Post: #276

I look forward to your post. I am trying to wrap my head about ideas flat Earthists have about universe.

Post: #277

Quote: On flat Earth, it is geometrically impossible to see these two completely different skies, rotating in opposing directions around two different poles.

Google "star trails" to see thousands of photo and video examples from around the world, and the star rotation direction always corresponds with the polar hemisphere. From the Equator, you can see stars rotating simultaneously around both, opposite poles. Here is a 360 degree panoramic timelapse showing stars simultaneously rotating clockwise and counter-clockwise-

among others


https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-fl...lse.t7148/

Post: #278

(03-26-2017 01:55 PM)syrianguy Wrote:  If you watch [Dubay] live on skype interviews like his latest one with Eddie Bravo you will realize how fast on his feet he is.

Inferring a lower intelligence because of a worldview someone adopts is exactly how the Left orchestrates character assassination with name tags: global warming deniers, holocaust denier, racist, islamophobe, ect...

I don't think of "average" intelligence as "lower" intelligence. I would have said "lower" if that's what I meant. By "extremely" average intelligence, all I meant was that I sense his IQ is very close to the median, not just anywhere within a standard deviation of it.

Now, this is no bad thing. Average intelligence will take a man very far if he's willing to teach himself things and strive for mastery. Such is my impression of Dubay.

However, some of his own arguments (e.g. Many of his "200 Proofs" for FE) are quite simple-minded. That's why I called him uncritical. He's a well-read contrarian and a fervent evangelist, and therefore effective and impressive. But he's no thought leader.

As for the Left's practice of using lower intelligence to denigrate those with whom they disagree, they aren't consistent with this; if they're debating an extremely high-IQ opponent who isn't as educated as they, they'll instead say that it's because he's uneducated. When up against an intelligent AND educated man, they'll say his opinion is invalid because he's male. If he's White, his opinion is invalid because he doesn't recognize that it comes from a place of privilege. If he's Black, he doesn't realize he's an Uncle Tom trying to curry favor with Whites. There's no end to it all. SJWs Always Lie.

I, however, am trying to be as objective as one can be. I judged Dubay' s intelligence not because of his position, but because of how he articulates it and how he fails to notice some plainly bad deductions that he propounds. I regret that the tone of my earlier comment didn't portray that.

Post: #279

Question regarding the other planets that I haven't seen the FE proponents bring up: do they rotate visibly? I mean, we always see the same side of the moon, but have we not seen Mars, Saturn, etc rotate? How do they tell us the angles of the planets' axes unless they've seen rotation? If we have seen these things, it would seem like a fairly fatal blow to the "points of light" explanation.

Post: #280

We can clearly see that the moon is a rock, what is the explanation that it is a source of light and not reflecting the suns light?

@Hoser

A 30 second google search got me plenty of results, such as

Post: #281

Once again - disclaimer here:
These are not my theories, nor am I saying they are the truth.
However, I do read about what explanations flat earth proponents have for the following phenomena.

Part 1 of 2

Things seen through Telescopes:

Firstly, flat earth proponents claim that there is no "outer space" as we know it and therefore satellites, space stations (and anything else that is claimed to be in space) is not actually what we are told.

With telescopes they say that most lenses in telescopes are cuved which already gives a distorted view of what you are looking at. They claim this makes things like planets appear more round than they actually are. Secondly, they state that what you see through a telescope may not be the thing NASA states is actually what you are looking at. Some examples:


A star up close with a high powered zoom camera







Venus as seen through a telescope:





A satellite as seen through a telescope:





The international space station as seen through a telescope:





Now in all these cases I want you for a minute to put aside everything that school, modern science and NASA has taught you for a moment, and simply think about - what am I actually looking at ?

What are your eyes actually showing you ?

You will notice that in all cases the images are blurry, slightly out of focus, flickering and "moving".

According to some flat earth theories the flat earth is covered by a firmament dome and outside that firmament is water and inside (or above that water) are flickering lights. They claim that when you are looking at anything through a telescope you are actually looking at something either inside or above this water. Imagine either being in a swimming pool and opening your eyes underwater and trying to make out what things are outside the pool without actually ever being to get out of the water. Or alternatively imagine seeing something glowing in the water without being able to actually go inside the water to look at it closer.

More conspiracy minded flat earth proponents state that the various space agencies since the 1950s have known that the number of these tiny flickering lights in the sky is actually increasing year by year and in order to hide their actual orgins, they build satellites that look similiar to them in shape and size. So, following this outlandish theory in the case of the International Space station they found this weird shaped huge "light" in the sky many years ago and then built a huge machine that looks as similiar as possible to it. They also know when these lights or stars will fall to earth and for the bigger stuff they time the destruction of the space station when they know this flickering light will fall to earth. In fact the "expiry" date of the ISS keeps getting changed on a regular basis. NASA stated it will return to earth in 2020, then they said 2024, then they said it might be 2028.


Which brings me to another important space station.
How many of you remember the Russian space station called MIR ?
It was supposed to be in orbit above the earth from 1986 to 2001 until it was destroyed in a controlled descent over the pacific ocean.
Here is a video of the MIR space station falling to earth in March of 2001






Again, disregard what you have been told your whole life for a moment and ask yourself - what am I actually looking at here in this video ? What are my eyes actually showing me ? Is this really a space station falling to earth breaking up and burning in the atmosphere ? Or am I looking at something else ?

What really are these flickering lights in the sky which fall to earth sometimes ?

Part 2 to follow shortly.

Post: #282

Nice writeup, Merc! Much appreciated.

Post: #283

"More conspiracy minded flat earth proponents state that the various space agencies since the 1950s have known that the number of these tiny flickering lights in the sky is actually increasing year by year and in order to hide their actual orgins, they build satellites that look similiar to them in shape and size"

I'm afraid to ask how satellites are kept in the air according to FE theory?

Post: #284

Repo: assuming those pics of Mars aren't doctored (most flat-earthers will tell you they are, naturally) they are clear and convincing evidence for ball-shaped planets. Thanks for the upload.

Post: #285

"Gravity is actually density" is another FE claim that seems less and less likely the more I think about it.

My left and right foot are equally dense. Yet when I step on my own foot, it hurts. Using density theory, my feet, sharing density equilibrium, should be getting along just fine, and one should not be pressing hard into the other in a fight for the lower position. Even if this were somehow the case, the top foot should hurt almost as much as the lower foot.

It would be interesting to see someone describe this foot pain as a product of density disparity.

Post: #286

Part 2 of 2


Meteorites

Flat earth proponents state that so called meteor craters are all very suspicious because very often nothing or very little actually remains of the actual "rock" falling to earth. As an example here are 2 pictures of Meteor Crater Park in Winslow, Arizona:






Despite this enormous hole, very little remains of the actual rock that caused it. Where are the pieces of this rock ? So we are to believe that most of it broke up and burned in the atmosphere, while at the same time being told that it made such a large hole. Something doesn't make sense there.


The Russian Chelyabinsk meteor

In February of 2013 a meteor fell to earth over Russia and many films were made of it. It made bright flashes of light in areas that were quite dark, left a trail in the sky and created huge shockwaves that blasted out windows of entire buildings while people were in them. Luckily this was all captured on film live as it happened.

Here is a compilation of various videos of the Chelyabinsk meteor flying over Russia before crashing to earth.






And here is a video compilation of much of the damage to windows and buildings while people were inside them:






Despite all this destruction - the russian authorities said the meteor fell in a lake (Lake Chebarkul) and made a tiny (almost perfectly circular) hole and left almost no physical trace of itself.

This is the actual hole the Russians claim the meteor created on impact:




There was a CCTV camera that apprently captured the impact, but they only released still frames of the impact....not an actual moving video. In any case here is a compliation of the impact of the meteor. You don't see much.






Once again flat earth proponents will say - what are you actually looking at that is falling through the sky ? Is it really a burning rock that is breaking up in the atmosphere ? Or is it something else ? What are your eyes actually showing you ?



And, the 2 most important questions of all.

If there is no outer space, then what the hell are these blurry moving flickering lights we are seeing when we look through telescopes and high powered zoom cameras ?
And if these falling burning objects from the skies aren't space stations deorbiting and rocks (meteors) crashing to earth - then what the hell are they ?

Answer:

Angels and fallen angels


Once again - disclaimer here:
These are not my theories, nor am I saying they are the truth.
These are the explanations some flat earth theorists give and I find them worthy enough of discussion.

Post: #287

The Electric Universe theorists and scientists have quite a few things to say about craters' being formed by huge electric strikes. They're not flat-earthers, but they, too, come up with some fascinating explanations of how various phenomena might work in ways other than how mainstream science embraces. I recommend to anyone who's a truth hunter: look into it.

Craters:





EU explained more thoroughly (by a Huge Name in applied physics). Note that he's interviewed on a Christian (anti-FE) program:

Post: #288

"Answer:

Angels and fallen angels
"

Further down the rabbit hole, the next logical statement would be is this really worthy given that pieces of asteroids actually exist, but pieces of angles don't?

Not to mention, planets we can view (which according to FE'rs are not actualy planets) have craters too, so I suppose angles are just crashing all over?

Post: #289

(03-26-2017 09:47 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:16 PM)911 Wrote:  On being patronized: I guess that's my engineering background speaking.
I attended one of the top universities in the world, and that kind of training
gives you a strong sense of confidence when arguing
bout basic scientific facts. You're very knowledgeable on
many subjects Merc, and have made great contributions
on the JFK thread, but you're a bit out of your element here
due to your lack of a training in physics, maths and science.

As well, how can I not be patronizing when I have
these guys on my side, some of the greatest minds in history:

...and you have this guy here as the brain trust on your side?

More condescending language toward me.

Let's see now 911....you have taken Newton, Galileo and other famous scientific minds on your side in this debate, falsely accused me of supporting Dubay who I have never mentioned in my posts, claimed an engineering background and supposed top university education, while also repeatedly stating you want to "help me" not be misled by false controlled opposition conspiracies.

Yet, at the same time, I notice you read, support, and repeatedly link on RVF to the articles and thoughts of one of the most fanatical notorious conspiracy theorists out there known as Henry Makow.

Henry Makow ?
Really 911 ?
The jew who left judaism ?

Henry makow, the man who claims the beatles were illuminati controllers, and jews secretly worship satan, thinks science is masonic mind control, and physics is fake & gravity is a figment of Newtonian disinformation, and also believes the limo driver (William Greer) shot JFK ?

But of course, Makow also claims that Flat Earth is a Judeo Masonic (Satanic) Psy Op and that the flat earth propaganda is also run by the same illuminati who probably controlled the beatles in the 1960s.

911, you have directly linked to (nutjob ? shill ?) Henry Makow on no less than 7 different occasions:

/thread-53350...pid1277054

/thread-53210...pid1294877

/thread-56789...pid1339363

/thread-56944...pid1344783

/thread-56894...pid1345514

/thread-57972...pid1384529

/thread-61920...pid1536538


I'm glad you have a top tier scientific education 911...might want to brush up on your classical education sometimes. I suggest starting with the myth of Icarus, who got his wings burnt when he tried to reach the sun because of his own excessive hubris, which is what will happen to you if you continue claiming the moral & rational scientific high ground in this debate while repeatedly insulting people who disagree with you.

You are religous 911 - am I right ?
You know that excessive pride is one of the 7 deadly sins.

Merc, you're right about the moral high ground being a more subjective notion, but the scientific high ground is not, at least when it comes to such a basic, elementary notion as Flat freakin Earth. This is not a debate with two sides, it's just isn't. There is a petition with 9,000 PhDs who are skeptic about global warming, but nothing anywhere for flat earth. I mean not even a dozen! Just a bunch of people with no scientific expertise.

I'm proud of my scientific background, but also humble enough to recognize that we only know a small fraction of the world around us, which is far more complex than we can imagine (that's the problem with people like Richard Dawkins). This debate however falls well within the confines of elementary newtonian mechanics, which I've spent countless hours mastering.

I ask you if you can put your own pride in check, and acknowledge your own weak spots, and view this as a valuable learning opportunity, instead of taking things personal. You have to be humble enough to work through your weak areas. You need to get yourself out of this flat earth psyop in which you are trapped, it's basically a destructive cognitive infiltration tool that is used against us. See how for example Obama has used it, comparing global warming "deniers" to flat earth believers. This is very effective NLP rhetoric for the great majority of people....

Quote:Henry makow, the man who claims the beatles were illuminati controllers, and jews secretly worship satan, thinks science is masonic mind control, and physics is fake & gravity is a figment of Newtonian disinformation, and also believes the limo driver (William Greer) shot JFK ?

But of course, Makow also claims that Flat Earth is a Judeo Masonic (Satanic) Psy Op and that the flat earth propaganda is also run by the same illuminati who probably controlled the beatles in the 1960s.

His take on flat earth as a psyop is prettty solid:
https://www.henrymakow.com/2016/02/Flat-...Psyop.html

Makow doesn't bat 1000, but he's a very sharp dude with a solid grasp on many important issues related to social engineering. Him being Jewish should not be a knock, to the contrary, you have to give mad props to a guy who is based and righteous enough to be very critical of his own background.

His approach and rhetoric are however pretty clumsy from a layman's perspective, people will be put off by his rampant use of radioactive terms like "illuminati" and "satanic", even though these terms do carry a lot of truth in them.

The other problem with his approach is that he lacks a bit of nuance. All the issues he raises have some validity, but sometimes he overreaches. Take for example the Beatles: Coleman claimed that Theodore Adorno wrote their entire repertoire, which is of course not true. What is true however is that the Beatles, like many of their contemporaries (Grateful Dead, the Doors, the Byrds), were handled and promoted by social engineering experts connected with the Tavistock Institute, and some of their texts were written for them.

Joseph Atwill makes a much better case of this, showing how for example "I Am The Walrus" is a British masonic hymn celebrating the extermination of the Boers and the Irish could not have been written by Lennon or McCartney. As did Dave McGowan, who studied the connections between the 1960s California counterculture and the deep state. They both make a damn good case about pop music being used as a social engineering and cultural debasement tool against us. Cutting edge, compelling maverick research.

Makow's take on the sientific dictatorship is pretty interesting too, he doesn't say that science itself is masonic mind control, but that it's being intrumentalized against the masses. One example of this would be the co-option of academia, the media and the scientific community to push for controls on the population through the irrational fear of global warming. If you think this subject is tinfoil territory, you've got some research to do there, instead of being diverted into the dead end of flat earth.

Post: #290

Damn, do I ever need to have beers with you guys.

Post: #291

(03-26-2017 05:49 PM)Repo Wrote:  A 30 second google search got me plenty of results, such as

I'm not sure if that is the way Mars looks through a normal telescope. I might be wrong, but I need to find more reliable images.

(03-26-2017 06:10 PM)Repo Wrote:  I'm afraid to ask how satellites are kept in the air according to FE theory?

Under the flat earth theory no satellites are actually sent into the air. Some are actually built, but wind up in museums. Most others are just fake photos.

There are supposed to be thousands of satellites, floating around the earth RIGHT NOW, yet neither the international space station, nor NASA pictures of the earth, ever show a single one of them.

(03-26-2017 08:12 PM)Repo Wrote:  Further down the rabbit hole, the next logical statement would be is this really worthy given that pieces of asteroids actually exist, but pieces of angles don't?

Not to mention, planets we can view (which according to FE'rs are not actualy planets) have craters too, so I suppose angles are just crashing all over?

Can you see these craters on other planets with a telescope ?
Are you sure they are actually craters and not something else ?

Angels is one theory. Giant fireballs is another theory.

Sure "pieces" of asteroids exist...as do "pieces" of the cross from Jesus.
You can believe what you want

I don't know what the small remnants they find at craters actually may be...but here is 1 example where a classical education will give you more insight than a scientific one:



The Grand Mosque at Mecca is built round the Kaaba (the cube shaped structure in the centre covered by a cloth) which inside it holds a small piece of a black stone believed to have come down from the heavens. This stone was already being worshipped at that site way before islam started. One of those pre islamic groups was the Nabataeans. Apparently, the original black stone was much bigger and has been broken into smaller and smaller pieces over the years.

Apparently in September 2015, during digging in, around and beneath the Grand Mosque, they found more remnants of this stone. The discovery and removal of these new pieces coincided with the giant crane collapse by the mosque on 11th of September 2015 which killed over 100 people, and the "stampede" (which is rumored not to have been a stampede at all) 13 days later on the 24th of September 2015 which killed more than 2000 people.

Post: #292

If we go the route of fallen angels, than this are the questions I have:

- Fallen like they sinned so the literally fall to Earth?

- What happens to them when they enter through the firmament and are seen as lights?

- Are angels also tiny dots that move across the sky I see almost every night? So no airplanes, but single dots that move?

Btw, when you said "ask yourself - what am I actually looking at here in this video ? What are my eyes actually showing me" I thought more of an holograms from Earth that put these pictures on the firmament than angels, but angels are more interesting in any case haha.

Post: #293

(03-27-2017 02:27 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  If we go the route of fallen angels, than this are the questions I have:

- Fallen like they sinned so the literally fall to Earth?

- What happens to them when they enter through the firmament and are seen as lights?

- Are angels also tiny dots that move across the sky I see almost every night? So no airplanes, but single dots that move?

A scholar of theology would tell you this:

1.
The "angels" either fell to earth cause:

a) They sinned or rebelled against God or "the Gods" and were cast out of heaven and down to earth to become demons.
b) They were demons who were flying up and trying to get back into heaven and were cast back down when they got too high and close to the firmament. This is probably where something like the greek myth of Icarus flying too close to the sun orginated.

2.
No, the lights you see are angels who either were always there or earned the right to be there. You can only get through the firmament by the grace of God or "the Gods"...not by breaking through. Meaning you have to earn it. But also at the same time be humble about whether you actually deserve it. That doesn't stop however Satan (who was a former angel) and his legion of demons from trying to break back into heaven anyway.

On a related note all major religions and old world mythologies speak of an end time when the world will end.

See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_time

In many of these prophecies, the end of the world comes when thousands of stars (angels ? demons ? satellites ?) all fall down to earth at the same time.


3. I don't know what tiny dots you mean...you will need to be more specific about what you see.

Post: #294

Interesting coincidence to ponder for those inclinced to see things in a spirtual manner:


The cross of the Christian Orthodox church:




Multiple shots of the international space station as seen through a telescope





Very old church mosiac of the Christian Orthodox cross held by Christ near the firmament:

Post: #295

If we go route of the science, tiny dots are satellites. I can observe them because I live outside the city, in the village where there is no light polution. Also I can see every time plane flies over my house in the night.

Also, interesting art from the church at Kosovo. See upper left and right corners. Mural was made between 1327 and 1335.

Post: #296

Indeed, flat earth is a religion.

In that regard you have hit the nail on the head.

Post: #297

(03-27-2017 12:54 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  There are supposed to be thousands of satellites, floating around the earth RIGHT NOW, yet neither the international space station, nor NASA pictures of the earth, ever show a single one of them.

You literally just posted a picture of the international space station from Earth.

A quick google search brought up this site, which has some amateur photos as well as one's taken by pros. If I spent more time, I'm sure I could find hundreds of pics just like the ones here.

http://www.space.com/40-spotting-spaceships-earth.html

(03-27-2017 12:54 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  Can you see these craters on other planets with a telescope ?
Are you sure they are actually craters and not something else ?

Angels is one theory. Giant fireballs is another theory.

Well you can see the moons, yes, and giant fireballs are somehow something different from asteroids?

Post: #298

(03-27-2017 03:33 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  Interesting coincidence to ponder for those inclinced to see things in a spirtual manner:

There is nothing spiritual about seeing similarities between crosses and various objects like space stations.

This is why these stupid theories exist - Mercenary you are among people who have no ability to perceive what is spirituality, therefore you interpret material symbols of the spiritual as other material things - because you don't experience the spiritual aspect of life per se.

Spirituality is about the inner workings of human soul - it's not about outer events of falling angels, aliens, ufos and flat earths.

You don't have the introspection to live spiritual life and therefore you externalize spiritual texts, icons and teachings and try to find material objects that would fit these externalizations.

Creation of world in seven days, Original sin, casting out of Paradise, Giants walking the earth, great flood, exodus for Egypt, the Promised land, wars against Amalek -these are all stories about creation of the human soul and it's transformation from animalistic trough mundanely human to divine.

Everything you have read in Bible is real - but it is not outside you - it's inside.

The easiest to understand is probably exodus from Egypt - even some Christian scholars understand that it is all about fleeing of what is Divine in you (Israel) form gross material comfort (Egypt) trough the asceticism (desert) to the promised land (union with God). it's not a historical event, even if it has some parallels to real history. It is clearly not a scientific text about the external material world.

Mundane people waste a lot of time excavating deserts and Red sea arguing whether this happened - missing the point that this is not about history or science but it is about spirituality.

Everything in OT has explanation like that including the mentions of firmament and other things that materialist creationist and flat earth Christians who think they are spiritual, but actually only understand material things seek to find in material world. You want a physical firmanent behind which you would have a physical giant good looking at us like a giant professor to a hill of ants? You call that spirituality? Don't you have shame? Why don't you take a look inside you for God, angels and demons?

You are chasing ghosts during day when there is none to avoid facing true spirits at night when you sleep, but should be awake and vigilant.

Post: #299

I've been watching several Joe Rogan clips recently, and a theme he has talked about which fascinates me is these fake martial arts instructors who actually start to believe what they are teaching. Here is an example:





I think examples like this go to prove the power of the mind, and how smart people are not immune either, since that just means their mind will work that much harder to convince them the truth they want to believe is in fact true. I think these two topics have alot in common, but maybe a more in depth discussion deserves its own thread.[/php]

Post: #300

(03-27-2017 03:01 PM)Repo Wrote:  You literally just posted a picture of the international space station from Earth.

A quick google search brought up this site, which has some amateur photos as well as one's taken by pros. If I spent more time, I'm sure I could find hundreds of pics just like the ones here.

http://www.space.com/40-spotting-spaceships-earth.html


Well you can see the moons, yes, and giant fireballs are somehow something different from asteroids?

Fireballs aren't necessarily a giant stone coming towards earth. That's the difference. It's just fire without the stone.

I think you misunderstood my point regarding the space station, or maybe I didn't make it clear enough.
My point is that what you see through the telescope never looks like what they are telling you is there.

I had a look at the photos of that website you linked....the "satellites" just look like blurry blobs on a black background.
The space station images we see through a telescope don't have enough detail enough to prove that's what I'm really looking at.

When we look at the official space station photos from NASA, all the supposed thousands of satellites orbiting earth (and often the stars themselves) are always missing from the background.