks..

I have no idea about any of this. You'd best discuss it with them.

LOL.. Parallax is all I needed to debunk that bull shit.. Though I can tell when I am begging to be trolled here..

.

[TheJackal]

Either that or you are not very good at discerning.

Having spent more than a year on their forums, I will say that you act, argue, and sound exactly like they do.. Even your evasive debate tactics and inability to address any and all evidence presented ... Hence this discussion was aimed to go nowhere fast.

Okay, you are trying to appeal to what I don't know.

Your ignorance is not my problem.

You are telling me to brush up on my geometry and trigonometry, and buy a camera and a WEATHER BALLOON. I don't think so.

Might be a good idea if you want any relevancy in this discussion... Your intellectual laziness pretty much makes this discussion pointless. Especially when you are now delving into dishonest discourse by suggesting the following....:

How do you know I won't use the trigonometry and weather balloon and get the same results as the flat-earthers?

Because it would be impossible .... Feel free to prove me wrong though.

Because they are using the SAME TOOLS AS YOU to say its proved flat, and not curved at all.

No they aren't... They aren't using any tools whatsoever. They can't even get their basic math right...

I suppose if I don't brush up on my trig and don't buy a weather balloon and perform your experiments, then that proves you are right. Right?

No, it just proves you're intellectually lazy while yet still appealing to ignorance and excuses for your armchair skepticism.. You let me know when you have conducted the science and then get published in a accredited journal .. There is a Nobel prize waiting for you.. Seriously and sincerely!

I know all about "below the horizon" because I have not been living in a bubble. However, for the sake of understanding this theory I am considering there IS NO SUCH THING and, instead, its vanishing perspective. Which does make sense to me, as an artist.

As an artist you should have understood everything I had said concern the subject.. I get the feeling that your education on this subject is sub elementary if that is your response ..

You would think that's the final answer. But in this theory I am finding the idea rather appealing that things might be exactly what they seem to be.

Your feeling of what you like or not is irrelevant..

You would do better arguing this on the flat earth forum.

They ended up banning me because I was making them look bad on their forums... They ended up using appealing to a game of name calling and moral high ground arguments rather than addressing the facts and their nonsensical non-scientific hypothesis to which they provide no tangible evidence for.. You would do better arguing subjects you know more about however, and I say this because I can already tell you're over your head on this..

No, I mean a theory you can work with, and keep working on.

I am not sure if you understand the difference between theory in science and the common usage of the term.. Flat Earth "theory" is not a scientific theory..., it's an assertion with nothing to support it...

F.E.T. says we can do all those GPS things with the existing ground towers. And that sounds believable to me. I notice there has been a vast increase of ground towers commiserate with the increase in technology. You'd think it would be less, with all the thousands upon thousands of satellites.

Yeah, you could use ground towers in areas where there is land.. However the coordinate system would still be subject to that of a Globe.. You could use short distance coordinates and then try to suggest the Earth is flat right up till you link all the short distance segments together over a given distance.. The coordinates would remain subject to those of a globe.. You really shouldn't bring irrelevant things up, and you let me know when they can give you a navigable coordinate system...

I notice you ignore a lot of the pertinent points, like the flight routes. How do you explain that?

Jet streams, safety, waiting your turn to land, traffic avoidance, bad weather, and numerous of other reasons.. You can feel free to get specific about flight routes, but I am willing to bet you have no idea what you're talking about..

There are maps, diagrams and videos of how that works on the flat earth map, too. Not hard to understand.

No. no there isn't.. They constantly contradict each other and require ignorance of the real world and the laws of physics.. Half their crap wouldn't even work on a flat Earth. I could go knee deep into that as well..

How do you explain the emergency landing of the plane from Japan to L.A. to ALASKA? I linked it above. That's a pretty unexplained stop when you consider the globe route. Pretty hard to find a plausible reason for that stop!

The reason for the stop is irrelevant, they can do it.. And no, that claim is false that it would take less time to have stopped at LA.. But if you like, I will be more than happy to lay it out for you ..., and this has a lot to do with the shape of the Earth, and the Jet streams. It's actually a shorter flight than it would have been to go to LA.. A little hint.., the shortest distance is flying more north, or up over the Northern latitudes and the North Pole, rather than flying east/west over the Pacific. It would have taken them longer to get to LA, and the time and distance on the official departure time and arrival times is dead on for that flight.... So no, it would not have made sense to continue to fly to LA... If you need a simple experiment you can try on your own, take a globe and a string. Put the string where you want to start {Taiwan) and then put it straight across to LA and then to Alaska. Then try to reach the string over the arctic circle (north) and you'll note just how much shorter the route is. Find the shortest northern route and then go to flightradar.com and you can see that's just about exactly the way most of the planes are going over the northern routes and southern routes..

Well, I wouldn't want that!

Too bad, you're not in charge of a flight. And in life or death emergencies, I wouldn't want a pilot listening to a flat earther on where to go and land..

Interesting. I am actually not at all concerned about my intellectual credibility in this.

I can tell, and neither are flat earthers.

However, I am not stupid.

Stupid is the inability to apply knowledge, and nobody called you stupid or dumb..

People like to be superior, as one can see.

This is professional victimhood, and it's superiority is irrelevant ...

No one likes the black sheep. I told my husband he better dare not tell anyone I am interested in this!

Unfortunately these are the sort of arguments cranks make...., playing professional victim when one cannot substantiate their position or when they get called out on their bull shit.. I am not really impressed here.

No, not buying that responsibility statement. I can observe the persons who believe this theory, and consider the credibility of their persons, their possible motives, and their integrity that comes through their person when they write or speak, use my inner b.s. meter, which is pretty good, actually, and trust my own brain as I listen to their theories and explanations and wonder if this sounds plausible to me or not. I do not think the only good brains are the ones that are formally trained in academia (or make a hobby of conventional academic learning). I think others of us have pretty good brains, too.

This would be irrelevant.. A theory doesn't become invalid based on the quality of the person.. Newton could have murdered 30 people and it wouldn't invalidate his scientific work what-so-ever.. I am not sure you understand how science works here.. Furthermore, nobody said that the only good brains are those trained in academia..., but if those brains want any credibility in the academic arena, especially the scientific arena, they are going to be expected to do more than toss ideas, conspiracy theories, and assertions around.. It is not our job to disprove Flat Earth Theory, it's your job to substantiate it... It's been about 10 years since I have visited that Flat Earth forum., and they have nothing more than they had 10 years ago.. , and that was nothing..

surprisingly PLAUSIBLE.

No, no its not..Could it be in some other universe with different physics? Perhaps, but it's not here in concerns to Earth..

That latter part would explain why in this age of academia, when we consider ourselves are so much smarter than the people of old, this crazy-sounding theory is getting growing attention.

Not necessarily smarter, but more knowledgeable would be the correct answer due the accumulation of knowledge through discovery and the scientific methodology.. Also, I would refrain from the use of ad populum fallacies.


[/quote]
You want me to prove Socionics to you? You are a very smug person.[/quote]

Social dogma, and you call me smug?

It seems to me you did not come to this site for any reason of integrity.

Now you are asserting I came here to do the opposite of what I did here.. Seriously, you're in no position to be arguing my integrity here... However, I can offer you a mirror.

You were arguing with flat earth people and you were getting nowhere because they are in a position to refute your particular narrow "scientific arguments" since they know their trig and geometry,

Getting them to dump a theory and erase their FAQ is more than getting nowhere.. They are cranks,, and possibly POE.

and they use weather balloons and cameras.

No they don't... Not a single one of them has done any actual science... Feel free to cite me published peer review flat earth papers in a accredited journal ..

And they kept throwing thing at you that you could not refute.

Incorrect

Not to argue with me because I am soon going to start ignoring you.

This is probably your best choice at this point..

I think FEers aren't denying that kind of energy that runs a computer. But really, you ought to sort this out with them.

Seriously, make up your mind.. Either your claim that temperatures causes everything or it doesn't.. My god..., this is killing braincells.

And I know its conventional to mock creationists, but I am already not in that boat. Do you think you were just a mistake? It takes a LOT of faith to believe that. I don't proscribe to your bleak religion.

A good number of Creationists largely believe the flat Earth theory, I was stating this, but is see why not mock what is intellectually crank.. Btw, to be emergent cannot be a mistake..., nature in general (this apart from sentient beings of nature) isn't a conscious being and therefore doesn't make mistakes or have accidents, those are things tied to sentient beings that have the ability of intentions or intent.. Hence a rock doesn't accidentally or mistakenly roll down a hill and kill people.., it doesn't have any intentions.. Could someone's parents however not have intended to have them? Yes, and they can even regret having them as a mistake.. It doesn't take any faith on my part and I could sum this up just by referencing concept of Pantheism to where Existence itself is considered the origin, cause, essences, purpose, function, and totality of all that exists. In this argument, Existence is a self-generating system from itself for which all things come to be from..., this and that there is only Existence and what Existence is and is doing.. So if you could explain origins, causality, purpose, meaning, function, or how we got here without Existence, you can feel free to enlighten me. Hell, I can even ask you "What is God without Existence?"..., and instantly the delusion of grandeur becomes apparent.

Also I cannot judge a person as fast as you can,

Perhaps I have dealt with a fair deal more with people on these subjects.. I know the guy in the video is crank, but I am yet undecided about you.

Right now I just want to understand the theory I DON'T know

Well, if you want to do that, you will need much more knowledge on the subject matters they discuss concerning science and mathematics. At this point, I don't think you are well equipped (knowledge wise) to understand what it is they are discussing or why the stuff they are spewing is nonsensical. You seem hell bent on listening to them while not taking the time to learn or listen to anything I have thus far presented. Hence if you want to discuss with them on matters of optics and lenses, I would suggest getting a firm grasp on the subject before doing so.. They will target your ignorance of the subject, and it's very easy to manipulate the ignorant..

Um, no. You are so busy trying to defend your religion that you cannot read what they write.

I have no religion..

All your religion of science info is not irrefutable.

Science is not a religion, it's a methodology..

Those people! They're not scientists!



Of course not!



They must be stupid!

There is a difference between ignorant, stupid, and crank.. There is a mix among them..

Did YOU take any art in college?

Yes, I took multi-media and web design.. I had switched from 3D modeling and Animation in 3DS Max and Maya. . I also have a formal education in information science as well as have I delved into free courses from Harvard, Stanford and other colleges to which are offered by them online.. I could list them here if you like as there is a broad range to which include introductory courses to things like optics, chemistry ect.. However, my education doesn't make me better than anyone, it does however allow me to call bullshit when I see it..

I have no idea about any of this. You'd best discuss it with them.

I am sorry, I thought your post on the subject was to discuss this..

[job]

..

You fail to grasp something, that is the wonder that some of mankind has. It goes back to living in caves, painting on walls and gazing at the stars.

It doesn't matter if the earth is a cube, it's about imagination and wondering.

This is an innate ability of mankind and it is a part of our nature, you don't grasp this, you speak of dry (although you don't pull them together well), facts. You are as a computer, no imagination just a program running, this is why people disagree with you, it's nothing to do with the shape of the earth, it's to do with them having a grasp of the concept of infinity, which you do not.

[Eliza Thomason]

You fail to grasp something, that is the wonder that some of mankind has. It goes back to living in caves, painting on walls and gazing at the stars.

It doesn't matter if the earth is a cube, it's about imagination and wondering.

This is an innate ability of mankind and it is a part of our nature, you don't grasp this, you speak of dry (although you don't pull them together well), facts. You are as a computer, no imagination just a program running, this is why people disagree with you, it's nothing to do with the shape of the earth, it's to do with them having a grasp of the concept of infinity, which you do not.

Thank you, Job, you really get it. That's it exactly. I am truly enjoying the wonder of considering this theory.

[Pa3s]

Thank you, Job, you really get it. That's it exactly. I am truly enjoying the wonder of considering this theory.

Constructing alternative realities is an interesting exercise and I think we all enjoy a good story now and then.

But you also said this:

But there is this pesky part of me that wants to believe what is true, and I mean, whatever it be, convenient or not. In matters of faith, morals, health, science, what have you. I want to get to the core of what is true, and I truly believe that if you seek truth, you find it.

You can't have both. You are either seeking the truth OR you entertain yourself with interesting theories and fabricate your own truth, which has no basis in reality. Clearly, you are doing the latter while pretending to be objective about it.

[TheJackal]

You fail to grasp something, that is the wonder that some of mankind has. It goes back to living in caves, painting on walls and gazing at the stars.

It doesn't matter if the earth is a cube, it's about imagination and wondering.

This is an innate ability of mankind and it is a part of our nature, you don't grasp this, you speak of dry (although you don't pull them together well), facts. You are as a computer, no imagination just a program running, this is why people disagree with you, it's nothing to do with the shape of the earth, it's to do with them having a grasp of the concept of infinity, which you do not.

There is nothing wrong with "wonder" or the "Imagination"... However, there is a difference between wonder, imagination, and believing it is all true.. If you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, you have a problem.. There is further reason why we address such ignorance, and that is because ignorance like this can get people killed. Take a flight emergency..., the pilot become a Flat Earther and decides he doesn't need to make an emergency landing at the nearest airport according to the reality that Earth isn't flat... He decides to take a different route and then gets everyone killed.. Or how about a guide in the wilderness of the badlands decides to tell people that their cell's GPS or GPS systems are all wrong and then gets his entire group killed... Yeah, there comes a point where this sort of ignorance becomes potentially dangerous.. I love fantasy, imaginative things, and so forth, but I don't go about mistaking them for reality and then try to make some sort of cult in regards to it. If we haven't noticed, ignorance in this day and age has become a breed commodity, and is proving to be getting pretty dangerous... When people like Sarah Palin nearly get elected into office, there is a problem... I don't address such ignorance to simply insult it, I address it for sake of humanity..


Other than this, I say have fun with wondering and imagining things..., but at the same time you need to keep a foot hold in reality...

it's to do with them having a grasp of the concept of infinity, which you do not.

I grasp it pretty well actually(not entirely as no one does entirely)... Where you even got the idea that I don't is rather a mystery... If you are referring to the vanishing point, I didn't address an infinite vanishing point.., I address the correction of the perspective regarding the sinking ship.. Like I said, it would not appear to sink below the physical horizon, it would shrink to a dot and then eventually seem to vanish as it moves beyond your visual range. Let me help you with this:

Sinking Ship.jpg

Hence, if you looked through your telescope and saw the left example, you do not have a flat Earth.. Period!.. If you looked through your telescope and saw the ship get smaller proportionally to the increase of distance between you and it, this to where it shrinks to a point at the vanishing point on the physical horizon, then you could argue the possibility of a flat Earth.. We don't observe the example on the right:

hqdefault.jpg

hull-down-03.png


Anyone can take a telescope and actually see that "no, the hull will not magically be restored".. The only time that effect has been known to happen is on a less than clear day where a ship hasn't yet reached over the physical horizon.. In those cases you could take a telescope to see what your naked eye could not see.. Sorry, but the Flat Earth theory, and as interesting as it is, is bunk.. It is fantasy.

[Kill4Me]

In battle of the beliefs which fall into the category whacky-as-fuck, flat earthers at least have better arguments for their whacky-as-fuck belief that the earth is flat than Christians have for their whacky-as-fuck belief in virgin birth and human resurrection...the latter is right up there with lizard people.