guys guys the Earth is Flat and here are your Resources:
http://anti-globe.net/showthread.php?tid=2
This made absolutely no sense at all. ... It is complete and utter nonsense. Reading this 6 months later is just as mind numbing as it ever was.
Eliza, Rahu and Ketu within vedic astrology are not planets. They are points where the moon intersects the solar plane along its orbital path. That is the point. They are called 'graha', that word is translated into english as 'planet' but it actually just means 'point in the sky'. Ok? Rahu is not a planet, it never was, it never will be. It is an exact point along the path of the moons orbit. I hope you understand. And neither NASA nor anyone else has ever, ever, ever hypothesized about the existence of a physical planet within our solar system and called it 'rahu'. That has never happened anywhere period. Ok?
Last edited by rat200Turbo; 04-18-2017 at 01:36 AM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Good job.
I know you want to see these, so here they are:
This following one is 23 minutes long. Basically it says, you cannot find a single NASA or weather image that shows how this eclipse, or any eclipse, happens. Not one. All show a lie. They bend light in the way it doesn't go, and the size of the planets is all mixed up. You are supposed to be mixed up. You are supposed to think its impossible to understand or you just aren't smart enough to have it explained to you so you will understand. Because you are supposed to feel stupid. So this video shows the gross inconsistencies and inaccuracies in what you are being told about this eclipse. It also addresses why would they tell us the wrong thing. @Kim asked me that once and I didn't feel prepared to answer clearly even though I had thoughts on the topic. But they give a good brief answer here. This video is 23 minutes.
______________________
This one shows the clever entertaining way the eclipse is explained, with lots of theatrics and engaging friendliness to distract you from the fact that the "expert explanation" for the eclipse is a lie and impossible science. They are basically saying, "Even the smartest physicists find it confusing to explain, so, if you are confused about what we are explaining, no worries, you're fine!"
"The Moon is only 70 miles wide" - this one is 21 minutes.
This also delves a bit into a bit of why would they make this up. But first it shows you the fact that Google earth is NOT A GLOBE. This video shows that the CIA is in control of Google Earth. Why would they want to control it? Because, they explain, the earth is much bigger below the equator (which is why the flat earth videos on flight patterns show such huge anomalies for travel below the equator). Video quote: "Flat earth is twice as big. That's why they want to control it, to cover it up". Its 8 minutes:
And if you prefer to read, a web page on measuring the earth: http://earthmeasured.com/21st-august...es-flat-earth/
_____________
I think I have already explained in this thread that I find this topic interesting. I approached it to have something to marvel at for its ridiculousness, not expecting to be intrigued, or to have unanswered questions in my mind suddenly answered in a sane way. Unexpectedly, learning about it often feels that random puzzle pieces in my mind are suddenly and unexpectedly assembling.
But my puzzle is still incomplete and I don't want help with it, thank you. I want to put my puzzle together in my own manner in my own time. I am saying this not just to you, but to anyone that thinks I started this thread just to be drawn into argument. (Obviously I have been drawn into argument in this thread, a lot, even though I very much did not want to, including by a stranger who came onto this forum SOLELY to argue about this topic with me! But I am done with that).
I am not an apologist for Flat Earth. I do not represent them. There are people out there who want to argue this stuff, but not me. I just want to use my own brain on it in my own way [which is a holographic-panoramic style, BTW], and I do not want to conform to some other type's cognitive style or favored function while they react to it and look for someone to get angry at, or to convince of their point of view, because the concepts make them mad.
A great many people find considering an alternative perspective to what they have been taught in school, or in the culture, concerning what is the correct way to believe about a thing, or what the scientists or "professional experts" say we are supposed to believe or think to be personally threatening, whether it's this topic or many others. I don't want to deal with that. Its just not in my nature. I want to use my own brain. And I am not trying to persuade anyone of anything in this thread, so I would like to be given the same consideration.
Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 08-21-2017 at 06:37 PM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
I think I should do Donald Trump imitation here:
Earth was roundish sphere until Rosie O'Donnell landed on it.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
To consider this you have to temporaty suspend belief in Star Wars, Star Trek and earth covered with 100's or 1000's of satellites, spinning 1000 miles per hour, and whirling through the universe at breakneck speeds, and pretend for a moment the earth is a circular plane surrounded by the Antarctic ice wall (vs. an island on the bottom of a ball) and covered by a dome: the "firmament above".
It takes some effort, but I guess it also took effort for me to imagine that God who created the earth and designed out minds is not capable of communicating clearly when He said all those things, in that Book that is about Him, about the earth, the sky and the firmament and waters above. I mean, I thought He was just communicating poorly when He said things like:
Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
There are lots of other examples from scripture,. Meaning God has been confusing in how He communicates, a lot. Or maybe we are confused. Naw - couldn't be us! https://flatearthscienceandbible.com...side-a-dome-2/
Anyway, talking about the impenetrable firmament above, discussed and explained which much evidence in other videos, previously posted in this thread - just suppose for a minute its true? Then, I want to touch it. : ) Certainly those in the the know have tried (there are videos and stories about the efforts and then exploding into the impenetrable firmament above.) So, then, maybe would pieces of it have been found?
That's where this video I just found comes in. And in spite of their being at least as many Flat Earth hoax videos out there as genuine FET videos (sort of trolls with very-seriously-told far-out theories mixed up with the real FE theories, to confuse and detract you from the real theories), this one has a true ring to it, to me. Its really interesting! :
Found: a piece of the "firmament above", also called "The Sky Stone" (Its properties are truly scientifically interesting - unlike the obviously fake "moon rocks"!):
Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 08-21-2017 at 09:16 PM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
@Eliza Thomason I will counter your earth is flat videos with earth is round videos! Let the PoLR battle commence!
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
According to theory of relativity Earth can be seen as flat
Starting from 7:00
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
#flatearth
Hail flat earthers
I could bother writing out a long reply to this but I don't think I could make the reality any clearer than it already is to everyone.
You actually are arguing for the right to NOT use your brain. For example, people have given you multiple clear rational for why you are wrong and this has been totally ignored by you, and then you've repeated yourself. I think what bothers people about this is the fact you are refusing to communicate rationally and refusing to be open and honest about things, which is actually a passive aggressive and disingenuous way of interacting with others. It's a bit pretentious, too - the notion that you are opening your mind by considering this theory when in fact you are ignoring all evidence and closing your mind.
Well, fact isn't really about what's "personally threatening"... it's really just about reality.
Your theory is not an alternative... it is nothing. It is a scrambled egg of a thought. Your theory only maintains a surface semblance of coherency by deliberately ignoring every piece of evidence.
Last edited by purplehearts; 08-23-2017 at 08:02 AM.
No, you cannot write out a long reply on this. For that you would actually have to read the website or watch the videos that you are supposedly responding to. Videos that use actual critical thinking to show what is inconsistent about what you have always been taught and never questioned it. How could you possibly you write out "a long reply" in response to what you did not even look at?
Where? Most refuters here are like you and do not bother to read the links and do not watch the videos they are refuting, so intelligent discussion is slim pickings on this thread. Most only want to spit out pre-formed conclusions they were spoon-fed (they did not actually FORM these conclusions). Many pages of refutations earlier in this thread are from a guy with nothing to do with this forum who makes it his full-time hobby to online-refute FET, with anyone who will read it and respond. I unfortunately responded, but I am repenting of that now. I do not want to argue with people who just want to argue and are truly disinterested in why things can be seen in a different light.
No, I simply refuse to communicate with insulters and pontificators. Been there, done that. Not one point made by FET is ever acknowledged by them, and FET has some glaringly true points. FET is backed by real science, and there are serious, serious scientific flaws in the globe earth/solar system model. For example the serious, overt, glaring flaws in science in how NASA is explaining this week's eclipse.
But it takes courage and real intellectual honesty to admit that real science puts giant holes in the commonly accepted theory. The point of your post her is just to insult. Okay, you can insult. Big deal, you are everybody. Everybody likes to insult people these days. You are just one of that big common crowd.
People just don't think critically anymore, partly because their minds were formed as victims of a a government controlled education system that says you are just a bucket to be filled with whatever they want to put in that bucket (And it works. The once-required high school Logic courses cannot be found anywhere in public education anymore - I wonder why?) Now we are easy victims of fake news, fake science and fake education. We've been thoroughly trained into not-thinking. But we can pontificate! And we can scorn. And we are even told ad nauseum exactly what we should scorn! We are thoroughly pre-programmed about what to think and feel about whatever arises! So you see, there is really no need to think at all.
Fortunately the brain is pretty amazing and we can choose at any time to start thinking.
Well, you have not read anything on this page I wrote or in this thread obviously, because I am open and honest. I do think your post here shows a lack of both. But it is true I am done being open to people who speak without applying their brains to the matter at hand at all.
Well, none of these things describe my character and no one in real life has EVER said anything remotely like this of me. You clearly don't know me. And you were not able to stretch your imagination to find one thing to support your summation of my character. But do look in the mirror, and at your post, because there are things in your post to support that's just where you were looking when you wrote it.
I do think its about being personally threatening to a person's coveted views of reality. Have you ever had your long-held reality challenged? Maybe not. I have. Many times. Its never comfortable! So often, the truth hurts, but it sets you free. Over time I have become more comfortable with the discomfort of honestly considering views that challenge my accepted reality, because I realize that while change hurts, in the end its good. A favorite scripture quote of mine:
"Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof."
In the past I have found myself to be quite capable for firmly gripping my own false view of reality for a long, long time. So I realize that the longer you hold it, the more it hurts to pry it free. So I totally understand not wanting to consider alternate realities. You make light of that, but I do not. It is also why I am not here to to change anyone's reality. But I didn't think it was not too much to expect that someone might want to honestly consider with me some of the glaring anomalies that are presented. But, maybe it is.
Wow. Its so easy to come to a firm conclusions about something you have never examined! Critical thinking - such a pesky annoyance!
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Eliza, spinning a ball halfway around, then halfway around again and stating that you see the original spot on the ball; then pulling up google earth and mouse dragging twice over the earth and demonstrating you don't arrive back at the same spot - this is not critical thinking... it is nothing. There is no point to this. Maybe to someone with an 80 IQ that could be considered critical thinking.
Explaining that a shadow must be as large or larger than the object is just simply wrong - if the light source is wide enough to where it is only being partially eclipsed by the object (such as what happens during the eclipse) the light will shine past the object in all but the most centrally eclipsed areas... meaning the actual shadow ends up quite small. Again this is because the sun, as a light source, is a large object and the moon only totally eclipses the sun in a very centralized area.
Last edited by purplehearts; 08-24-2017 at 06:59 AM.
Thank you for your effort with this.
The experiment with the glass ball and comparing it to Google Earth maps is a good way to demonstrate the reality that Google earth does not use a real globe earth model. Its observable proof that something is not right with the Google Earth 3D globe model. This is clearly a huge anomaly with the ball-earth that Google Earth provides. FET's say that is because the area below the equator is MUCH bigger than above it, so Google needs to compensate for that reality somehow.
Of course it is not scientific to say the earth is flat from that one example, no one expects it to. But one can admit is a real anomaly. Why "spin" google earth 3-4 times, making 3-4 "halves" of earth, instead of two halves? Why so much space?? It is un-explainable. If the earth is a globe then of course there are distance and proportion problems with a flat map of the globe. But if the earth is a globe than a google globe map should be easy to make accurate. It shouldn't need 3-4 half-views to make a whole.
You have to admit something is up with that even if you never change your view. You may think: Okay, so, that is a weird thing, but it doesn't mean anything. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. But there are so many, many anomalies with the globe-earth, solar system models. Further related to the theory that the the earth is much, much bigger under the equator, another gigantic issue is that you can follow, online, any flight above the equator but every single flight below the equator "disappears" while its over the water and "reappears" when its back over land. 100%. There is no other explanation for it, but that, as well as another issue - the nonsensical flight-route patterns for anywhere south of the equator - these things are added to the long list of un-explainable occurrences that only the most implausible option - FET - can easily explain.
No, listen closer to what he said and what he showed. Light cannot bend that way. Light travels straight. Or it stretches out. At least I know it NEVER stretches in. Not EVER in nature. Light has certain behaviors all the time. Look at the University of Montana's supposed "replication" of what happens with the eclipse. They insert a diffuser! No such thing exists in the solar system model! Yet, even with that cheat, look at the huge shadow that is cast with that? Not at all the tiny swath across America that we saw. Not at all what happens in an eclipse. Look at it without the difusser. A huge shadow that looks nothing like the NASA graphics.
The fact is there is some reason for the reality of the tiny long narrow path of an eclipse. But the fact is we have not ever been shown any solar system model that any where near explains it All of the given explanations bend science. Like bending light in a way it never bends.
You have to admit that none of the models explain an eclipse. They are all seriously flawed. You can dream there must be some way to explain a solar system eclipse that no one has ever thought of yet, but you have to admit, there is no one, especially not NASA, that has ever come up with one that is consistent with the rules of science and observation.
There are a lot of anomalies clearly presented in that first video concerning all of the NASA eclipse-explanation models, including the fact that NASA models and images present huge, huge conflicts with each other! So you also have to admit there are problems with NASA models and images that just are not resolvable. You can disagree that this leads to FET, but you cannot observe and use your brain and deny there are serious problems with NASA models, images, and explanations.
P.S. I did not specifically address what you said "... if the light source is wide enough to where it is only being partially eclipsed by the object (such as what happens during the eclipse) the light will shine past the object in all but the most centrally eclipsed areas... meaning the actual shadow ends up quite small."
No - light doesn't work that way. No experiment will prove NASA's drawing, which is what your statement here also says. That's why NASA uses an inventive, lying drawing, not a real model using real light. That drawing, where light converges into a small cone pinpoint to represent cast the sort of shadow that we really see, is an impossible model. Light NEVER does that. The University of Montana tried. But light acts like - light. But you can see that even cheating with a smaller sun - a diffuser - their "eclipse" shadow is way too big. When the diffuser is removed (for a bigger sun) you can see it looks nothing like an eclipse shadow. Nothing! So if you keep going bigger to approximate the sun is he size its said to be, it would be a completely useless model, even further opposing the drawing,
Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 08-24-2017 at 07:27 AM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Well who cares? Google earth is literally a piece of shit app. How would that ever imply to me that the earth is flat? You realize that all google would have to do to make the map proportionate to his mouse dragging is downsize the actual scaling of the longitudinal lines being displayed... this is a display issue we're talking about.
No, light does work that way, because you need a total obstruction of the light source to block all light which only happens in the most perfectly aligned places. Anywhere skewed off center will receive some light.
Just 2 days ago I witnessed just exactly this: a total solar eclipse directly over my house, and the world went completely dark for about 3 minutes during the time that the sun was totally eclipsed. However, leading up to the total eclipse, the slivers of the sun that weren't eclipsed lit up the entire countryside. The world transitioned from light to darkness in about 1 minute as the last sliver of the sun faded behind the moon, and darkness lasted for about 3 minutes... Literally watched it happen 2 days ago. Besides that, we can just use our brains and tell that it works that way. I really don't see what the issue is.
Take a look: Different places receive different periods of total eclipse as the moon moves across the sun from the perspective of people on earth
https://www.greatamericaneclipse.com/tennessee/
Last edited by purplehearts; 08-24-2017 at 04:59 PM.
I am just skimming this topic because it's all rather silly, but saw thisWhat is light doing here? (This is rhetorical. It is bending. It's called refraction.)Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
There are innumerable things in the Bible that are demonstrably false, both in terms of facts but also in terms of ethics. It seems extraordinary that anybody in the 21st century would hold the Bible to be absolutely true to the extent they would even assert the Earth is not spherical.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Does it say in the bible the earth is not spherical? I've never seen that in there.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
I always was IEE, I remember you thinking I was SLI before though. Personally, I take it as a compliment, since I think SLIs are pretty awesome overall. However, my natural skill set and demeanor is not like an SLI. I do value the same things SLIs do though and I get along with them quite well and can easily converse with them, but I still feel very different than them. Naturally, this would point to me and SLIs being duals rather than identicals.
You can watch this video then of the three, since you want to watch one:
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Eliza, just one other thing to add here, I find it hard to believe that the governments of the world agree to conspire to keep us believing the earth is not flat yet cannot agree to stop war. That is pretty huge. I would think that so many nations that distrust each other would not agree to perpetrate such a mass scale deception. I am sure it would have come out by now but I reviewed some of what you posted and none of it seems credible.
The reason most images have to be put together is that you have to be a certain distance from earth to see it all at once which is something flat earthers just won't acknowledge. The Russians apparently have taken a full image and others have as well and they are not related to NASA (which seems to get FETs riled up). If you can conceptualize just a little or have good spatial intelligence you can see how it takes form.
The ability to accurately perceive the visual world and to re-create, manipulate and modify aspects of one's perceptions (even in the absence of the relevant visual stimuli). Visual-spatial intelligence deals with shapes, patterns, designs and the entire spectrum of colour - and with the placement and relationship of objects in space, including distance and direction. It includes our capacity to visualise, dream and imagine.
You can view various satellite images here http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/satellite.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...n-Minutes.html
http://planet.iitp.ru/english/elektr...o_data_eng.htm
http://www.ntsomz.ru/electro/el_08052012
I read youtube comments and it is obvious that most people who do believe in flat earth also have their minds made up and refuse any evidence that they are just buying into a conspiracy theory. Plus they make some of the most crude, uneducated comments on youtube videos. They resort to emotional outbursts when they cannot respond intelligently. I mostly feel sorry for their frustration because they can't comprehend the information. Not saying you are one of those but just noticing a common thread between them.
*I am posting this in your thread because I didn't want to derail the superlatives with it.
Last edited by Aylen; 09-25-2017 at 08:44 PM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
There's actually a very good and simple argument against this, and it's somewhat closely related to Occam's Razor.
Suppose that the Earth is actually flat, and this is all just a government conspiracy, NASA projections in the sky, etc.
If that were true, it is as if NASA had access to what the Earth would have looked like if it were actually round. Since that the Earth IS really flat and we DON'T actually know what the Earth would have looked like if it were round, this would be a MASSIVE undertaking of an epic scale. They would have to come up with all sorts of complicated mathematical modeling and imaging technologies to make it look like as if it were round. They would have to come up with all sorts of complicated mathematical formulas to make it seem as if all the stars and the planets are circling around the sun in the space, as with the Earth. They would have to model everything as if it the Earth was actually round.
They're saying, "This is what it would have looked like, if the Earth was actually round".
...it is as if the Earth were actually round in the first place...!!
The problem with this approach is that it creates more problems when there are simpler explanations.
Not really a problem. In the theory where the earth is flat and this is kept secret by the elite 1% at the top with all the money and power, then there are 99% more folks to keep busy, and some of them are really, really smart, and value being the brainy in-the-know ones to explain to everyone else the "reality of roundness", of which they are (most of them) convinced of anyway. (It must be true since ALL the people and institutions everyone admires believe it). To be successful at this is to be the elite in the field of science (that place they love), to be connected with the best universities, to be considered as smart as a rocket scientist, to be admired, esteemed, extolled, published, and to be invited to be keynote speakers at the most important conferences.
Its not at all hard to find people willing to spend their whole life reaping those rewards.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Eliza, the earth is not flat. Ok? It's round.
what the flat earthers mean by the world being flat is what the people who think the world is round mean when they say the world is round. essentially there is no difference except in how they privately define the terms, then they argue over the completely superficial aspects. like no one says "well, the whole world is flat but people believe its round (because of some conspiracy)" and then actually believe everything that would be required to believe in order to be consistent with that belief. no, they just import the same reality around that belief that renders their actions indistinguishable from a round earther when it comes to actually living their life. thus it becomes a battle over empty words
you can try to convince people to use the same words as others, but its not really that important as long as people act in line
if anything I kind of like it when people out themselves as conspiracy theorists of this kind, because it gives me an idea of their mental capabilities, so I'm not sure we even want to bring them in line if they can't do it for themselves
I guess it seemed huge to me at first blow, too. But after awhile, it just made real sense. As to governments agreeing, that is why Antarctica Treaty is so interesting. Its a huge anomaly that that agreement could be made, and very interesting. The whole Antarctica factor is interesting. There are fascinating videos on it.
Also, really, I think its a stretch to say that those with the most power and money of course are open and honest with us on all things, because they want to ensure we all have the best and most accurate info on all things.
Power corrupts. It causes more lust for more power and more money. So expecting "basically good and decent things" from those of the earth who have all the money and power is actually sort of unreasonable.
Immediately before Jesus started His three year ministry, He fasted 40 days, and then the devil came to tempt Him.***[see below] The devil offered Him the world - his kingdom. How could he do this? Because it actually is his to offer. The kingdoms of this world belong to satan and his minions. The Kingdom of God is the Kingdom of Truth and Love, and it is not of this world. The kingdom of power, politics money and governments - its opposite the Kingdom of God and truth.
So to consider the possibility that those with all the money and power might be the huge deceivers, and would delight in systematically withholding the truth from us, and in keeping us busy studying and believing falsehoods - that's not a terrible stretch for me.
That's assuming that those at the top with the money and power don't stick together, and that wars aren't ways for the 1% to get even more filthy rich... and give themselves more power shaping world history, and keeping the 99% busy... and maybe there isn't all that hate anyway between nations, actually, at the top anyway (where the decisions are made), and its just manufactured stuff, not unlike the media that we see working so hard to strike fear in everyone and to polarize people...
Don't take it from me. I am not any kind of FET expert. I have no intention of summarizing FET here, and amnot qualified to, and have made no attempt to, so my posts are the wrong place to go for a summary. I just comment randomly, sharing miscellaneous thoughts as they occur to me. Like right now, for instance. I have not given a single thought to FET in months, and I randomly came to this thread and commented.
Aylen, those are CGI images. They are ALL - meaning every.single.one. - CGI images. There are NO pictures of earth from space. None. Not one. Confirmed by NASA. I am not going to research links for you because its easy-peasy to do it yourself (thought I put one link in that sentence). Repeating: there are NO pictures of earth from space. ALL are CGI.
[All of NASA's pictorial discoveries are CGI. Thinkabout thedetailed pics of distant planets! If they can get accurate, clear pictures SO far away, why do we not have photos of every pebble on the moon magnified 100x?!.]
I think the bulk - maybe all of your reading on FET (Flat Earth Theory) is from FET Debunkers. That's pretty boring reading. Really dry stuff, and really not interesting. Compared to real FET, the debunkers are so, so boring and totally un-stimulating. It will tranquilize you, though, and it's comforting to think that everything you know is true and its worth reading boring stuff if it can tell you that and make you feel fine in that way. But the FET is SO INTERESTING! And I think you have not read a lot of real FET or seen their videos or sat through one thoughtfully is because I have found pretty much across the board the FET people are rally using their minds AND, I want to tell you this: they do not get "riled up". They are calm and thoughtful. That's my experience. Its those who are trying to "debunk" that are all riled up". Pretty much, across the board, that's the truth.
(there is a lot of detracting FET videos and sites out there, to reel you in and then say fake things that real FE theorists would never say.)
An example is FE theorist that is everythingbut riled up is Mark Sargent. So, so mellow. And intelligent and interesting. But he is an example of so many other FE theorists. Its like they are no longer upset that the world is not as it was taught them, but accept it. They are not upset that the reality of earth is not neatly laid out in textbooks and "accurate" detailed maps, etc. They see earth as a mystery to contemplate with the amazing instrument: the human mind, and they are at peace about exploring it.
That's an interesting way to make a judgment on the topic. Sort of circuitous -- and I relate to circuitousness, because I approach learning things that way a lot of the time. Yet, I do not think I would trust youtube comments to tell me a great deal. I mean, really, the vast majority are just reactions - and first, off-the-cuff immediate reactions at that - from people who have given it NO THOUGHT. So to me, they just aren't useful. Its sort of like in forums, where if you pose and a thoughtful question, the FIRST answers you get are often sort of frivolous and not useful; they are simply the off-the-cuff reactions of "first responders" who have a shallow response to everything they just read, and are not worth much. Its later in that you get the thoughtful comments from those who cogitated on what you posed.
I hope you are well, Aylen! I think of you a lot. I have been busy. I am at a crossroads, and at the beginnings of some changes (nose to the grindstone and no reportable changes)...
______________
*If you want to contemplate that, here is a vision of the Temptation of Christ by a visionary, who wrote AS she saw it: http://www.valtorta.org/jesus_is_tem...efaultpage.asp Once, many years ago, I was questioning a Catholic housemate who had been a cloistered nun about that great curiosity that is Catholicism, and about her experience. "How could you marry Jesus?", I asked. "I mean, you can't talk to Him." She said, "You really can", and she said that those in monasteries have special books from visionaries that are really amazing. I believed her, and was curious about those books, but then forgot about it. Years later, I was taking a retreat at cloistered monastery, and a monk drove up in a pickup truck to drop off some supplies, and I was reading on the porch one of my treasured volumes of Poem of the Man God by Maria Valtorta. (My gold, my greatest treasure!). I didn't say anything because I assume the vow of silence precluded any conversation, but he saw my book, and exclaimed, "Valtorta! My favorite book!"..
[but I need to add that the webmaster of that linked website has various beliefs that go far outside the topic of Valtorta's works which he has been embellishing his Valtorta website with -- so my disclaimer is that its only the works of Valtorta I support, not all his many other personal beliefs he writes on - politics, etc.]
Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 11-13-2017 at 04:46 AM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Except people respond without reading on it, or reading any of the links provided. For example, I have never said that subscribe to this theory, its just an assumption you and others have made. Its like people want to slot and label people. I just like to learn a thing. It takes me a long, long time to say I am a thing. I will say that on some things, but only after I am 100% on board.I have never said I am this, and I do not say it now. I have only actually commented on what I find interesting, and sometimes reported what FE theorists believe, and corrected wrong assumptions, based on what I know from my reading. A lot of commentators on this thread only comment on what I say, not the theory. I am not a skilled presenter of this theory. I just share what I find interesting, personally.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
do you subscribe to the flat earth theory? I didn't make that assumption. besides if you're a good person and subscribe to a flat earth theory it just goes to show how empty the debate is. I'm not your adversary
when I say it demonstrates their mental capacity I mean that in neutral terms. to me it seems like you're doing the "Ne version" of it which is to find a context in which its not meaningless and pointing it out as some kind of proxy issue that people should "think for themselves" which is that "context matters", and we can control that view in some sense. I agree
my only point is the flat/round earth debate is trivial from the point of view of it actually being harmful, until people rely on it as a piece of scientific understanding. but as far as I know, no one actually does that
in other words, people perceive it as a threat, because they perceive it as a scientific theory, but a bad one, when its not really a scientific statement about the world at all
inasmuch as people hold scientific beliefs about the world, they tend to agree on the status of the earth, whatever they call it, because mistakes of such a fundamental nature would actually lead to death, quickly. it would be like refusing to believe in gravity the next time you cross a bridge
Eliza, I actually consider you to be a fairly intelligent individual (lets say above average to possibly gifted). But I am somewhat curious what your ~exact~ IQ score is. Just out of pure curiosity. We all recently took IQ tests, in this thread:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...sive-Matrices)
Would you mind taking it and telling me what your score is? I am anticipating that you will score above average.
its just Ne, you can find a way to make any statement either trivial or meaningful by context shifting, even "the world is flat." the deal is people assume they're working within the same context when they're not, hence they feel like they need to "save" the person from their own potentially dangerous misconception. but its not really that dangerous because the context from within which they assert the truth of the proposition "the world is flat" is not one which would entail them acting in a dangerous manner. at best its used as a way to get people to "wake up" which is sincere at bottom and well meaning, sort of the opposite of dangerous. these aren't the people designing your cars and airplanes, in other words.
You're not getting the probability here. In the absence of additional information, we can say that the assumptions that the world is flat, and that the world is round, have equal weight. We don't have any more outside information at this point, so we can say they're equally likely. Good so far?
Now we see this telltale evidence from NASA that either the Earth is round, or there's a conspiracy to make us believe it is. This "evidence" has been clearly presented, so there's no denying that it's there, you can only argue whether or not it's legit. There's images of the Earth as round and things like navigational maps that, at first glance, look like they were plotted from a round model of the Earth.
You can chalk this "evidence" up to one of two assumptions: that the data does reflect a truly round planet; or that vast amounts of energy by a consolidated central world power have been devoted to creating a seamless illusion that is round when it is in fact flat. So far there is nothing contradictory in the second assumption, nor with the first. Both are nothing but that: assumptions. As an average human individual, you probably lack sufficient hard data on either assumption to confirm the world is flat or round. In fact few, if any, likely do.
What happens is that you're forced to put some amount of tentative faith in either assumption, at least until new data pops up and invalidates the one you've chosen. Say I roll one six-sided die and want to roll a one: there's a one-in-six chance I will roll that number.
But say I roll two dice, and I want to roll at LEAST one "one" on one of the dice. If I roll a one of Die 1, there's six sides to the other die, so there's five outcomes where I can roll just one one on the first die; plus five outcomes where I roll one one on the second die but not the first; plus one outcome where I roll ones on both dice. It's AT LEAST one one that I'm looking for; the probability of getting what I want in relation to either die has no effect on the other, so the probabilities are added. There's six sides on each die, making a total of 36 possible outcomes for a given roll, so the odds of rolling that are 11/36. In this case, adding more variables gives me a greater chance of getting the outcome I want, because the contributers to the outcome are independent of one another - 11/36 > 1/6.
But now, say I want to roll a one on BOTH dice. Now, the instant I roll anything but a one on either die, the probability of getting snake-eyes is zero. It's not "either-or" here so I can't treat the dice as separate variables to be added, I have to treat them as one. There's only one possible outcome for rolling two six-sided dice where both dice show a one, out of 36 possible outcomes, so here, the odds are just 1/36. See, now the constituent variables MUST BOTH be very specific to give me my desired outcome at all, so it's much less likely to happen.
It's the same deal with your idea of a conspiracy to suppress information so seamlessly, or most conspiracies to suppress information outside of a totalitarian state for that matter. The problem isn't that conspiracies like this are impossible (they're not), it's that an outcome that large and complex has MANY more opportunities to go wrong than go right. You can say this conspiracy is there if you collect very specific, undeniable hard evidence that it is happening, but you can't reliably infer it exists without this evidence just to substantiate your assumptions, any more than you can infer that telekinetic unicorns control precipitation because you don't understand how the water cycle works. The inference of this conspiracy is not evidence for your argument, you're simply highlighting the next spot where evidence should exist for there to be any validity to your theory. So until you have PROOF that this very specific conspiracy is going on, your theory has absolutely no leg to stand on, because we've all got a far simpler assumption supported by the same evidence that supports your theory.
Last edited by Grendel; 11-13-2017 at 06:24 AM.
Well the scientists are discovering not just new things about the Earth, but also the new things about the universe as well. So it's as if the NASA has to continuously "keep up" with their findings to keep fooling people. Or if the scientists are "in it" as well, then there are also counter-arguments from the other scientists, saying that those are not true, or there are another, better explanations. Older findings get refuted and invalidated by newer findings and explanations. If this is a massive conspiracy on part of the scientists, to give the appearance that there is no uniformity, then this will create another massive complexity of an epic scale.
In short, it is as if NASA already has an entire working of the theory of the Universe figured out, which is infinitely complex.
It is as if NASA is a God. If so, then it is as if God had made the universe the way it is, and the Earth the way it is, which is round.
That seems like a circular argument, but the "round-earthers" and "flat-earthers" are both actually saying the same thing. They're both saying that "The Earth appears to be round, because it is made to look like as if it were round...". The only difference is that the "flat-earthers" are adding an additional "baggage": "...because it is due to a government conspiracy".
Last edited by Singu; 11-13-2017 at 09:57 AM.
The round earth model explains the existence of the eclipse and the many details of it, the flat earth model does not.
It explains the gradual sunset, the flat earth model does not.
It does not violate the physics of direction, such as with a plane flying in a straight line, the flat earth model does... infact you can actually SEE the curvature of the horizon when you are in a plane - I have seen it.
It explains that a ship does absolutely dip below the horizon, the flat earth model does not... infact you can clearly see the sun cut off at the horizon every single day, it's called a sunset.
It is consistent with the laws of refraction, the flat earth model is not. The flat earth model just simply refuses to acknowledge the laws of refraction and gets emotional about it when pressed.
It explains why we see different constellations at different times of year, and why the north star and constellations near the north & south pole rotate around a fixed location while constellations near the equator do not remain fixed; the flat earth doesn't...
It explains why we can see alot farther from higher places, the flat earth model does not.
The round earth is the same shape as other planets - which are round, the flat earth model isn't. For example you can actually see the moons orbiting around Jupiter with a telescope.
It explains the existence of time zones and the fact that the sun is in the sky, in each distinct time zone, one after the other... the sun rises and sets in each time zone, one after the other... When the sun is rising in one time zone, it's setting in another.
It is consistent with our understanding of gravity, the flat earth model isn't.
It is supported by MANY IMAGES FROM SPACE, that are NOT CONSPIRACIES. The flat earth model isn't. This is a real picture, not a CGI picture: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasaco...n/photostream/
It does not rely on a massive conspiracy that has absolutely no point at all, is actually logistically impossible to maintain, and which no one would ever see any reason to participate in. The flat earth model does...
It explains why you can actually see a curved shadow on the moon during an eclipse, the flat earth model doesn't.
It explains why the sun goes down then up again!
Last edited by rat200Turbo; 11-13-2017 at 05:21 PM.
In this theory, what was the initial motivation to create the deception? What do the elite have to gain by falsely convincing people the earth is round? People thought the earth was round going back a very long time -- at some point the "elite" would have discovered that the earth was flat and begun to cover it up. When was that point? Were the initial observations made in good faith and only later shown to be false? Or were there secret observations so that it was a deception right from the start?
Maybe these questions have been addressed earlier, I haven't read the whole thread. But it seems to me with almost every other conspiracy theory there is a legitimate motivation for the government or whoever to actually deceive people in the first place.