Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
They knew that the Earth had to be fixed in position while all the stars and Sun and moon were cycling above the Earth, it is the only possible account for it.

When the Earth became under the rulers later on, that I believe are not of human soul, which is another issue entirely, so moving on, this group was in rule of the modern world at the time, because they gained so much more knowledge and they eventually gained control of the world by replacing barter and trade with a con using notes of paper they made up called money, and they controlled it, loaned it out to everyone else, and knew they’d never be able to pay it all back with something we didn’t need when we bartered and traded instead. Because barter and trade was to both sides as a benefit to them, and it is a fair system of economy. No side is in control, no side rakes more in from the other side, who has less from the exchange.

It’s yet another issue to move along now, but they took control of the world with money, for our food and shelter and all things we needed to survive required their fake paper notes that had no intrinsic value at all, unlike with the barter system.

Why would some people form into a group, and plan how to take over the world and rule over the world, because it is not a weird coincidence that most nations of Europe and others like Russia, all had kings who were brothers or same family, that is about as connected together as it can get!

Their main motive, is more than to rule and control the world. That was already done long ago, which leads up to what they really desire.

To become our Gods, to be worshipped as our Gods, our saviours, our truth tellers and our protectors against all harm beyond Earth.

They already knew that the world was flat, and that many people explored the entire world, and mapped the entire world, which was encircled by a border or Great Wall of ice, and beyond was a surface and treacherous conditions not to venture within.

The flat Earth didn’t fit their goal of becoming our Gods. It was proof of God as our creator, of the heavens above us, of the waters held above us in the firmament, which explains it being seen as blue, same as waters on Earth are blue.

These people who regarded the Earth as flat, were told of this by these explorers who had mapped the whole world and that’s why it was believed to be flat.

When these of one group, one lineage, who had gained vast knowledge and experience of those they wanted to rule over, slaughter one another in the millions by deception and trickery, whenever they wished it, were from their hatred of humanity.

Most of all, they hated God, and they wish to become our Gods of all our worship, trust, faith, and our saviour and protector against all evils or harms.

The first step was to destroy almost all flat Earth maps, and keep the rest in secret, to construct a ball Earth from, which is speeding through ‘space’ and so forth.

They realized they had an illusion that would work as ‘space’ that Earth was flying through, because they told us ‘space’ was endless.

They had maps of the flat Earth, which had a center point in the middle, which was magnetic, and we made instruments called compasses which were magnetic pointers to the center of Earth. And we knew the stars which guided those who navigated the waters of Earth, only one star above the center point of Earth, which never moved like all other stars did.

That’s where they started to form it into a ball, from the center point of the flat Earth.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« Last post by JackBlack on Today at 01:01:51 AM »
Piling up fake images from fake space and fake soace probes is not evidence, no matter how much is piled up.
Good thing they are real images from real space from real space probes.

Again, you just reject any evidence which doesn't fit your fantasy.
That is your wilful ignorance.

Again you excuse the real evidence we have proving them liars.
You are yet to present any evidence that proves they are liars.
 
You’ve seen Saturn through a far better telescope, and once again you see the same constant motion it is in, and the same one blotchy area in its middle, with its edges constantly changing from its constant rotation.
No, we don't.
There is no sign of any constant motion, just the same kind of distortion we see in footage of lots of objects like that.

That is what we know is valid evidence. It confirms the other videos by matching up to them.
You mean we know it is distortion because of how it shows such a different view to the other videos where the distortions are quite different.

So you’re trying to find anything else to excuse it
I don't need to look.
I just need to analyse it honestly.
What part of the video shows it is in rapid rotation?

after it’s from the same group of liars
This is just your pathetic excuse to dismiss everything that shows you are wrong.
As far as you are concerned anything that shows you are wrong is from the same group of liars.
Even with there is no connection between them, you still call them the same group of liars.
This is because you are desperate to reject reality.

would clearly NOT be considered as valid evidence, nothing can confirm it at all.
Plenty can confirm it.
You just ignore it all.

When you have valid, confirmable, matching evidence, you refuse to accept it as evidence
I don't accept it as evidence for your claims, as that evidence does not support your claims.

You’ll never accept this is exactly what we see, and proves them liars who made it all up and sold it as the truth.
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T PROVE THEM LIARS!
This is not hard to understand.
You may as well have posted a picture of a cat, it would do just as well.

You’re past the point of thinking for yourself, reasoning and logical thought, and denying your own eyes and all senses you were born with to use and understand the world we live on. A trained chimp you’ve become, sorry to be blunt.
Quite the opposite.
I do think for myself, using reasoning and logical thought. Things you appear to entirely lack.
That is why I'm not accepting your BS claims.

Remember, I'm not the one who had to continually flee from questions which exposed your pathetic lies.
I'm not the one that needs to continually flee from issues only to bring up the same refuted BS again and again.
That's entirely you.
3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« Last post by turbonium2 on Today at 12:42:45 AM »

Try saying it honestly.
Their claims have mountains of evidence supporting it which you simply dismiss as fake or lies.
Meanwhile, you are yet to present any evidence at all to show their claims are false.

And why does that happen? Because it doesn't match your fantasy, so you reject it at all costs.

If their claims were obviously nonsense, you would be able to show that, rather than repeating the same pathetic lies and the same BS arguments which have been refuted countless times.

Likewise, you wouldn't be dismissing so much evidence as lies or fake.
That is denial of reality.

Piling up fake images from fake space and fake soace probes is not evidence, no matter how much is piled up.

Again you excuse the real evidence we have proving them liars.

You’ve seen Saturn through a far better telescope, and once again you see the same constant motion it is in, and the same one blotchy area in its middle, with its edges constantly changing from its constant rotation.

That is what we know is valid evidence. It confirms the other videos by matching up to them.

The last of your excuses is that the video is poor quality, after the excuse about lousy telescopes was toasted.

So you’re trying to find anything else to excuse it, holding up fake nasa images as being ‘evidence’, after it’s from the same group of liars, even if it wasn’t so, would clearly NOT be considered as valid evidence, nothing can confirm it at all.

When you have valid, confirmable, matching evidence, you refuse to accept it as evidence, and say the crap from NASA is evidence.

Nobody can argue for things never seen or confirmed by others.  That is what we DO have with these videos, it is seen and confirmed true by matching up to all the other videos showing the same features.

You’ll never accept this is exactly what we see, and proves them liars who made it all up and sold it as the truth.

Since you’ve never seen that ‘truth’ at all, you’re simply in denial of the truth. Not my concern or problem, it’s yours to deal with as you go along with it.

And eventually, you’ll finally see that it is the truth.

But you’ll stay in comfort when NASA spews forth more simulations of their motionless Saturn, because you believe they’re not lying either!

Everyone who shows a video of Saturn showing it in constant motion, without any multiple distinct belts on it, which is totally independent sources of evidence, all of which shows the same thing, is the only possible evidence that IS valid and can be confirmed by you and all others on Earth using a telescope.

You’re past the point of thinking for yourself, reasoning and logical thought, and denying your own eyes and all senses you were born with to use and understand the world we live on. A trained chimp you’ve become, sorry to be blunt.
4
I watched the Eric Dubai video, but I’m confused. Can someone explain?

Eric seems to have discovered antipodes maps. You plug in an address on the planet, and it tells you exactly where you would pop out on the opposite side of the world if you could travel straight down in a line to the dead centre of the Earth and continue on in that straight line to pop out on the opposite side of Earth.

Eric seems to have had a light bulb moment whereby he realises someone's direction of down is some else's direction of up at their antipodes. Unlike the snow globe model of Earth he and other flatties subscribe to, in the heliocentric model, there is no absolute direction for up and down. Down is always towards the centre of the planet at it's core, and up is always the opposite direction away from Earth's centre.



5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« Last post by JackBlack on Today at 12:12:10 AM »
Telescopes we had 40 or 50 years ago, among the very first ones they so graciously let us have
Stop repeating this same pathetic lie.
NO ONE WAS STOPPING YOU!
Herschel even sold copies of his telescope.

some 400 years later on
You really need to get your story straight.
What person are you talking about?
Stop jumping around by hundreds of years.

But if we compare those back then, to some of those today, which are smaller than they are, and smaller aperture, those of today are far superior to those back then, even though they are bigger and have larger aperture.
Prove it!
Stop just asserting BS and try to actually prove they are better.

Again, what you fail to understand here, is that your  argument is worthless.
Quite the opposite, your argument is entirely worthless and self contradictory.
You claim no ones know what these telescopes were capable of, yet still boldly claim that modern cheap crap is better.

Do you really believe those later and better telescopes which replaced them, and would eventually be replaced afterwards, and so forth, which would render theirs as junk, and were scrapped….would really be better than ours 400 years later?
Again, the state of the art back then was almost certainly better than cheap crap available today.
The cheap crap available today is not made so people can learn about the stars or anything like that, it is made to get money from people, to probably be used once or twice before it is just thrown in a cupboard somewhere.

But the state of the art today is much better.

So stop arguing about it being bigger and having a larger aperture, like that’s all that matters to being better!!
Then stop trying to claim the cheap crap you are appealing to is better.

We only need to see Saturn through that one telescope that you know is better than theirs, and we’ll know for sure, forever afterwards, if we will actually see those multiple distinct rings they claimed to see all the time, by their claims and reports and a feature seen at one position on Saturn, and at other positions after some period of time…
Including making sure you are viewing it through good seeing conditions, and from the relative position so the rings don't block the view.

It’s not relevant to argue if they saw it motionless
Then why did continue down this BS path of lies, repeatedly claiming that they claimed to have seen it motionless so you could pretend they were lying?
And why are you yet again bringing up this same dishonest BS?
The BS which is trivially refuted by simple questions you fled from like the pathetic lying coward you are?

Stop circling back to the same refuted lies.
If you want to come back to them, go and answer the questions you were asked about it.
Either way YOU ARE WRONG AND ARE LYING TO EVERYONE!

Again, if you want to be such a lying POS, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

You are at an airport, looking out to a plane on the other side, which you see through a heat haze.
But this plane is staying in the same spot on the apron.

Does this plane appear motionless?
i.e. does the heat haze have no effect on the claim that you are seeing it motionless?
i.e. does atmospheric turbulence distorting the view have no effect on the claim that you are seeing it motionless?

You are at some place, who really cares where, and you are looking off in the distance towards what appears to be a large round object.
You are also seeing this object through a heat haze, so there is the typical distortion associated with the heat haze.
But even through that, you see large patches on the object, which while distorted, appear to be in specific locations on it.
You come back every hour or so, and make another note of your observations.
While doing this, you notice that the patches appear to move to the right between observations. Eventually they disappear off the right hand side, and new ones appear on the left.
You keep doing this for a month, and every time you look, it is effected by the heat haze.
But you make enough observations to determine it is roughly a ball which is rotating roughly once every 10 hours.

Did it appear motionless?
If you claimed it appeared motionless would you be lying because of the heat haze that affected the view?

The fact you flee from this destruction of your dishonest BS, only to bring it up again, just shows everyone that you are lying scum.

Videos taken with their iPhones, so not bad videos considering that.
Yes bad videos.
A video taken by a crappy camera in a phone, which someone was holding over an eye piece and moving around all over the place.
That is NOT an appropriate way to take a video through a telescope.

But if there really ARE multiple distinct belts on Saturn, let alone a feature at a fixed position on it, then any level of degradation shown in videos, like these videos, would certainly have any sort of indication that there are multiple distinct belts on Saturn.
Pure BS, that even a child would understand.
Degradation means loss of information.
In the extreme case, you lose all of it.
So if you really think that any level of degradation will still show it, that means you are claiming a single pixel video would show it, and that is quite clearly BS.

What is already very obvious for anyone seeing these videos of Saturn, along with how they match up with many other videos of Saturn, to various levels of quality, of course…..
You mean how they show different levels of distortion from various sources, clearly indicating that what you falsely claimed was motion of Saturn, is just distortion. Proving yet again that you have been lying to everyone?

All that matters is that we do not ever see anything like they claimed to see all the time
i.e. you are wilfully ignorant.
You have not made an honest attempt to see what they claimed.
6
Which video?
I assume you mean this BS:


I assume it is something along the lines of wanting to believe in a magical universal up and down, but in reality, there is no such absolute down.
Instead, for people on Earth "down" is towards Earth and "up" is away from Earth.

The most ridiculous part is that he basically uses this fact in the start of his video.
How do people recognise which way is up and which way is down?
Well up is towards the sky (i.e. away from Earth), while down is towards the ground.
No magical universal up or down.

He claims it is absurd, and contradictions, yet can't explain why.

Someone in the south being upside down relative to someone in the north is as good for his argument as a camera being held upside down and things being upside down relative to it.
Being upside down relative to someone with a different direction of down doesn't show any problem or contradiction.
But it does explain things, like why the sky is so different.

Meanwhile, in his pathetic attempt using a person digging he entirely misrepresents gravity. As they hypothetical digger gets closer and closer to the centre of Earth, the gravitational attraction becomes weaker and weaker. When they get to the centre, they don't feel attraction in any direction, because the mass is equally balanced all around.
If they go further, they start feeling gravity pulling them back to the centre, so they would be digging up.
7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« Last post by turbonium2 on May 18, 2024, 11:55:21 PM »
A non-existent telescope they trashed as junk over 200 years ago, are you serious?

If that’s your idea of an argument, it’s pure nonsense.

When our telescopes today, even the cheapest ones have greater magnification than they had back then, better and more accurate lenses than they had, etc.

How could we make smaller telescopes that are better than those before, which were much larger, yet inferior to smaller ones? 

The size of instruments, from telescopes to computers to televisions, is ever smaller and better than before, less bulky and primitive, and size is only one factor in it, like we have tv screens that are much larger than before. Same with larger computers with more memory and speed, etc are larger at times, or so forth.

You can’t see their multiple distinct belts with any telescope we have today, saying there are imaginary telescopes that would show their multiple distinct belts, to prove their scrapped junk saw them too, wow!!

FYI

Size matters for telescopes. The aperture determines that amount of light that can be gathered and the the maximum possible resolution.  Good quality optics are obviously much better than crap optics, but there are hard limits to what lenses and mirrors can achieve that are determined by their size.

It’s the opposite to computers, which get faster the more tightly components are packed together.

Magnification is only part of it.  You can make a cheap telescope with both small and shitty optics with a high magnification, but that doesn’t mean seeing anything clearly through it.  Generally,  higher the magnification, the worse the image quality.  It’s a trade off between the two.

Usually it’s the manufacturers of budget telescopes that try to make a big deal out of their supposedly awesome magnification.  This is mainly marketing bullshit, because capitalism.  Higher end manufacturers know they can’t get away with that nonsense because they are generally selling to people who know a bit about it.

Telescopes we had 40 or 50 years ago, among the very first ones they so graciously let us have, only some 400 years later on, for no possible reason at all, of course, so when they finally let us have one, it seemed to be very impressive, at least would be capable of seeing things much closer than by eye or other instruments we always had, throughout the time.

Anyway, some of those early telescopes we had, became bigger than the earlier ones, and we saw things better and closer as well.

And we thought bigger means better, of course. It is better, if two telescopes are equal in all other features, other than one is bigger, and bigger aperture than the other one, equal to it otherwise, obviously would be better in allowing more light in and larger field of view.

But if we compare those back then, to some of those today, which are smaller than they are, and smaller aperture, those of today are far superior to those back then, even though they are bigger and have larger aperture.

So yes, size does matter, but it doesn’t matter if things like  optics are crappy in comparison to those of today, among other features now better than back then.

I’m sure you know that our best small telescopes of half their size or less, are far superior to those ones, right?

Sure, that’s why you mentioned that a larger aperture would only be better than a smaller aperture with other factors in play, which means, as I said, having a larger aperture than a smaller aperture is a worthless argument, not a valid comparison of two telescopes based on that alone.

Again, what you fail to understand here, is that your  argument is worthless. Aperture is not relevant without knowing everything else it had, and nobody knows that, and never will, unless they found it all buried in the ground and pieced it together again perfectly. 

What we all do know, is that we have far better telescopes today, but not only our best ones, or close to the best, or the best that we have today, but if you would disagree on that, then we can only compare a better telescope back then which still exists, within a museum, and look through it once again.

We also know it’s components, of course.

Do you really believe those later and better telescopes which replaced them, and would eventually be replaced afterwards, and so forth, which would render theirs as junk, and were scrapped….would really be better than ours 400 years later?

Your ridiculous claim of needing their actual telescope to prove which is better than the other(s) which DO exist, doesn’t matter at all.

Anyone can say this or that WAS better or worse than another one, or every single one, it’s useless to argue about it either way.

So stop arguing about it being bigger and having a larger aperture, like that’s all that matters to being better!!

We do have better instruments that replaced theirs, or replaced those ones, or so on…

They are also bigger and have larger aperture than our best small ones, today.

We only need to see Saturn through that one telescope that you know is better than theirs, and we’ll know for sure, forever afterwards, if we will actually see those multiple distinct rings they claimed to see all the time, by their claims and reports and a feature seen at one position on Saturn, and at other positions after some period of time…

It’s not relevant to argue if they saw it motionless, as I told you they’d have to see it motionless if they saw a feature at a fixed position on Saturn and never could’ve seen any movement nor did they ever claim to see any movement. Why would they have to calculate it IS in motion if they ever SAW any motion?

Why would you believe they didn’t specifically say they saw it motionless, when they claimed to see a feature on Saturn at a fixed position on Saturn, and found out later it had moved to other positions on Saturn, relative to their viewpoint of course.

Any idiot would understand they would have to see it motionless by a motionless feature seen on it.  Right?

It’s no wonder why you try arguing over something like this, that it must specifically be said they saw Saturn motionless, when anyone older than 10 would understand they had to see it motionless, or they are lying about seeing a feature on Saturn as motionless, even though both of those claims would be lies, anyway.

I’m truly amazed that we have this old but far better telescope than they had, and could all go there and see Saturn through it, and some already HAVE seen it!

To this point, it seems that only one or two people took videos of Saturn through it, or at least posted them online.

Videos taken with their iPhones, so not bad videos considering that.

We know that posting videos or audio files or images online, in formatting them for online postings, will offer some level of degradation, and so will our monitors or phones degrade them further.

But if there really ARE multiple distinct belts on Saturn, let alone a feature at a fixed position on it, then any level of degradation shown in videos, like these videos, would certainly have any sort of indication that there are multiple distinct belts on Saturn.

What we have seen on the videos is about the very same thing we’ve seen in many other videos of it, and that is, one blotchy edged area in the middle of the orb, and it is in constant motion, or if you prefer, it always ‘appears’ to be in constant motion that isn’t actual motion at all, we can’t have that be real motion in your story!

What is already very obvious for anyone seeing these videos of Saturn, along with how they match up with many other videos of Saturn, to various levels of quality, of course…..

They all show Saturn in constant motion, or ‘appearing to be’ in constant motion, at various degrees in these clips, of course.

It doesn’t matter if you claim this motion is not identical in every clip, and you conclude it cannot be in actual motion if it’s not identical in all the videos. Something which is in such a rapid and constant motion and would look identical in all the videos of it, when the instruments and settings and time taken and every point on Earth taken are already different, it would take a miracle of all miracles if they were all identical!

Not that it matters anyway.

All that matters is that we do not ever see anything like they claimed to see all the time, claimed to see a motionless feature, which means it must be seen on a motionless Saturn, as you must now realize if seeing a motionless feature, they don’t need to tell us that, assuming the readers have a functioning brain to figure that out without needing to spell it out for us!






https://orionbearastronomy.com/
8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« Last post by Timeisup on May 18, 2024, 11:09:14 PM »
A non-existent telescope they trashed as junk over 200 years ago, are you serious?

If that’s your idea of an argument, it’s pure nonsense.

When our telescopes today, even the cheapest ones have greater magnification than they had back then, better and more accurate lenses than they had, etc.

How could we make smaller telescopes that are better than those before, which were much larger, yet inferior to smaller ones? 

The size of instruments, from telescopes to computers to televisions, is ever smaller and better than before, less bulky and primitive, and size is only one factor in it, like we have tv screens that are much larger than before. Same with larger computers with more memory and speed, etc are larger at times, or so forth.

You can’t see their multiple distinct belts with any telescope we have today, saying there are imaginary telescopes that would show their multiple distinct belts, to prove their scrapped junk saw them too, wow!!

Your rant about telescopes only demonstrates your total ignorance about how telescopes work.

When it comes to telescopes generally bigger is better. Why?


A function of a telescope is to gather light, the bigger the telescope the more light it can gather.

The problem you have is any decent telescope will disprove all you believe. All you really have left is denial of the truth.

As I’ve said many times flat earth believers who promote themselves as free thinkers are in reality no thinkers.

One would imagine if you wished to know about telescopes and their resolving power one would consult a source where that information was readily available, such as the excellent Astronomy magazines that are available who do all sorts of reviews of telescopes. They even publish images generated from those very devices. It does not take much in the way of thinking to quickly see all what you have said is clearly false as all the evidence contradicts what you believe.

All you really have left are; denial, delusion and non- thinking, which when lumped together put you in a world of perpetual ignorance where you can hold on to your false beliefs.
9
Flat Earth Believers / Re: Results of my study
« Last post by Ski on May 18, 2024, 08:37:05 PM »
Quote from: bullhorn
Trying to comprehend what these colours look like has driven me silent for over six months I have not been able to do any other activity in my life due to this ponderous situation

Bullhorn, old friend, I am glad to see you still about! 

Your query reminds me of Nagel's work on consciousness. What is it like to be a Mantis Shrimp? We can at best imagine what human consciousness would experience as a Mantis Shrimp. We may be no closer to experiencing what consciousness is to the shrimp.

Nevertheless, it is worthy of contemplation, and I pray he answers you!
10
The Lounge / Re: A Friendly Chat
« Last post by Ski on May 18, 2024, 08:26:46 PM »
Does it matter? 

If a tree falls in the forest, and the only people who hear it don't believe in trees falling, did it make a sound at all?
Of course, it does. This is no home to subjectivists.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10