SH Archive When does it start to curve?

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schweizer
Date: 2018-10-06 06:56:07
Reaction Score: 2

Well after the 10th beer the curvature starts to kick-in .

Just mentioning how can we trust measurements, when a mile is not a mile and a kilometer is not a kilometer?

There is another massive rabbit hole to be explored called measurements.

This guy has some hard proven facts

 

[Onijunbei]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Onijunbei
Date: 2018-11-10 02:53:56
Reaction Score: 3

With a radius of 4000 miles and a circumference of 25000 miles, for some strange reason people expect to see huge amounts of curvature from balloons that are floating up to 90000 feet... 17 miles

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Npcghost
Date: 2018-12-30 06:23:25
Reaction Score: 3

For determining earths shape, Line of sight tests are notoriously unreliable. Light traveling over a body of water next to land such as that, for instance, is subject to a fairly steep gradient of air temperature, and refraction can't be ruled out unless the experimenters also set up meters to measure humidity and temperature at different heights down the path.

What is needed is a physical test done with a solid object. The best suggestion I've heard of thus far involves a neutrally buoyant fishing line suspended in a trench of water stretching 1000m +, and probably more to rule out margin or error. When the line is pulled taut and theoretically straight, it will be higher in the center than the ends if earth is concave, lower is it's a globe, and flush with the water line if it's flat.

An extremely stable environment would be needed however due to the temperature fluctuations in the water causing micro currents, which over such a great distance can easily sway the results. Getting the line perfectly buoyant by adjusting the salinity of the water is no small feat either. You'd need wind shelter as well.

My idea was simply to use a series of scales set up at the same height a line is hoisted to measure the downward force on a line and hence determine if the section is higher or lower than the ends. Instead of fighting nature and trying to make a line straight over great distance through tension (near impossible) you reverse engineer the problem and start with a limp line. As you pull the ends you measure the change in weight on the scales in the center. If the weight is reduced. It means the line is getting pulled up in the center hence earth is concave. If the weight increases it means the line is being pulled down and hence a globe. If it's unchanged the weight stays the same and earth is flat.

Jeran of Jeranism channel had a bloke do this test, or talked of it in the works...don't know if they went ahead.

With a radius of 4000 miles and a circumference of 25000 miles, for some strange reason people expect to see huge amounts of curvature from balloons that are floating up to 90000 feet... 17 miles

In fairness and to provide balance, just watch these:

I would also add that trusting Discovery channel for accurate information would be like using snopes and wikipedia for fact-checking.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: freezetime26
Date: 2018-12-30 12:53:16
Reaction Score: 0

i still think a physical test is the best thing we could do, light is too unrealiable

The only good physical test it was done was the supposedly "rectilineator experiment" done by Cyrus Teed (Wildheretic.com talks about it), but it has been done only one or two times, its not completely reliable, and nobody have found the blueprints of that instrument to build it. Like Primal Red said, we should use scales and measure the weight (However i dont understand 100% his experiment).

 

[TH Dialectic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: TH Dialectic
Date: 2018-12-30 17:32:37
Reaction Score: 9

Discovery Science on this video says it all, lol. Them guys in the OP video hit their target at 10 miles, and these hired actors used 3 miles and some weird scientific phenomena where laser beam does not bend, but the rest of the light does. How convenient. Funny what some people would do to prove that the Earth is actually spherical.

At this rate we are going to see holograms of the declining in a porcupine manner highrises at a distance.

Problem is people would rather listen to "The Discovery Channel" over their own senses. I urge people to use their senses and understand we live on a flat stationary plane.

Amateurs have sent balloons to heights of over 121,000 feet and you can watch video online of the horizon rising with the camera-level and remaining perfectly flat 360 degrees around. NASA videos and other “official” sources, however, such as the recent Red Bull skydive at 128,000 feet have been caught adding fake curvature to the Earth via wide-angle lenses and post-production work. Panoramic photos atop Mount Everest also often claim to be displaying Earth’s curvature, but this is simply the result of distortions and limitations inherent in wide-angle lenses. I have exposed the full extent of NASA’s camera trickery and doctored CGI sphere Earth pictures/videos here, here and here.




TH

 

[Onijunbei]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Onijunbei
Date: 2018-12-31 16:04:54
Reaction Score: 6

I use my own senses every day. I'll just stick my 2 cents in here.

I drive 650 miles a day.
On a flat plane like say Kansas I can't see past 4 miles down the road, and it has nothing to do with line of sight because I can see mountain ranges far away while driving in Colorado.

Im in a different time zone every other day. Between talking to family members and watching videos coming out of Japan the Sun is always in a different position. But it never disappears for the earth.. At the same time no one at the equator can see the sun at the same time as people on the other side of the earth.

If one lives in Alaska the sun is out 24 hours a day for months and then its not out for months. This can only occur if the earth is a sphere tipped on an axis. With the earth traveling to a different position.

There are different constellations at different positions. Those in the far northern hemisphere can't see constellations only appearing in the far southern hemisphere.. Because the earth is a sphere with hemi spheres.

The ancient Greeks figured out the circumference of the earth to within 200 miles... Cant have a circumference without at least a circle.
Airlines travel in jet streams. They can't exist without a sphere.
If the earth was flat there would have to be a worldwide conspiracy for every single airline pilot to hush up about it.

Maps
The reason why there are so many different types of projections and lineation is because of the difficulty in making the distances and degrees of a sphere fit on a flat plane...

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: BrokenAgate
Date: 2018-12-31 19:04:45
Reaction Score: 2

I just wish someone would go to the very edge of this supposed flat, circular Earth and take some pictures. How hard could that possibly be, in a world dominated by mass transportation, mass communication, and technological wonders? Just take a camera, go out there on a boat, take some pics, post them all over the Internet.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Deleted_x7
Date: 2018-12-31 22:20:59
Reaction Score: 1

Onijunbei, your post reminded me of a very important firsthand experience of my own regarding all this that I had all but forgotten about!

how we used to find our way back home while exploring the forests on dirtbikes when I was growing up on Georgia before all the developments taking over the freedoms we had back then.

without GPS and even a compass sometimes we would go exploring in areas with no trails at all, just roaming through the woods in whatever direction was needed to navigate the natural terrain of the forests. we were usually between (guessing) 15 to 50 miles away from this big rock:

called 'Stone Mountain', this image show the wide side of it, it was much narrower looking at it from southeast than the southwest which is where we were always roaming about. we also had two smaller huge rocks in the area to go by before one was completely removed/destroyed for the granite. it took years but now sadly, its gone.

when we would get lost in the woods I could usually climb up a tree depending on the immediate hills or find a tree I could climb up that had a good line of sight to these big rocks so that I would know what direction to head in to get back out of the woods. lol

thing is, I remember very well the times I could see only the top sometimes, then other times in different place most of it or sometimes none of it but one of the smaller ones and other times could not see one or the other, etc.

now that I think about it all these years later, this way out of the woods would have never shown the rocks lower and/or gone if the earth was flat! I remember those experiences fondly because I always felt in touch with my ancestors when I climbed those trees because I instinctively knew that that is how they would have navigated those forests so long ago on foot.

anyway, thanks for posting! I have been looking for ways to figure flat or round all by myself (DIY) eliminating any secondhand hearsay or using calculations/tools and had completely forgotten my own previous firsthand experience of back then!

I had already contemplated it and used the last full solar eclipse as firsthand experience to prove to myself oneway or the other and was content with round as I mentioned in the other thread but now, with only my firsthand experience it is beyond the shadow of any doubt that it is NOT flat.

thanks!

 

[TH Dialectic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: TH Dialectic
Date: 2018-12-31 22:51:07
Reaction Score: 13

I use my own senses every day. I'll just stick my 2 cents in here.

I drive 650 miles a day.
On a flat plane like say Kansas I can't see past 4 miles down the road, and it has nothing to do with line of sight because I can see mountain ranges far away while driving in Colorado.

Im in a different time zone every other day. Between talking to family members and watching videos coming out of Japan the Sun is always in a different position. But it never disappears for the earth.. At the same time no one at the equator can see the sun at the same time as people on the other side of the earth.

If one lives in Alaska the sun is out 24 hours a day for months and then its not out for months. This can only occur if the earth is a sphere tipped on an axis. With the earth traveling to a different position.

There are different constellations at different positions. Those in the far northern hemisphere can't see constellations only appearing in the far southern hemisphere.. Because the earth is a sphere with hemi spheres.

The ancient Greeks figured out the circumference of the earth to within 200 miles... Cant have a circumference without at least a circle.
Airlines travel in jet streams. They can't exist without a sphere.
If the earth was flat there would have to be a worldwide conspiracy for every single airline pilot to hush up about it.

Maps
The reason why there are so many different types of projections and lineation is because of the difficulty in making the distances and degrees of a sphere fit on a flat plane...

In regards to you not being able to see past 4 miles in Kansas, a survey conducted by the American Geographical Society.

The pancake was scored as 0.957, which the researchers said is “pretty flat, but far from perfectly flat.” The value for Kansas, meanwhile was ~0.9997, or “damn flat,” as they said. “Simply put, our results show that Kansas is considerably flatter than a pancake,” the team concluded.
http://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58976/kansas-really-flatter-pancake

These findings have been replicated numerous times.

Bolivian Salt Flats

Over 4000 square miles.

Salar de Uyuni (or Salar de Tunupa)[1] is the world's largest salt flat, at 10,582 square kilometers (4,086 sq mi). It is in the Daniel Campos Province in Potosí in southwest Bolivia, near the crest of the Andes and is at an elevation of 3,656 meters (11,995 ft) above sea level.[2]

Salar de Uyuni - Wikipedia

10 Places Flatter Than a Pancake

Excuse the RedBull sophistry.

"It's easy to laugh at our ancestors for thinking the world was flat. But looking at these places, you can see why. The horizon goes on and on, endlessly. The vast, empty spaces have been known to make otherwise stable human beings go mad, even believe they’re not moving at all. Others have used them to drive, well, flat-out. We straightened some of the flattest regions of planet earth and listed them below."
https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/mysterious-places-part-5

"Back to Kansas Dorethy"... (sorry, had to be done)

Astronomers claim we are living on an spinning ball 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference with a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on.

If we wish to prove or disprove the validity of the claim, it is a few straight-forward calculations.

Assuming you are some sort of long distance driver you would be around 6 feet above the floor. I have done a few calculations to show you how crazy these spherical claims actually are.



4 miles is 21120 feet.



Your eye height as seen above is roughly 6 feet. The distance of the target (4 miles) is 21120 feet.

You can see that the distance to the horizon should be 2.999547 miles. So basically 3 miles should be where the supposed globe starts to curve away causing you to be unable to see your target at 4 miles away.



But guess what, you can see 4 miles. You are right, you can absolutely see 4 miles. On a clear day people have observed objects in the distance at over 20 / 30 miles.

Another example, the distance across the Irish Sea from the Isle of Man’s Douglas Harbor to Great Orm’s Head in North Wales is 60 miles. If the Earth was a globe then the surface of the water between them would form a 60 mile arc, the center towering 1944 feet higher than the coastlines at either end! It is well-known and easily verifiable, however, that on a clear day, from a modest altitude of 100 feet, the Great Orm’s Head is visible from Douglas Harbor. This would be completely impossible on a globe of 25,000 miles. Assuming the 100 foot altitude causes the horizon to appear approximately 13 miles off, the 47 miles remaining means the Welsh coastline should still fall an impossible 1472 feet below the line of sight!



As soon as you put their tried and tested maths to the test it's absolutely laughable.

The Stars
As far as your point about the constilations go, you do understand that constrlilations have been the same for as far back as, well who knows! They dont move, the movement shoukd be easily visable after 6 months. Look at how ridiculous the calim is when broken down even further.

“If the earth is at a given point in space on say January 1st, and according to present-day science, at a distance of 190,000,000 miles from that point six months afterwards, it follows that the relative position and directions of the stars will have greatly changed, however small the angle of parallax may be. THAT THIS GREAT CHANGE IS NOWHERE APPARENT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, incontestably proves that the earth is at rest - that it does not move in an orbit round the sun.”
Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (67)

Again looking at the sky has no relevance to the measurment of terra firma. It would be like sitting in your car and looking at the circular speedometer and making an assumtion that the car is the same shape.

I would like to draw you back to these simple points.

Water doesnt have the abiltiy to support its own weight. It will always flow until it seeks level. No matter how much you scale this the properties dont change.

A positive pressure system cant coincide a negative vacuum without some form of solid speration. We would just all be sucked in to the never ending vacuum of theoretical space. would be like piercing a dioderant can and the internal pressure not escaping the can. Opposing pressure systems will always equalibriate.

Anyway, I would say Happy New Year but after flicking through a few posts on here who knows what day it is never mind year.

TH

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Deleted_x7
Date: 2018-12-31 23:06:58
Reaction Score: 1

HAHaha TH Dialectic is blinding me with psyence! all I can say is firsthand experience overcomes secondhand everytime. eliminate all the hearsay and work from there.

y'all might like this State of Confusion... er ah Kansas posting I recently posted here Etymology of Etymology? post #5


yes, its All about TIME

Happy Next Year!

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ripvanwillie
Date: 2019-01-01 06:51:44
Reaction Score: 16

I've been researching the hollow earth theory since 1992, and this problem always pop up. How does one prove the earth doesn't curve downward into a convex shape? Can we use light or water to measure the shape of the earth?

First, no one has ever been able to prove light moves in a straight line. We know it is a wave form, but laser lights are different, they move in a lock-step manner. But, it may bend with the curve of the atmosphere, if there is one, and there is no way to tell. That is why lasers can't prove the earth's shape. There is no straight object long enough to test them for accuracy. Even shooting them off the moon and back can't prove they are straight. It seems counter intuitive, but if you research it you'll find it to be true. They are straight as far our ability to see and test. But it can't be proven straight over a long enough span to measure the earth. But they can be proven to curve:
High-Intensity Lasers Throw Scientists a Curve

The second problem is water doesn't necessarily lie flat. Remember in chemistry class how they taught us to read the water level in a graduated cylinder? Water isn't flat all the way across the line. Anyone who spends much time at the beach can see how the ocean bulges and dips with time and weather. During stormy weather it looks very convex, other times it looks flat, or even concave when there are withdrawing tides. Sea level is an approximation. Again, there is no flat surface long enough to measure it against. Plus, experiments show us that water too is easily curved:
Bending water - static attraction | Experiments | Naked Scientists

Cyrus Teed's invention, the rectilineator, was an attempt to mechanically measure the curvature of the earth using square (right) angles. According to his reports, they showed the earth curves upward at approximately the same rate scientists say it curves down. Few believed him, and no one has ever tried the experiment since. But measuring water may not be an accurate method anyway, for the reasons stated above. You'll need to read the book to get his measurements:
The Cellular Cosmogony; Or, The Earth a Concave Sphere: Pt. I. The ...

Teed also made several visual tests on long, shallow canals that indicated the earth curves upward. Again, few took him seriously. It's in his book.

There are other experiments that have shown the earth to be concave, and others that indicate the earth doesn't spin.
Airy's water telescope, for example. Here's an early attempt to debunk it:
1937Obs....60..103H Page 103
The science ministers always come up with a story to cover them up or to apologize them away.

The Tamarack mine survey in Michigan is another good example. Once again, the test proved the earth to be concave, so what did they do? They made up some excuses about air currents in a different mine shaft, then sealed up the mines so no further testing could be done:
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/mcnair.htm

Also, FM radio waves suggest the earth cannot be a convex surface. Science has scrambled to find a couple of BS excuses to cover up the fact that in the early 20th century an FM signal was sent from Chicago to Monterrey, Mexico, over 1,100 miles! FM was quickly ditched until they could come up with an excuse. In the 1960's FM came back in a slightly different bandwidth, and soon, limits on power. Every FM signal in America now has a power limit to keep the signals from different stations from overlapping. This would not be necessary on a convex earth because the signals would simply fly off into space after a short distance. This is why FM signals are broadcast off high towers, to get them down to the level of earth with minimal obstructions.
The radio station XETRA-FM in Baja California isn't restricted by US laws, and broadcasts a 100,000 watt signal. It has been heard all up the coast of California and some claim past the Oregon border. Science apologists say it is bouncing off the ocean. But that would only work if the world were concave, as we're taught FM waves don't bounce off of the atmosphere. If they did, it would be easy for radio broadcasters to deflect the signal over hills and around buildings but they can't. FM always cuts out over hills and around tall buildings, ask anyone who lives in San Francisco, Los Angeles or any other major city. It is only the limits of the broadcast power that shortens their distance. But science ministers have fudged this giving certain "atmospheric conditions" the right to bend and deflect FM signals, just like water and light:
TV and FM DX - Wikipedia

They don't teach us about these things in college, or in broadcasting school. I learned it from the station engineer back when I worked in radio.

It's interesting how in the last few years the flat earth theory has made a comeback. There are some problems I see with that model, mostly pertaining to the stars in the southern hemisphere. But others don't see it that way. I think it's great people are thinking outside the boundaries set by the official scientific gate keepers.

The following video was shot with a fish-eye lens, hence the extreme distortion. The earth looks concave, while the sky appears convex. If we could remove the lens distortion, both the sky and the land would appear flat, like they d in real life. But, the polar star trails show the earth is a sphere. That simply can't happen on a flat earth. One pole yes, but not both. I've yet to see a reasonable explanation of this from a flat earth perspective.

I doubt the earth is flat, but it may be, we just can't tell with our senses. It's probably concave, but proving such a thing is like squaring the circle. The least plausible shape, in my opinion, is convex. It flies against the laws of physics, and none of their theories pass Occam's razors test to boot. Nothing but science fiction stories made for believers.

I've done a ton of research on this subject for many years, and I even went so far as going to film school to learn how to make documentaries so I can present this info to others. Now, much of the information and websites pertaining to this research are disappearing from the web. Most of what I saw 15-20 years ago has been buried by google and other popular search engines. And everyone I tell this to thinks I'm crazy, and refuses to look at the evidence with an open mind. And I mean everyone. Whenever one discovers more evidence, the science apologists make up some new story as to why the earth is spinning and no one has ever fallen off. Then they close the loop.

I guess that's what happens when you contradict the biggest religion in the new world, science.

 

[TH Dialectic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: TH Dialectic
Date: 2019-01-01 12:26:19
Reaction Score: 21

I've been researching the hollow earth theory since 1992, and this problem always pop up. How does one prove the earth doesn't curve downward into a convex shape? Can we use light or water to measure the shape of the earth?

First, no one has ever been able to prove light moves in a straight line. We know it is a wave form, but laser lights are different, they move in a lock-step manner. But, it may bend with the curve of the atmosphere, if there is one, and there is no way to tell. That is why lasers can't prove the earth's shape. There is no straight object long enough to test them for accuracy. Even shooting them off the moon and back can't prove they are straight. It seems counter intuitive, but if you research it you'll find it to be true. They are straight as far our ability to see and test. But it can't be proven straight over a long enough span to measure the earth. But they can be proven to curve:
High-Intensity Lasers Throw Scientists a Curve

The second problem is water doesn't necessarily lie flat. Remember in chemistry class how they taught us to read the water level in a graduated cylinder? Water isn't flat all the way across the line. Anyone who spends much time at the beach can see how the ocean bulges and dips with time and weather. During stormy weather it looks very convex, other times it looks flat, or even concave when there are withdrawing tides. Sea level is an approximation. Again, there is no flat surface long enough to measure it against. Plus, experiments show us that water too is easily curved:
Bending water - static attraction | Experiments | Naked Scientists

Cyrus Teed's invention, the rectilineator, was an attempt to mechanically measure the curvature of the earth using square (right) angles. According to his reports, they showed the earth curves upward at approximately the same rate scientists say it curves down. Few believed him, and no one has ever tried the experiment since. But measuring water may not be an accurate method anyway, for the reasons stated above. You'll need to read the book to get his measurements:
The Cellular Cosmogony; Or, The Earth a Concave Sphere: Pt. I. The ...

Teed also made several visual tests on long, shallow canals that indicated the earth curves upward. Again, few took him seriously. It's in his book.

There are other experiments that have shown the earth to be concave, and others that indicate the earth doesn't spin.
Airy's water telescope, for example. Here's an early attempt to debunk it:
1937Obs....60..103H Page 103
The science ministers always come up with a story to cover them up or to apologize them away.

The Tamarack mine survey in Michigan is another good example. Once again, the test proved the earth to be concave, so what did they do? They made up some excuses about air currents in a different mine shaft, then sealed up the mines so no further testing could be done:
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/mcnair.htm

Also, FM radio waves suggest the earth cannot be a convex surface. Science has scrambled to find a couple of BS excuses to cover up the fact that in the early 20th century an FM signal was sent from Chicago to Monterrey, Mexico, over 1,100 miles! FM was quickly ditched until they could come up with an excuse. In the 1960's FM came back in a slightly different bandwidth, and soon, limits on power. Every FM signal in America now has a power limit to keep the signals from different stations from overlapping, this would not be necessary on a convex earth because the signals would fly off into space after a short distance. This is why FM signals are broadcast off high towers, to get them down to the level of earth. The radio station XETRA-FM in Baja California isn't restricted by US laws, and broadcasts a 100,000 watt signal. It has been heard all up the coast of California and some claim past the Oregon border. Science apologists say it is bouncing off the ocean. But that would only work if the world were concave, as we're taught FM waves don't bounce off of the atmosphere. If they did, it would be easy for radio broadcasters to deflect the signal over hills and around buildings but they can't. FM always cuts out over hills and around buildings, and it is only the limits of the wattage that shortens their distance. But science ministers have fudged this giving certain "atmospheric conditions" the right to bend and deflect FM signals, just like water and light:
TV and FM DX - Wikipedia

They don't teach us about these things in college, or in broadcasting school. I learned it from the station engineer back when I worked in radio.

It's interesting how in the last few years the flat earth theory has made a comeback. There are some problems I see with that model, mostly pertaining to the stars in the southern hemisphere. But others don't see it that way. I think it's great people are thinking outside the boundaries set by the official scientific gate keepers.

I doubt the earth is flat, but it may be, we just can't tell with out senses. It's probably concave, but proving such a thing is like squaring the circle. The least plausible shape, in my opinion, is convex. It flies against the laws of physics, and their theories don't fit in with Occam's razor to boot. Nothing but science fiction stories.

I've done a ton of research on this subject for many years, and I even went so far as going to film school to learn how to make documentaries so I can present this info to others. Now, much of the information and websites pertaining to this research are disappearing from the web. Most of what I saw 15-20 years ago has been buried by google and other popular search engines. And everyone I tell this to thinks I'm crazy, and refuses to look at the evidence with an open mind. And I mean everyone. Whenever one discovers more evidence, the science apologists make up some new story as to why the earth is spinning and no one has ever fallen off. Then they close the loop.

I guess that's what happens when you contradict the biggest religion in new world, science.

I agree with you around science being religious programming, but on the other hand I can individually go through all of your links and explain their fallacious reasoning throughout but have a busy day ahead so will pick a few blatantly obvious lies and add some logic of my own to hopefully give you and anyone else interested a better understanding. I would advise you to look back through the links you attached after reading, hopefully will make a little more sense. I am confident you will be able to better understand the BS being fed from all mainstream science at the moment to protect their baby!

They are protecting their life’s work! Not everyone has to be in on one colossal lie against mankind. If as a child, I was told the sky was blue because there was a deep ocean above I would believe this. Again, if all of my friends believed this too they would go about their every day lives believing this to be the case. Then little Jimmy says, “I am going to look in to this for myself” and reads books and conducts his research he will conclude, “The sky is blue because we have a deep ocean that is at rest above our heads.”

These claims can’t be proven or disproven, they are simply claims. Can you see how this relates on to Astrophysics? Its all numbers on a black board. Numbers can mean anything, I have friends that have spent 10+ years looking at Einstein’s equations, for absolutely nothing other than ego and seeking “the truth” I will use that term loosely.



Imagine if it were released to the public all of the careers on the line. Astrophysicists, teachers and lecturers alike will all have to come to the conclusion that they have been given misinformation and would have to re learn everything again! All of the trillions that NASA have had over the years accounted for what? Beautiful CGI. The churches would unite in to some sort of religious rebellion.

We are right where they want us. DUMB and amazed by composite images of earth and amazing computer generated graphics of space. I used to personally love space, reading for hours on black holes and wormholes in space with possibilities of time travel!



That’s because I was young and dumb, a brainwashed robot listening to orders from my leaders and their predecessors. I fortunately uncovered the art of logic and rationale thought.

I am also a firm believer in Occam's razor as you mentioned. The simplest explanation is usually not that far away from the correct answer. I am a true follower of The Trivium, I don’t need any level scientific hierarchy imposing false dichotomies to define what constitutes the objective world. I can use my own senses and rational mind to make my own decisions. Logical decisions.

The Art of Logic

Thomas Reid - An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense (changed my life)

https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/reid1764.pdf
- PDF attached above.

“Let scholastic sophisters entangle themselves in their own cobwebs; I am resolved to take my own existence, and the existence of other things, upon trust; and to believe that snow is cold, and honey sweet, whatever they may say to the contrary. He must either be a fool, or want to make a fool of me, that would reason me out of my reason and senses.”
Thomas Reid

Although I doubt you will, you should give the above PDF a read. Thomas Reid opened my eyes, nose and other senses to the realities of our tangible world. No metaphysical exchange of thoughts, demonstrable proofs of the natural world. He breaks down our senses and how we use them. I will give you a few examples listed below to whet your appetite.

Common Sense

Common sense is a practical judgment concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to understand and judge. All people have five senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. These constitute to how we compute the world around us and create our own reality. Common sense is an aspect of human thinking that takes input from the five physical senses and forms a full concept.

If you were to take one of your senses and try to understand our natural world, unfortunately you would fail, impossible to tell a cup of coffee from a cup of Cola without either smelling of tasting. Sight isn’t enough evidence to make assumptions.



If me and you were in a bar drinking shots, and you were to grab your nose before consuming a tequila slammer, you wouldn't be able to taste anything. Until you release your hand from your nose then that noxious taste would start to burn the senses. Its impossible to understand what you are eating if your block the passage of air through your nose.

Imagine closing your eyes and being handed an object, lets say something generic like a type of plant. You would have to have ridiculous knowledge of plants to be able to tell me exactly what genus it is, never mind the specific plant.

Our senses run our reality we are all born with 5 senses, we use these senses every single minute of our conscious lives. Our morals, our thoughts, our interests, our hobbies, our passions absolutely everything is driven through the senses.

These are just a couple of examples, I’m sure you can think of a few more yourself. What I am trying to get at is that you don’t need any level of hierarchy imposing their will and thoughts on you, you have been blessed with these aforementioned senses, put them to use.

The scientific community has so many logical fallacies that when the penny finally does drop, you realise their axioms and assumptions are totally way off! Making extraordinary claims to a sadly in-extraordinary audience. The amount of apathy on show today by the general public is incredible. The internet has opened a lot of peoples eyes to the bullshit surrounding most government alphabet agencies, but continues to be the main propaganda machine when coming to "space exploration". Grown men are like children gawking at cartoons!



All of the documentaries, all of the images, all of the live streams. All cartoons! Google planets for example, beautiful cartoons appear.

IMHO videos and numbers on a blackboard unfortunately doesn't prove anything. Maths is a descriptor, its a formal language. You can be lied to in multitude of languages including mathematics and anyone that has seen any of the latest Hollywood space films will tell you, it looks pretty "real".

This is why we must apply some basic logic.

You mentioned lasers being used to measure? Then no one has ever been able to prove light moves in a straight lines?

IMO you have almost used a casual fallacy, tying two subjects together that nobody has any real knowledge or grounds in to come to the conclusion it must be convex or concave. I’m not sure if I am missing a point here? Well personally I know nothing about lasers and nothing about a "lock-step" manner and I’m certainly not confessing I know what we are actually living on. I think the sooner that people come to the reality of "we don’t actually know what the f**k we are living on" the sooner we actually get some answers. Some of these great minds can actually see past the misinformation they have been indoctrinated with and start to put their logic to use.


A few simple thoughts

If we are spinning at roughly 1000mph surely your internal balance system would be having to work pretty hard to keep you upright. The liquid in your ear that stays level to ensure you don't fall over would be also subsequently splashing around. I can only assume that it would replicate some sort of rollercoaster ride.

You want me to believe…

You want me to believe the flat horizon I see in front of me is actually curved?



You want me to believe the motionless Earth I feel beneath me is actually moving?



You want me to believe the two equal-sized circles I see above me are actually 400 times different size!??



You want me to believe two opposing pressure systems can coincide along one another in perfect harmony without replicating real life physics and the high pressure escaping our atmosphere into the never ending ether?



You want me to believe that a magical force called gravity has the ability to consciously decide what it holds to the Earth and what it doesn't hold to the earth?

How could gravity be so strong that it keeps people, buildings, ships and entire oceans stuck to the underside of a spinning globe, yet weak enough that smoke and steam, tiny birds and bugs can escape its grasp, and rise or fly with ease? How could gravity be so strong that it curves and holds the oceans onto a ball, yet weak enough that it doesn't slam a young chaps quiff to his forehead?

Surely density solves all these gravitational conundrums and helium proves it.

You want me to believe that water can magically bend, you mentioned water bending above. The sea does in fact swell yes, but that is due to air pressure and wind. - Swell (ocean) - Wikipedia
We also have meniscus water tension in a test tube for example on tiny tiny scales upon where water can support a slight convexity.



The link you provided about water bending. That is running water, so again a logical fallacy. We are talking about huge, vast standing bodies of water being curved in every direction away from you at 8inches per mile squared, its absolute lunacy.
"We have a tap running with heavy metal molecules being attracted to static from a balloon, we must live on a spinning ball"

That's a very hasty generalisation!

In every day life we can use hasty generalisation like "Its faster to drive to work than walk" or "The local red football team hates the blues!" but we can't use this logic when trying to understand the measurements of our cage.

Standing bodies of water do not magical start to bend when we upscale them. These so called "proofs" all involve running water.
Starting to see a trend?

Can you see how non of the above relate to Occam's razor?

I’m not professing to know what we are living on, I just know an impossibility when I see one, but the thing that needs to be realised is that, we have been fed that much bulls**t through News and propaganda, that its really difficult to actually come to the conclusion of, not knowing anything at all. The only thing we know is that of what we can experience, anything after that comes secondary as it can be manipulated. It’s simple really, have the sense and logic to understand your experience and understand the objective world around you.

"I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing" - Socrates - year.???

"Life is made up of nonsense, use your common sense, to discern the nonsense, or end up with no sense."

Anyway, thank you for the input. Have a great 2019.

Cheers

TH

 

[anotherlayer]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2019-01-01 13:34:21
Reaction Score: 6

I just wish someone would go to the very edge of this supposed flat, circular Earth and take some pictures. How hard could that possibly be, in a world dominated by mass transportation, mass communication, and technological wonders? Just take a camera, go out there on a boat, take some pics, post them all over the Internet.

Why can't NASA provide pictures of the earth? We should be buried under millions of pictures of earth. Where are they? Why is the proof on me?

 

[TH Dialectic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: TH Dialectic
Date: 2019-01-01 14:04:02
Reaction Score: 2

Why can't NASA provide pictures of the earth? We should be buried under millions of pictures of earth. Where are they? Why is the proof on me?

Exactly, the burden of proof is on them to explain their claims. Hiding behind beautiful CGI unfortunately doesn't cut it.

TH

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Deleted_x7
Date: 2019-01-01 19:18:31
Reaction Score: 1

your last post was pretty great TH Dialectic! reminds me of what the character of the matrix said "what is real?" (AKA what is natural?)

I tell ya what really helped me the most in cutting through all the BS of the main stream.. Law study! yes, but thats not why I started it. so I started to learn stuff like 'hearsay' 'rules of evidence' rules of court' etc., and even what is court, testimony, and on and on. it has really been the most mind expanding study of all, by far.

to hold any 'belief' requires a lack of knowledge (darkness) thats just how it works.

Im not sure why that Socrates is so often misquoted like this ""I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing" though? IIRC it was written more like this "I appear to be more intelligent than he because I do not think I know what I do not know" IOW hold onto beliefs.

Why can't NASA provide pictures of the earth? We should be buried under millions of pictures of earth. Where are they? Why is the proof on me?

we are each The ultimate authority of our on minds, true authority comes from within, if one looks without he has denied his own divinity. this has everything todo with The Law or to use another movie quote "The One", or as some dude named jesus allegedly said "I come not to destroy the law, but to Fulfill it" which is all hearsay from my perspective but much of what was written in that book is beyond any rebuttal in any court (meeting of minds). but it takes lots of Law study to 'overcome all the presumptions' (operation of Law)

Exactly, the burden of proof is on them to explain their claims. Hiding behind beautiful CGI unfortunately doesn't cut it.

yes.. sorta* ONUS PROBANDI Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia except consider this (what is real?) 'NASA' is not real, its a legal fiction that only exists in mans minds when it comes right down to it. all corporations are fictions.

fictions cant make claims or testify, they have no mouth, its only when a real man 'acts' as agent for the fictions that they come to life. but then that man has lowered his status from being into pre tending.

so its like asking a childs imaginary friend for proof of claim, this PRIMA FACIE PROBANDI that it is our own court (mind) that is incompetent. Prima facie - Wikipedia because what is imaginary (fiction), has no face in reality (what is real)


so is it flat or round, I have my own firsthand, real world experiences that proves it is round, I posted that experience here but to the readers it is technically hearsay. we could form a court of the folks in attendance, then the burden of proof would be upon me but Im confident I could recreate my earthly experience while having the proper and lawful bodies of two witnesses (so long as they are healthy and good climbers) in order to meet that burden of proof quite easily however thats not where we are at so it is upto each of us to 'test the spirits' of the words we read in whatever ways we can.

but if this whole FE psyop is consuming you, I highly suggest that what I have done in the real world is easily reproducible but it will take some effort. climbing tall tress is not all that easy. perhaps the city dwellers could recreate this way from various vantage points on/from manmade structures instead? I suspect so.

lets take each of our own authority seriously and responsibly here. start with formulating your own rules of evidence that all outer input must meet before it enters your court/mind. mine was next to nothing before I became a student of Law (not to be con fused with law student FWIW) now my rules of evidence are extremely strict. its like having a vicious guard dog at the gate of my garden. lol and my dog doesnt like media/music/tv/movies much either

hope that is helpful to someone and Happy Next Hour/Week/Month/Year (whatever) ;-)

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ripvanwillie
Date: 2019-01-01 20:06:41
Reaction Score: 8

I agree with you around science being religious programming, but on the other hand I can individually go through all of your links and explain their fallacious reasoning throughout but have a busy day ahead so will pick a few blatantly obvious lies and add some logic of my own to hopefully give you and anyone else interested a better understanding. I would advise you to look back through the links you attached after reading, hopefully will make a little more sense. I am confident you will be able to better understand the BS being fed from all mainstream science at the moment to protect their baby!

They are protecting their life’s work! Not everyone has to be in on one colossal lie against mankind. If as a child, I was told the sky was blue because there was a deep ocean above I would believe this. Again, if all of my friends believed this too they would go about their every day lives believing this to be the case. Then little Jimmy says, “I am going to look in to this for myself” and reads books and conducts his research he will conclude, “The sky is blue because we have a deep ocean that is at rest above our heads.”

These claims can’t be proven or disproven, they are simply claims. Can you see how this relates on to Astrophysics? Its all numbers on a black board. Numbers can mean anything, I have friends that have spent 10+ years looking at Einstein’s equations, for absolutely nothing other than ego and seeking “the truth” I will use that term loosely.

View attachment 14828

Imagine if it were released to the public all of the careers on the line. Astrophysicists, teachers and lecturers alike will all have to come to the conclusion that they have been given misinformation and would have to re learn everything again! All of the trillions that NASA have had over the years accounted for what? Beautiful CGI. The churches would unite in to some sort of religious rebellion.

We are right where they want us. DUMB and amazed by composite images of earth and amazing computer generated graphics of space. I used to personally love space, reading for hours on black holes and wormholes in space with possibilities of time travel!

View attachment 14827

That’s because I was young and dumb, a brainwashed robot listening to orders from my leaders and their predecessors. I fortunately uncovered the art of logic and rationale thought.

I am also a firm believer in Occam's razor as you mentioned. The simplest explanation is usually not that far away from the correct answer. I am a true follower of The Trivium, I don’t need any level scientific hierarchy imposing false dichotomies to define what constitutes the objective world. I can use my own senses and rational mind to make my own decisions. Logical decisions.

The Art of Logic

Thomas Reid - An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense (changed my life)

https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/reid1764.pdf
- PDF attached above.

“Let scholastic sophisters entangle themselves in their own cobwebs; I am resolved to take my own existence, and the existence of other things, upon trust; and to believe that snow is cold, and honey sweet, whatever they may say to the contrary. He must either be a fool, or want to make a fool of me, that would reason me out of my reason and senses.”
Thomas Reid

Although I doubt you will, you should give the above PDF a read. Thomas Reid opened my eyes, nose and other senses to the realities of our tangible world. No metaphysical exchange of thoughts, demonstrable proofs of the natural world. He breaks down our senses and how we use them. I will give you a few examples listed below to whet your appetite.

Common Sense

Common sense is a practical judgment concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to understand and judge. All people have five senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. These constitute to how we compute the world around us and create our own reality. Common sense is an aspect of human thinking that takes input from the five physical senses and forms a full concept.

If you were to take one of your senses and try to understand our natural world, unfortunately you would fail, impossible to tell a cup of coffee from a cup of Cola without either smelling of tasting. Sight isn’t enough evidence to make assumptions.

View attachment 14829

If me and you were in a bar drinking shots, and you were to grab your nose before consuming a tequila slammer, you wouldn't be able to taste anything. Until you release your hand from your nose then that noxious taste would start to burn the senses. Its impossible to understand what you are eating if your block the passage of air through your nose.

Imagine closing your eyes and being handed an object, lets say something generic like a type of plant. You would have to have ridiculous knowledge of plants to be able to tell me exactly what genus it is, never mind the specific plant.

Our senses run our reality we are all born with 5 senses, we use these senses every single minute of our conscious lives. Our morals, our thoughts, our interests, our hobbies, our passions absolutely everything is driven through the senses.

These are just a couple of examples, I’m sure you can think of a few more yourself. What I am trying to get at is that you don’t need any level of hierarchy imposing their will and thoughts on you, you have been blessed with these aforementioned senses, put them to use.

The scientific community has so many logical fallacies that when the penny finally does drop, you realise their axioms and assumptions are totally way off! Making extraordinary claims to a sadly in-extraordinary audience. The amount of apathy on show today by the general public is incredible. The internet has opened a lot of peoples eyes to the bullshit surrounding most government alphabet agencies, but continues to be the main propaganda machine when coming to "space exploration". Grown men are like children gawking at cartoons!

View attachment 14830

All of the documentaries, all of the images, all of the live streams. All cartoons! Google planets for example, beautiful cartoons appear.

IMHO videos and numbers on a blackboard unfortunately doesn't prove anything. Maths is a descriptor, its a formal language. You can be lied to in multitude of languages including mathematics and anyone that has seen any of the latest Hollywood space films will tell you, it looks pretty "real".

This is why we must apply some basic logic.

You mentioned lasers being used to measure? Then no one has ever been able to prove light moves in a straight lines?

IMO you have almost used a casual fallacy, tying two subjects together that nobody has any real knowledge or grounds in to come to the conclusion it must be convex or concave. I’m not sure if I am missing a point here? Well personally I know nothing about lasers and nothing about a "lock-step" manner and I’m certainly not confessing I know what we are actually living on. I think the sooner that people come to the reality of "we don’t actually know what the f**k we are living on" the sooner we actually get some answers. Some of these great minds can actually see past the misinformation they have been indoctrinated with and start to put their logic to use.


A few simple thoughts

If we are spinning at roughly 1000mph surely your internal balance system would be having to work pretty hard to keep you upright. The liquid in your ear that stays level to ensure you don't fall over would be also subsequently splashing around. I can only assume that it would replicate some sort of rollercoaster ride.

You want me to believe…

You want me to believe the flat horizon I see in front of me is actually curved?

View attachment 14831

You want me to believe the motionless Earth I feel beneath me is actually moving?

View attachment 14832

You want me to believe the two equal-sized circles I see above me are actually 400 times different size!??

View attachment 14833

You want me to believe two opposing pressure systems can coincide along one another in perfect harmony without replicating real life physics and the high pressure escaping our atmosphere into the never ending ether?

View attachment 14834

You want me to believe that a magical force called gravity has the ability to consciously decide what it holds to the Earth and what it doesn't hold to the earth?

How could gravity be so strong that it keeps people, buildings, ships and entire oceans stuck to the underside of a spinning globe, yet weak enough that smoke and steam, tiny birds and bugs can escape its grasp, and rise or fly with ease? How could gravity be so strong that it curves and holds the oceans onto a ball, yet weak enough that it doesn't slam a young chaps quiff to his forehead?

Surely density solves all these gravitational conundrums and helium proves it.

You want me to believe that water can magically bend, you mentioned water bending above. The sea does in fact swell yes, but that is due to air pressure and wind. - Swell (ocean) - Wikipedia
We also have meniscus water tension in a test tube for example on tiny tiny scales upon where water can support a slight convexity.

View attachment 14835

The link you provided about water bending. That is running water, so again a logical fallacy. We are talking about huge, vast standing bodies of water being curved in every direction away from you at 8inches per mile squared, its absolute lunacy.
"We have a tap running with heavy metal molecules being attracted to static from a balloon, we must live on a spinning ball"

That a very hasty generalisation!

In every day life we can use hasty generalisation like "Its faster to drive to work than walk" or "The local red football team hates the blues!" but we can't use this logic when trying to understand the measurements of our cage.

Standing bodies of water do not magical start to bend when we upscale them. These so called "proofs" all involve running water.
Starting to see a trend?

Can you see how non of the above relate to Occam's razor?

I’m not professing to know what we are living on, I just know an impossibility when I see one, but the thing that needs to be realised is that, we have been fed that much bulls**t through News and propaganda, that its really difficult to actually come to the conclusion of, not knowing anything at all. The only thing we know is that of what we can experience, anything after that comes secondary as it can be manipulated. It’s simple really, have the sense and logic to understand your experience and understand the objective world around you.

"I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing" - Socrates - year.???

"Life is made up of nonsense, use your common sense, to discern the nonsense, or end up with no sense."

Anyway, thank you for the input. Have a great 2019.

Cheers

TH

I'm not really sure what you are trying to tell me here. Maybe I wasn't real clear in my post. Some of the links I posted showed the excuses of science, not my beliefs. So, I think you missed the point of my post.

"I can individually go through all of your links and explain their fallacious reasoning throughout but have a busy day ahead so will pick a few blatantly obvious lies and add some logic of my own to hopefully give you and anyone else interested a better understanding."
To paraphrase, you basically said it was a bunch of rubbish and your time is too valuable to disprove it, so just take my word. That is a very arrogant position to take. You didn't take time to even read the links, so how can you oppose them with your own brand of "logic"? You obviously feel that you know more than me but you are not willing to put in the effort to back it up.
Blatant obvious lies, fallacious reasoning? This is how you communicate with others? I'm sorry, but that is just rude and tends to close a conversation rather than opening up for new information. I am not a liar, nor a fool, and don't appreciate being called one.

And, I must take offense to this comment: "Although I doubt you will, you should give the above PDF a read." Why would you assume that attitude with me, as we've never met or even had a conversation?

FYI, I have read it before, and I'm happy read it again. But when you state it in an insulting manner, why would anyone want to read you link?
I am always looking for ways to disprove the various theories as well as looking for info that support them. I want to know the truth, regardless of what it may be, or where it may come from. Much of what you stated, I agree with, why you've taken opposition, I don't know. I don't care if people believe what I write, and actually, I hope they don't. As I've said on other posts, I feel belief is a dangerous territory. I prefer to seek understanding. I hope others will as well.

So, I will ask you kindly, please re-read my post and try to understand it. Then if you disagree with any of my assertions, I am happy to read and respond to your reply. But I see no reason to try to shut others down or to sling insults. No one learns that way.

I think if you actually read my post with the intent of understanding what I was trying to say, rather than looking for opposition, you may have found a good deal of common ground with me. I certainly agree with much of what you replied, sans the insults.

 

[TH Dialectic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: TH Dialectic
Date: 2019-01-01 20:49:58
Reaction Score: 8

You have confused me slightly about having to be a good climber? Neil deGrasse Tyson claims you can't see it from commercial airline but you have claimed by climbing trees? I also grew up in the country, I wouldn't class myself as an experienced tree climber but have scaled a few in my time.

Don't ever remember seeing a curve...

I wholeheartedly agree with you we hold the authority over our reality, not alphabet agencies.

Although the whole scientific community has the burden of proof on them to prove their falacious claims. It seems most are happy enough with explanations like "gravity".

Every single astrophysasists is living in the footsteps of their predecessors. Look past the mathemagic, it's not the equations that are wrong, it's their axioms and assumptions.

They are working from Riemannian Geometry
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_geometry

Riemannian geometry was first put forward in generality by Bernhard Riemann in the 19th century. It deals with a broad range of geometries whose metric properties vary from point to point, including the standard types of Non-Euclidean geometry.

Non-Euclidean geometry, working with bogus claims like, all perpendiculars to a straight line converge at a point. This means Riemannian geometry works on the principle of a straight line appearing as a curve when presented in 2D.

These are the axioms and assumptions heliocentric scientists are working with, absolute rubbish.

1. A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.

2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.

3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.

4. All right angles are congruent.

5. If two lines are drawn which intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough. This postulate is equivalent to what is known as the parallel postulate.

Then along pops Riemann and pretty much uses opposites to impose his non Euclidean theory to cement a globe.

Referring back to natural science (Euclidian) the globe is physically impossible.

Riemannian theory based science isn't science, just a science of belief working from theoretical postulates.

TH

Post automatically merged: 1/1/19

I

I'm not really sure what you are trying to tell me here. Maybe I wasn't real clear in my post. Some of the links I posted showed the excuses of science, not my beliefs. So, I think you missed the point of my post.

"I can individually go through all of your links and explain their fallacious reasoning throughout but have a busy day ahead so will pick a few blatantly obvious lies and add some logic of my own to hopefully give you and anyone else interested a better understanding."
To paraphrase, you basically said it was a bunch of rubbish and your time is too valuable to disprove it, so just take my word. That is a very arrogant position to take. You didn't take time to even read the links, so how can you oppose them with your own brand of "logic"? You obviously feel that you know more than me but you are not willing to put in the effort to back it up.
Blatant obvious lies, fallacious reasoning? This is how you communicate with others? I'm sorry, but that is just rude and tends to close a conversation rather than opening up for new information. I am not a liar, nor a fool, and don't appreciate being called one.

And, I must take offense to this comment: "Although I doubt you will, you should give the above PDF a read." Why would you assume that attitude with me, as we've never met or even had a conversation?

FYI, I have read it before, and I'm happy read it again. But when you state it in an insulting manner, why would anyone want to read you link?
I am always looking for ways to disprove the various theories as well as looking for info that support them. I want to know the truth, regardless of what it may be, or where it may come from. Much of what you stated, I agree with, why you've taken opposition, I don't know. I don't care if people believe what I write, and actually, I hope they don't. As I've said on other posts, I feel belief is a dangerous territory. I prefer to seek understanding. I hope others will as well.

So, I will ask you kindly, please re-read my post and try to understand it. Then if you disagree with any of my assertions, I am happy to read and respond to your reply. But I see no reason to try to shut others down or to sling insults. No one learns that way.

I think if you actually read my post with the intent of understanding what I was trying to say, rather than looking for opposition, you may have found a good deal of common ground with me. I certainly agree with much of what you replied, sans the insults.

I didn't mean to come across as condescending at all, really sorry if I came across in that way. Honestly didn't. I was rushing out of the house and wanted to get a reply out before I left.

I will look back what you provided when I'm home. I was never trying to shut you down in any sort of way.

The whole idea of saying about me going through each of your links wasn't to gain any sort of intellectual heiracy. It was to bring forward to whole concept of putting authority in the hands of others. You don't need NASA documents or lasers or radio frequencies. Just a bit of common sense. I wasn't directing anything toward you, just staying a few things a could see issues in.

As for me suggesting you would read it, it was more so along the lines of it being a lot to ask of someone to read a book on request from a stranger.

I can come across a little black and white, sorry again.

You don't need authority to confirm anything for you, we can do it ourselves.

Cheers

TH

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Deleted_x7
Date: 2019-01-01 21:09:45
Reaction Score: 1

You have confused me slightly about having to be a good climber? Neil deGrasse Tyson claims you can't see it from commercial airline but you have claimed by climbing trees? I also grew up in the country, I wouldn't class myself as an experienced tree climber but have scaled a few in my time.

Don't ever remember seeing a curve...

no, didnt see a curve. saw the huge rocks positions change, appear, disappear depending on the distances I was from them, which demonstrates the curve on a local perspective. I guess I didnt explain it well enough but its easily reproducible and the winning factor is that to witness this with your own two eyes requires no tools or science/psyence and is pure firsthand experience with all second hand account/hearsay over ruled by it.

I dont trust strangers anymore than the next guy does, in fact much less but that doesnt lead me to believe everything strangers say/proclaim is false.

thats another thing.. the true vs false paradigm! this is binary thinking, duality/polarity when there is more.

true, untrue & false. (Qua) but thats for another thread I suppose.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: BrokenAgate
Date: 2019-01-01 21:55:32
Reaction Score: 0

Why can't NASA provide pictures of the earth? We should be buried under millions of pictures of earth. Where are they? Why is the proof on me?

It's on both, actually. In these days of instant mass communication and readily available digital photography, I would expect to see loads of images everywhere of what the Earth looks like. Freakin' EASTER ISLAND has Internet service, you can sail there, take pics of your vacation, and post them immediately. A visit to the edge of the world should be no problem. NASA has more pics of a ball Earth than I've ever seen of a flat Earth. Whether they've been faked or not, at least they're there. I can't even find faked flat-earth images, only artwork.

All that being said, I am a big fan of taking the old myths seriously, and I feel there is a reason why they thought of the world as a flat circle. I am entertaining the notion that the physical planet is a different thing than the...reality? dimension?...in which we experience our daily lives. Flat Earth comes up ALL the time in discussions involving the Mandela Effect. Many people (including me) believe that our whole reality has changed, and that may well include the shape of Earth, or at least whatever digital projection (for lack of a better term) passes for Earth. It may be the reason why we can't get pictures of it.

 

[anotherlayer]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2019-01-01 23:00:21
Reaction Score: 0

we are each The ultimate authority of our on minds, true authority comes from within, if one looks without he has denied his own divinity. this has everything todo with The Law or to use another movie quote "The One", or as some dude named jesus allegedly said "I come not to destroy the law, but to Fulfill it" which is all hearsay from my perspective but much of what was written in that book is beyond any rebuttal in any court (meeting of minds). but it takes lots of Law study to 'overcome all the presumptions' (operation of Law)

what.