The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Evidence on August 10, 2012, 11:33:49 AM

Title: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Evidence on August 10, 2012, 11:33:49 AM
I'm Unclear about FET's conjecture concerning the formation of the structure of the theorized flat earth
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Megaman on August 10, 2012, 04:44:23 PM
I'm Unclear about FET's conjecture concerning the formation of the structure of the theorized flat earth

I believe they hold the position that no one knows how it formed.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Kendrick on August 10, 2012, 05:36:52 PM
Theorising is verboten in Zetetic thought.  Quite plainly we dont know how the earth-plane was formed, for all we know its always existed.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Randomonium on August 11, 2012, 06:41:12 PM
Most flat-earthers are religious people who think the Bible claims the earth is flat.  That's why they think the earth is flat... or at least, that's why they claim it is.  So, they think God made it.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: markjo on August 11, 2012, 08:15:02 PM
Most flat-earthers are religious people who think the Bible claims the earth is flat.

Actually, many of the FE'ers on this site are atheists or agnostics.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: KristaGurl on August 11, 2012, 08:28:44 PM
Most flat-earthers are religious people who think the Bible claims the earth is flat.

Actually, many of the FE'ers on this site are atheists or agnostics.

I've heard this... doubt it's true.  Besides... Rowbentham used his failed experiments to prove the validity in the Bible.  He actually conspired with the church to terrorize Round-Earthers as blasphemers.  Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Pongo on August 11, 2012, 11:21:11 PM
Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

It is not. At least no more so than people still believing that Ra carries the sun across the sky in a barge.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: KristaGurl on August 20, 2012, 08:22:38 AM
Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

It is not. At least no more so than people still believing that Ra carries the sun across the sky in a barge.

What controls sky gears?  Because I think the only explanation (and I've been away from the forum for a while) I've ever heard about the origin of FE or the controller of sky gears is God and angels.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 20, 2012, 11:33:52 AM
Theorising is verboten in Zetetic thought.  Quite plainly we dont know how the earth-plane was formed, for all we know its always existed.

How do you know that the Earth always existed in its FE form?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 20, 2012, 05:27:35 PM
Theorising is verboten in Zetetic thought.  Quite plainly we dont know how the earth-plane was formed, for all we know its always existed.

How do you know that the Earth always existed in its FE form?

Where does he say that he does?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 21, 2012, 12:50:46 AM
Theorising is verboten in Zetetic thought.  Quite plainly we dont know how the earth-plane was formed, for all we know its always existed.

How do you know that the Earth always existed in its FE form?

Where does he say that he does?

"for we know it always existed"

Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 23, 2012, 07:14:22 PM
Theorising is verboten in Zetetic thought.  Quite plainly we dont know how the earth-plane was formed, for all we know its always existed.

How do you know that the Earth always existed in its FE form?

Where does he say that he does?

"for we know it always existed"

"For all we know it's always existed"

That extra word makes a world of difference, no?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: BoatswainsMate on August 23, 2012, 09:09:45 PM
That sentence is for Kendrick to clear up.

honestly though even with the word all in there. It still sounds like Kendrick is saying that it always existed because there is no evidence that it has not.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 23, 2012, 09:17:12 PM
That sentence is for Kendrick to clear up.

honestly though even with the word all in there. It still sounds like Kendrick is saying that it always existed because there is no evidence that it has not.

The phrase "for all we know" actually implies a lack of certainty.  It's a fairly common turn of phrase.  His sentence is crystal-clear.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: BoatswainsMate on August 23, 2012, 10:29:34 PM
It does seem to, but does that not also imply a slight beliefe that goes along with using that statement. Unless he is being sarcastic like "for all we know the Earth is a rocket ship"
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 24, 2012, 12:23:26 AM
It does seem to, but does that not also imply a slight beliefe that goes along with using that statement. Unless he is being sarcastic like "for all we know the Earth is a rocket ship"

if his sentence was crystal clear, then there would be no debate.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 24, 2012, 09:44:19 AM
It does seem to, but does that not also imply a slight beliefe that goes along with using that statement. Unless he is being sarcastic like "for all we know the Earth is a rocket ship"

if his sentence was crystal clear, then there would be no debate.

It's hardly either my or Kendrick's problem that some of the REers on this site seem to have a problem with understanding the English language.  The intent of the statement was crystal-clear.  If you or Boatswainsmate don't grasp it, maybe give www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org) a shot.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 24, 2012, 10:08:04 AM
It does seem to, but does that not also imply a slight beliefe that goes along with using that statement. Unless he is being sarcastic like "for all we know the Earth is a rocket ship"

if his sentence was crystal clear, then there would be no debate.

It's hardly either my or Kendrick's problem that some of the REers on this site seem to have a problem with understanding the English language.  The intent of the statement was crystal-clear.  If you or Boatswainsmate don't grasp it, maybe give www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org) a shot.

It's hardly my problem if you or Kendrick struggle with expressing clearly what's in your mind. Or whit the dubious idea of FET, which is clearly a very lame theory.

I'm not surprised by the tone of you message, half patronizing, half despizing which is so common with you.

And I'm not surprised that in this debate, if there's a misunderstanding, it is never your fault.


––––––


Back to the debate: no one has an idea of how the FE was formed?

No brilliant zetetic observation which might lead to an idea?

Oh, you don't know? Ok, you can resume considering us as idiots.

Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: burt on August 24, 2012, 10:10:25 AM
Theorising is verboten in Zetetic thought.  Quite plainly we dont know how the earth-plane was formed, for all we know its always existed.

in rowbothams pseudo-zeteticism, yes.  zetecism is also not outto  state or prove anything but to question all hypothesis, which requires a theoretical constrcut to do so. the flat earth as a hypothesis is actually believed by people who follow rowbothams thinking, therefore ejecting them from any pretense of zetetic thought.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: burt on August 24, 2012, 10:13:11 AM
It does seem to, but does that not also imply a slight beliefe that goes along with using that statement. Unless he is being sarcastic like "for all we know the Earth is a rocket ship"

if his sentence was crystal clear, then there would be no debate.

It's hardly either my or Kendrick's problem that some of the REers on this site seem to have a problem with understanding the English language.  The intent of the statement was crystal-clear.  If you or Boatswainsmate don't grasp it, maybe give www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org) a shot.

but it is your problem that what you think they misunderstand is the english language.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 24, 2012, 10:15:41 AM
It's hardly my problem if you or Kendrick struggle with expressing clearly what's in your mind.

But Kendrick did clearly express what was on his mind.  The "debate" started because BoatswainsMate misread what Kendrick wrote, continued because BoatswainsMate apparently doesn't understand what the phrase "for all we know" means, and you seem to have jumped in because... I don't know, maybe just to argue with a FEer?  At any rate, Kendrick's meaning was absolutely crystal-clear and any "debate" over what he said was clearly due to a lack of reading comprehension.  I don't see why linking to a site that might help you folks out in an area where you seem to genuinely need it is so awful.  I'm sorry I tried to help.

but it is your problem that what you think they misunderstand is the english language.

This was clearly a case of BoatswainsMate misunderstanding the English language.  BoatswainsMate does not understand what the phrase "for all we know" means.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: burt on August 24, 2012, 10:18:53 AM
It's hardly my problem if you or Kendrick struggle with expressing clearly what's in your mind.

But Kendrick did clearly express what was on his mind.  The "debate" started because BoatswainsMate misread what Kendrick wrote, continued because BoatswainsMate apparently doesn't understand what the phrase "for all we know" means, and you seem to have jumped in because... I don't know, maybe just to argue with a FEer?  At any rate, Kendrick's meaning was absolutely crystal-clear and any "debate" over what he said was clearly due to a lack of reading comprehension.  I don't see why linking to a site that might help you folks out in an area where you seem to genuinely need it is so awful.  I'm sorry I tried to help.

but it is your problem that what you think they misunderstand is the english language.

This was clearly a case of BoatswainsMate misunderstanding the English language.  BoatswainsMate does not understand what the phrase "for all we know" means.

Look up catagorical error, Roundy: he didn't misunderstand the english language.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 24, 2012, 10:21:06 AM
It's hardly my problem if you or Kendrick struggle with expressing clearly what's in your mind.

But Kendrick did clearly express what was on his mind.  The "debate" started because BoatswainsMate misread what Kendrick wrote, continued because BoatswainsMate apparently doesn't understand what the phrase "for all we know" means, and you seem to have jumped in because... I don't know, maybe just to argue with a FEer?  At any rate, Kendrick's meaning was absolutely crystal-clear and any "debate" over what he said was clearly due to a lack of reading comprehension.  I don't see why linking to a site that might help you folks out in an area where you seem to genuinely need it is so awful.  I'm sorry I tried to help.

but it is your problem that what you think they misunderstand is the english language.

This was clearly a case of BoatswainsMate misunderstanding the English language.  BoatswainsMate does not understand what the phrase "for all we know" means.

Look up catagorical error, Roundy: he didn't misunderstand the english language.

Okay, I looked up catagorical (sic) error.  What does that have to do with BoatswainsMate not understanding what "for all we know" means?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 11:59:18 AM
What ever you want to claim is fine with me Roundy. Just know that "for all we know" is implying the possibility that something could be true.

"For all we know that dog had a hard life"

The person is saying that the dog might have had a hard life, but he is not sure or there is a possibility.

I understand what the phrase means. I hope you realize you are sounding like a complete tool.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 24, 2012, 12:14:03 PM
What ever you want to claim is fine with me Roundy. Just know that "for all we know" is implying the possibility that something could be true.

Yes.  Your point?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: burt on August 24, 2012, 12:31:27 PM
It's hardly my problem if you or Kendrick struggle with expressing clearly what's in your mind.

But Kendrick did clearly express what was on his mind.  The "debate" started because BoatswainsMate misread what Kendrick wrote, continued because BoatswainsMate apparently doesn't understand what the phrase "for all we know" means, and you seem to have jumped in because... I don't know, maybe just to argue with a FEer?  At any rate, Kendrick's meaning was absolutely crystal-clear and any "debate" over what he said was clearly due to a lack of reading comprehension.  I don't see why linking to a site that might help you folks out in an area where you seem to genuinely need it is so awful.  I'm sorry I tried to help.

but it is your problem that what you think they misunderstand is the english language.

This was clearly a case of BoatswainsMate misunderstanding the English language.  BoatswainsMate does not understand what the phrase "for all we know" means.

Look up catagorical error, Roundy: he didn't misunderstand the english language.

Okay, I looked up catagorical (sic) error.  What does that have to do with BoatswainsMate not understanding what "for all we know" means?

It doesn't. it has to do with what you accused REers of.

p.s the [sic] was a little cheeky. I happen to be dyslexic. moreover,  this aint an academic journal.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 24, 2012, 12:34:46 PM
It doesn't. it has to do with what you accused REers of.

I never accused REers on the whole of anything.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 01:39:38 PM
What ever you want to claim is fine with me Roundy. Just know that "for all we know" is implying the possibility that something could be true.

Yes.  Your point?

That you apparently need the Rif site more then any other here.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 24, 2012, 01:46:21 PM
What ever you want to claim is fine with me Roundy. Just know that "for all we know" is implying the possibility that something could be true.

Yes.  Your point?

That you apparently need the Rif site more then any other here.

Why?  I never said that he wasn't allowing for the possibility that the Earth has always been, and your query was regarding how he can know that the Earth has always been... which (again) isn't something he ever stated. 

Tell me what I'm misunderstanding, please.  I was gracious enough to do it for you.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 03:07:45 PM
What ever you want to claim is fine with me Roundy. Just know that "for all we know" is implying the possibility that something could be true.

Yes.  Your point?

That you apparently need the Rif site more then any other here.


Why?  I never said that he wasn't allowing for the possibility that the Earth has always been, and your query was regarding how he can know that the Earth has always been... which (again) isn't something he ever stated. 

Tell me what I'm misunderstanding, please.  I was gracious enough to do it for you.
That is what I was saying the whole time. That he believes in the possibility that the Earth has just always existed. Jesus are my writing skills that bad... maybe I should take a class.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 24, 2012, 03:17:28 PM
What ever you want to claim is fine with me Roundy. Just know that "for all we know" is implying the possibility that something could be true.

Yes.  Your point?

That you apparently need the Rif site more then any other here.


Why?  I never said that he wasn't allowing for the possibility that the Earth has always been, and your query was regarding how he can know that the Earth has always been... which (again) isn't something he ever stated. 

Tell me what I'm misunderstanding, please.  I was gracious enough to do it for you.
That is what I was saying the whole time. That he believes in the possibility that the Earth has just always existed. Jesus are my writing skills that bad... maybe I should take a class.

Oh, come on, that is not what you were saying.  I'm sorry if I was being a bit of a douche but you're just moving the goalposts now.

At any rate, yes, he probably believes in the possibility that the Earth always existed, but focusing on this still misses his point entirely.  The question posed was "How did the Earth form?"  His answer was that we can't know, and that it might have even always been there, ie, it might never have formed.  He only pointed that out to highlight that we just don't have any way of knowing what the Earth's origin is, or even if it ever had an origin, because we simply don't have the data.

I think you were reading too much into his statement that the Earth might have always existed.  He was not in any way professing a belief that this is the case, just that it's a possibility we can't rule out.  It's like saying "For all we know God exists."  Such a statement obviously does not imply a belief that God exists, it's only pointing out that it's a possibility.

Of course for all I know Kendrick may very well believe that it's likely that the Earth always existed.  But that certainly wasn't what he was trying to get across.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: burt on August 25, 2012, 06:30:18 AM


It's hardly either my or Kendrick's problem that some of the REers on this site seem to have a problem with understanding the English language.


Ok, just some of them then. It's still a categorical error.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: The Knowledge on August 25, 2012, 06:34:53 AM
Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

It is not. At least no more so than people still believing that Ra carries the sun across the sky in a barge.

I'd like to see Tom Bishop disprove this.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: burt on August 25, 2012, 07:49:48 AM
What ever you want to claim is fine with me Roundy. Just know that "for all we know" is implying the possibility that something could be true.

Yes.  Your point?

That you apparently need the Rif site more then any other here.


Why?  I never said that he wasn't allowing for the possibility that the Earth has always been, and your query was regarding how he can know that the Earth has always been... which (again) isn't something he ever stated. 

Tell me what I'm misunderstanding, please.  I was gracious enough to do it for you.
That is what I was saying the whole time. That he believes in the possibility that the Earth has just always existed. Jesus are my writing skills that bad... maybe I should take a class.

Oh, come on, that is not what you were saying.  I'm sorry if I was being a bit of a douche but you're just moving the goalposts now.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 25, 2012, 12:10:41 PM


It's hardly either my or Kendrick's problem that some of the REers on this site seem to have a problem with understanding the English language.


Ok, just some of them then. It's still a categorical error.

No, it was an observation.  No part of that statement is logically flawed given the evidence.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: The Knowledge on August 25, 2012, 01:42:12 PM


It's hardly either my or Kendrick's problem that some of the REers on this site seem to have a problem with understanding the English language.


Ok, just some of them then. It's still a categorical error.

No, it was an observation.  No part of that statement is logically flawed given the evidence.

It does, however, carry the tacit suggestion that no FE'ers ever have this problem. Which is incorrect.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: burt on August 26, 2012, 08:15:35 AM


It's hardly either my or Kendrick's problem that some of the REers on this site seem to have a problem with understanding the English language.


Ok, just some of them then. It's still a categorical error.

No, it was an observation.  No part of that statement is logically flawed given the evidence.

An observation with a categorical error.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: sandokhan on August 27, 2012, 12:59:59 AM
I'm Unclear about FET's conjecture concerning the formation of the structure of the theorized flat earth

In order to understand where we are located in the Universe, and at the same time, get an answer to your question, you will need to understand the work of Hans Hoerbiger and the cosmology of the Desana tribe.

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/story_of_hans_hoerbiger.htm (http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/story_of_hans_hoerbiger.htm)

http://thirdreichocculthistory.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html (http://thirdreichocculthistory.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html)



http://books.google.ro/books?id=P_AlMzLOvdMC&pg=PA123&hl=ro&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=true (http://books.google.ro/books?id=P_AlMzLOvdMC&pg=PA123&hl=ro&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=true)

http://books.google.ro/books?id=cZWqpuG8xB8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=shamanism+and+art+of+the+tukanoan+indians+reichel-dolmatoff&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Jo7IT6DHL8bV4QTVkaH7Dw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=shamanism%20and%20art%20of%20the%20tukanoan%20indians%20reichel-dolmatoff&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=cZWqpuG8xB8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=shamanism+and+art+of+the+tukanoan+indians+reichel-dolmatoff&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Jo7IT6DHL8bV4QTVkaH7Dw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=shamanism%20and%20art%20of%20the%20tukanoan%20indians%20reichel-dolmatoff&f=false) (cosmogony section)

http://texts.00.gs/Shamanism--critical%20concepts,_26.htm (http://texts.00.gs/Shamanism--critical%20concepts,_26.htm)

http://books.google.ro/books?id=6yxs214hdhcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=wisdom+elders&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=X9CnT4DwKqTP4QSo_pSeCQ&ved=0CDIQ6A#v=onepage&q=wisdom%20elders&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=6yxs214hdhcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=wisdom+elders&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=X9CnT4DwKqTP4QSo_pSeCQ&ved=0CDIQ6A#v=onepage&q=wisdom%20elders&f=false) (brain architecture section)

http://books.google.ro/books?id=0F5Rn0RrgwoC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=reichel+dolmatoff+brain+mind+desana+shamanism&source=bl&ots=E67Ao_uBXn&sig=Le2POsD_ndZIyKHoyN1o9XfkWfM&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=0_GnT_qMDuaA4gSA-_WUCQ&ved=0CGIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=reichel%20dolmatoff%20brain%20mind%20desana%20shamanism&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=0F5Rn0RrgwoC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=reichel+dolmatoff+brain+mind+desana+shamanism&source=bl&ots=E67Ao_uBXn&sig=Le2POsD_ndZIyKHoyN1o9XfkWfM&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=0_GnT_qMDuaA4gSA-_WUCQ&ved=0CGIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=reichel%20dolmatoff%20brain%20mind%20desana%20shamanism&f=false)


(http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/9822/desanaworld.jpg)
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: sandokhan on August 27, 2012, 01:18:21 AM
This is the crucial observation H. Hoerbiger made:

The water condensed out into ice, forming giant ice blocks. A ring of this ice formed, as well as a small number of solar systems. This ring is known to us all as the Milky Way.

Now, he thought he observed ice blocks, which is a close estimate to the truth; in order to understand precisely what is going on you will need the cosmology of the Desana tribe, the Hexagonal Crystal Universe.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 27, 2012, 03:00:32 AM
This is the crucial observation H. Hoerbiger made:

The water condensed out into ice, forming giant ice blocks. A ring of this ice formed, as well as a small number of solar systems. This ring is known to us all as the Milky Way.

Now, he thought he observed ice blocks, which is a close estimate to the truth; in order to understand precisely what is going on you will need the cosmology of the Desana tribe, the Hexagonal Crystal Universe.

Of course powerful telescopes completely invalidate this theory.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: The Knowledge on August 27, 2012, 06:34:52 AM
This is the crucial observation H. Hoerbiger made:

The water condensed out into ice, forming giant ice blocks. A ring of this ice formed, as well as a small number of solar systems. This ring is known to us all as the Milky Way.

Now, he thought he observed ice blocks, which is a close estimate to the truth; in order to understand precisely what is going on you will need the cosmology of the Desana tribe, the Hexagonal Crystal Universe.

Of course powerful telescopes completely invalidate this theory.

Since when have observations of reality stopped Levee?  ;)
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: sandokhan on August 28, 2012, 06:05:21 AM
Hans Hoerbiger was the greatest astronomer of the 20th century; of course, his name has been erased from the textbooks...the same thing happened to Tesla, Schauberger, Russell, Keely and Leedskalnin.


What? Reality?


Here is some reality for all of you.


ISS in front of the Sun (http://#)

NO 149,000,000 KM BETWEEN THE SUN THE ISS


International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun. (http://#ws)


SAME THING, SLOW MOTION


Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun (http://#)


ATLANTIS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SUN


International Space Station (ISS) crosses the moon (http://#)

ISS TRANSIT IN FRONT OF THE MOON, SAME DISTANCE AS IN THE SUN-ISS VIDEOS


ISS Moon Transit (http://#)


ISS in front of the Sun (http://#)

ISS IN FRONT OF THE SUN


ISS sul Sole (http://#)


ISS Transit 20071216 (http://#)


Mercury Transit With Jets 11-8-2006 (http://#)

MERCURY IN FRONT OF THE SUN, SAME DISTANCE/SIZE AS IN THE ISS VIDEOS


Mercury transit across the face of the Sun (http://#)


ISS Crosses The Moon (http://#)

ISS CROSSES THE MOON

ISS Crosses The Moon (http://#)
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: sandokhan on August 28, 2012, 06:09:00 AM
http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html (http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html)


(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg)

ANTARCTICA, BLACK SUN PHOTOGRAPHS - THE MOON DOES NOT CAUSE THE SOLAR ECLIPSE


(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

SAME SIZE OF THE SUN/BLACK SUN AS IN THE ISS/ATLANTIS VIDEOS (see the previous message): SOME 600 METERS IN DIAMETER

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)

Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: The Knowledge on August 28, 2012, 06:30:58 AM
Aww, I was going to make an amusing remark about how nice it was of Levee not to shove his famous Photoshopped Black Sun picture in our faces for once. Wish I had now.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: sandokhan on August 29, 2012, 01:31:53 AM
Since when have observations of reality stopped Knowledge?

Here are facts.

Fred Bruenjes is one of the most renowned photographers in the world today. He was part of the Astronomical Tours expedition to the Schirmacher Hills area, on the Princess Astrid Coast in Dronning (Queen) Maud Land, Antarctica.

Be my guest and read the precise details of the entire expedition: http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html (http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html)

These photographs show exactly that the Moon could not possibly be the cause of the solar eclipse; furthermore, we can get immediately an estimate for the diameter of the Sun...

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4623.jpg)


(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/2ndcontact_vidcap.jpg)


Here is the original image/photograph of the solar eclipse:

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)


HERE ARE THE WORDS OF FRED BRUENJES HIMSELF:

To the doubters: this is a real image, I was really there and that's what it really looked like. Interestingly, people who have never seen a total solar eclipse think it's fake, while people who HAVE seen a total eclipse (particularly those with me in Antarctica) think I got the image exactly right!

The image was the Astronomy Picture of the Day on December 8th, 2003, and was CNN.com's Space Scene of the week starting December 17th, 2003. My website got half a million hits during December 2003.

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/CRW_4632.jpg)


(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/CRW_4641.jpg)


(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/2_rotate_crop_colorcorrect.jpg)


(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/3rdcontact_vidcap.jpg)


So, here is the Black Sun in full splendor:

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)


The Black Sun has the same diameter as that of the Sun itself.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 29, 2012, 02:33:46 AM
A black sun which only can be detected when in front of the Sun?
What kind of science is that?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: The Knowledge on August 29, 2012, 03:34:16 AM
Since when have observations of reality stopped Knowledge?

Here are facts.

Fred Bruenjes is one of the most renowned photographers in the world today. He was part of the Astronomical Tours expedition to the Schirmacher Hills area, on the Princess Astrid Coast in Dronning (Queen) Maud Land, Antarctica.

Be my guest and read the precise details of the entire expedition: http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html (http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html)

These photographs show exactly that the Moon could not possibly be the cause of the solar eclipse; furthermore, we can get immediately an estimate for the diameter of the Sun...

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4623.jpg)


(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/2ndcontact_vidcap.jpg)


Here is the original image/photograph of the solar eclipse:

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)


HERE ARE THE WORDS OF FRED BRUENJES HIMSELF:

To the doubters: this is a real image, I was really there and that's what it really looked like. Interestingly, people who have never seen a total solar eclipse think it's fake, while people who HAVE seen a total eclipse (particularly those with me in Antarctica) think I got the image exactly right!

The image was the Astronomy Picture of the Day on December 8th, 2003, and was CNN.com's Space Scene of the week starting December 17th, 2003. My website got half a million hits during December 2003.

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/CRW_4632.jpg)


(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/CRW_4641.jpg)


(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/2_rotate_crop_colorcorrect.jpg)


(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/3rdcontact_vidcap.jpg)


So, here is the Black Sun in full splendor:

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)


The Black Sun has the same diameter as that of the Sun itself.

Seriously, are you in the same dimension as the rest of us?
Firstly, the link you supply does nothing to contribute to your argument that it's "not the moon" that causes the eclipse, in fact it's very clear that it is. Secondly, I'm not claiming the image is fake: I'm claiming that the biggest one you show, with the sun covered by extreme blackness, is Photoshopped, by which I mean enhanced to look blacker, not made up from nothing.
THEN I found this on your link:
"The framed image below is a highly processed composite of four images that's intended to be a more artistic representation of what the eclipse felt like. I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful."
So yes, I was correct, it HAS been tarted.
And yes, I have seen a total solar eclipse myself. I never expressed the opinion that it's not photos of a real eclipse.
As to your assertions that you can somehow work out the size of the sun from this - how? And where do you think the moon is while this is going on, if it's not in front of the sun?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: sandokhan on August 30, 2012, 02:05:07 AM
The essential features of the photographs were NOT changed: the size of the Black Sun, and of course, the distance to this heavenly body, which does cause the solar eclipse.

We can determine immediately the size of the Sun's diameter, firstly, from the videos I posted earlier here, and then from the Antarctica photographs taken by F. Bruenjes.

These photographs invalidate immediately the fairy tale invented by LRS and Nasa: no 4,800 km diameter for the Moon, no 384,000 km distance from Earth to the Moon.

In order to understand why this planet/heavenly body cannot be detected you must understand the nature of gravity.

Please read the following work carefully, as it explains the physics behind subquarks (the Black Sun emits subquarks), the real nature of the atom: ether vortices.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf)


Again, here is the original image:

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)



Now, the words of F. Bruenjes: I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful."


No modification of the size of the Black Sun, no modification of the distance.

Here is the same photograph as above, magnified: it immediately shatters everything we have been taught about the real cause of the solar eclipse:

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

Game over.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 30, 2012, 03:24:00 AM
As I said before:

A black sun which only can be detected when in front of the Sun?
What kind of science is that?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: MrT on August 30, 2012, 04:11:03 AM
Game over.

From your link:

"What is a total solar eclipse? Well, through an amazing coincidence in geometry, every few years the Moon blocks out the Sun creating a solar eclipse. The Sun is 400 times the size of the Moon, and 400 times as distant, so they appear to be the same size when viewed from Earth. When the orbit of the Moon takes it between the Sun and the Earth, the shadow of the Moon is cast upon the Earth. If the Moon is close enough to the Earth, someone located near the middle of that shadow will see the Moon exactly block out the Sun in a spectacular show. This is a "Total Solar Eclipse." "
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: The Knowledge on August 30, 2012, 09:47:54 AM
The essential features of the photographs were NOT changed: the size of the Black Sun, and of course, the distance to this heavenly body, which does cause the solar eclipse.
Irrelevant, as no evidence is presented of the existence of the black sun. You fail to answer my question of where the Moon is while this is going on.
Quote
We can determine immediately the size of the Sun's diameter, firstly, from the videos I posted earlier here, and then from the Antarctica photographs taken by F. Bruenjes.
No you can't, as you don't know its distance. Therefore you cannot determine its true size.
Quote
These photographs invalidate immediately the fairy tale invented by LRS and Nasa: no 4,800 km diameter for the Moon, no 384,000 km distance from Earth to the Moon.
They don't invalidate anything, for the reasons already given.

Quote
In order to understand why this planet/heavenly body cannot be detected you must understand the nature of gravity.
Which I suppose you understand better than the world's top particle physicists? What are you waiting for, go get your Nobel prize! Are you going to give us a summary of why we can't see it? No? Well then, you're talking out of your hat again, aren't you.

Quote
Please read the following work carefully, as it explains the physics behind subquarks (the Black Sun emits subquarks), the real nature of the atom: ether vortices.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf)
It explains nothing of the kind, it's based on something made up by some people who imagined what subatomic particles looked like and then claimed they were psychic. It's about as believable as James's nocturnal conversations with the moonshramps.

Quote
Again, here is the original image:
NO! We don't need to see it again! STOP!


Quote
Now, the words of F. Bruenjes: I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful."


No modification of the size of the Black Sun, no modification of the distance.
I never said there was any modification of size, and as we have seen, the distance you talk of is meaningless and baseless.
Quote
Here is the same photograph as above, magnified: it immediately shatters everything we have been taught about the real cause of the solar eclipse:
NOT AGAIN, PLEASE!  :'(  :'(  >:(

Quote
Game over.

Yes, it most certainly is.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 01:44:35 PM
You know, every day, I wonder why I continue logging on to this website. And every day I log on. This is why. To watch these things play out and be completely shocked by the idiotic conspiracy theories I see Levee post.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: The Knowledge on August 30, 2012, 02:48:34 PM
You know, every day, I wonder why I continue logging on to this website. And every day I log on. This is why. To watch these things play out and be completely shocked by the idiotic conspiracy theories I see Levee post.

Yes, he's a little gold nugget amidst all the dross, isn't he?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: sandokhan on August 31, 2012, 12:52:05 AM
thinkingman wrote:

I don't know if I would consider myself privileged, although I come from a town where most people view everyone that lives in it as "privileged." I had to work for everything I have, nothing was given to me, including jobs. I had to apply, send out resumes, and qualify to get the job I have. It doesn't pay much, but it does pay the bills. You're right, I can't speak for everyone in America, unemployment is up quite high. Maybe I misspoke back there. But there really isn't need for murdering or raping. And I can't see the average joe going and raping someone in the "heat of the moment." Most people know what "no" means. Unless you're considering the average joe a drunk or a drug addict.


You are no thinking man. You can be accused of illegally carrying along a brain inside your skull.

You have never offered anything here, other than common place bullshit; please shut the f*** up.



The Moon is following its usual orbit as usual, is it hard to understand? The solar eclipse cannot be caused by the Moon.

Your comments are a joke, I hope you understand this.


There are no 148,998,600 km between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun in the following videos:

International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun. (http://#ws)


Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun (http://#)

Stop making a fool of yourself knowledge...there is no way you can possibly believe again in the official figures: in these videos there are no 149,000,000 km between the Sun and the ISS/Altantis.



No, my friend, there are no 384,000 km between the photographer and the "Moon" in this following photograph:

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

Perhaps you need an urgent visit to your local eye doctor...


http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf)

This work is writtten by none other than Dr. Stephen Phillips, who lectured at Cavendish Lab, and who obtained a Phd in quantum physics at UCLA.

It includes the best proofs available today that the atom is indeed formed/made up of vortices; it demonstrates clearly that the Rutherford-Bohr model is completely false. Do your homework.


No matter how much you try to deny the facts, there are no 384,000 km between what is considered officially to be the Moon and F. Bruenjes, not by any long shot:

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)


Your opinions are an unbelievable proof of how deeply you have been brainwashed by Nasa...

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4623.jpg)

A planet/satellite located at some 384,000 km distance would look COMPLETELY DIFFERENT; this single photograph is a certain proof that we have been lied to all along for the past 250 years as to the nature of the heliocentric solar system.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 31, 2012, 01:30:21 AM
Where are your proofs? can you enlighten us about those videos?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Pongo on August 31, 2012, 03:49:15 AM
Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

It is not. At least no more so than people still believing that Ra carries the sun across the sky in a barge.

What controls sky gears?  Because I think the only explanation (and I've been away from the forum for a while) I've ever heard about the origin of FE or the controller of sky gears is God and angels.

I am unsure what controls the sky gears, but I have no reason to credit a supernatural explanation.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 31, 2012, 04:30:06 AM
Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

It is not. At least no more so than people still believing that Ra carries the sun across the sky in a barge.

What controls sky gears?  Because I think the only explanation (and I've been away from the forum for a while) I've ever heard about the origin of FE or the controller of sky gears is God and angels.

I am unsure what controls the sky gears, but I have no reason to credit a supernatural explanation.

Why is it that REers are so quick to assume the supernatural when presented with the unknown?  Do you think it's their strong ties to religion?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 31, 2012, 05:17:08 AM
Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

It is not. At least no more so than people still believing that Ra carries the sun across the sky in a barge.

What controls sky gears?  Because I think the only explanation (and I've been away from the forum for a while) I've ever heard about the origin of FE or the controller of sky gears is God and angels.

I am unsure what controls the sky gears, but I have no reason to credit a supernatural explanation.

Why is it that REers are so quick to assume the supernatural when presented with the unknown?  Do you think it's their strong ties to religion?

Because we're still waiting for a theory behind the celestial gears.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 31, 2012, 05:21:14 AM
thinkingman wrote:

I don't know if I would consider myself privileged, although I come from a town where most people view everyone that lives in it as "privileged." I had to work for everything I have, nothing was given to me, including jobs. I had to apply, send out resumes, and qualify to get the job I have. It doesn't pay much, but it does pay the bills. You're right, I can't speak for everyone in America, unemployment is up quite high. Maybe I misspoke back there. But there really isn't need for murdering or raping. And I can't see the average joe going and raping someone in the "heat of the moment." Most people know what "no" means. Unless you're considering the average joe a drunk or a drug addict.


You are no thinking man. You can be accused of illegally carrying along a brain inside your skull.

You have never offered anything here, other than common place bullshit; please shut the f*** up.

I'm sorry, did I make you angry? Why don't you quote some more out of context responses from different threads and call me stupid?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: sandokhan on August 31, 2012, 05:42:53 AM
We can have a separate discussion for the three different stellar orbits (southern/northern circumpolar and regular).

Let us now explore further the myths about the moon which relate to our discussion (which, of course, the enquiring minds that want to know belonging to knowledge and thinking amoeba do accept without a question).


The Moon and the Sun could not have attained a spherical shape in the first place. Here is a brief, exceptional demonstration.

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).



DO YOU UNDERSTAND these things knowledge?

You have lost each and every debate so far because of your lack of knowledge.


You assert that the Moon orbits the Earth based on an attractive gravity model.

Here is another brief demonstration that the gases in the upper atmosphere do not obey any kind of an attractive gravity law.


The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?


Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.”  Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.



knowledge, do you understand what is being debated here? If the gases do not obey an attractive gravity law, HOW THEN could the Moon do so?



Have you ever asked yourself about the origin of the Moon? No?

Here the Moon paradoxes:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=709#p31101 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=709#p31101)


The nebular and tidal theories alike regard the planets as derivatives of the sun, and the satellites as derivatives of the planets. The problem of the origin of the moon can be regarded as disturbing to the tidal theory. Being smaller than the earth, the moon completed earlier the process of cooling and shrinking, and the lunar volcanoes had already ceased to be active. It is calculated that the moon possesses a lighter specific weight than the earth. It is assumed that the moon was produced from the superficial layers of the earth's body, which are rich in light silicon, whereas the core of the earth, the main portion of its body, is made of heavy metals, particularly iron. But this assumption postulates the origin of the moon as not simultaneous with the origin of the earth; the earth, being formed out of a mass ejected from the sun, had to undergo a process of leveling, which placed the heavy metals in the core and silicon at the periphery, before the moon parted from the earth by a new tidal distortion. This would mean two consecutive tidal distortions in a system where the chance of even one is held extremely rare. If the passing of one star near another happens among one hundred million stars once in five billion years, two occurrences like this for one and the same star seem quite incredible.

 The birth of smaller, solid planets out of the larger, gaseous ones is conjectured in order to explain the difference in the relation of  weight to volume in the larger and smaller planets; but this theory is unable to explain the difference in the specific weights of the smaller planets and their satellites. By a process of cleavage, the moon was born of the earth; but since the specific weight of the moon is greater than that of the larger planets and smaller than that of the earth, it would seem to be more in accord with the theory that the earth was born of the moon, despite its smallness.


I have just demonstrated to you knowledge, that you have a very weak understanding of the actual physics of the heliocentric planetary system.


And we haven't entered into the FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX discussion, which would destroy immediately any and all preconceived ideas you might have about the origin of the planets.


By the way, you should remember that in the real/alternative flat earth theory, the Moon does rise and set at regular times; and it might not be visible during the few minutes the Black Sun covers entirely the Sun in Antarctica; very easy to explain...


Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 31, 2012, 06:10:46 AM
When I look at the sites you're refering to, I'm not surprised that you have such a flawed version of the whole world around you.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 31, 2012, 06:15:24 AM
Everyone abandon ship, the Levee has struck!
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: burt on August 31, 2012, 08:14:19 AM
Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

It is not. At least no more so than people still believing that Ra carries the sun across the sky in a barge.

What controls sky gears?  Because I think the only explanation (and I've been away from the forum for a while) I've ever heard about the origin of FE or the controller of sky gears is God and angels.

I am unsure what controls the sky gears, but I have no reason to credit a supernatural explanation.

You knowm ThinkingMan is a NASA agent, He told me, in private, that the Sky Gears are an accurate hypothesis corroborated by many tests, he even went further to suggest that the Sky Gears are actually kept in place by the abominable Starman (please search on the forum for more information) the abominable starman can actually be seen every monday that the moon is full, it is by humans standards, amazingly huge, and looks like a formation of stars. the abominable starman is currently in battle with the god that created him (a spider) that spins immense galaxies for pleasure, and to catch celectial debris to feed on, we are bassically spider food.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 31, 2012, 08:18:17 AM
Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

It is not. At least no more so than people still believing that Ra carries the sun across the sky in a barge.

What controls sky gears?  Because I think the only explanation (and I've been away from the forum for a while) I've ever heard about the origin of FE or the controller of sky gears is God and angels.

I am unsure what controls the sky gears, but I have no reason to credit a supernatural explanation.

You knowm ThinkingMan is a NASA agent, He told me, in private, that the Sky Gears are an accurate hypothesis corroborated by many tests, he even went further to suggest that the Sky Gears are actually kept in place by the abominable Starman (please search on the forum for more information) the abominable starman can actually be seen every monday that the moon is full, it is by humans standards, amazingly huge, and looks like a formation of stars. the abominable starman is currently in battle with the god that created him (a spider) that spins immense galaxies for pleasure, and to catch celectial debris to feed on, we are bassically spider food.

You weren't supposed to tell them. Now that the cat is out of the bag, I suppose I can tell the rest of the story. The abominable Starman doesn't want people to know the shape of the Earth, so he pays NASA in pure 24k gold (after all, he's the Starman, he can get that shit) to keep the disinformation going. He doesn't want us to know this because he's ashamed of stepping on the Earth. After all, that's what caused the Dinosaurs to go extinct.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Criscoih on June 20, 2013, 05:28:57 PM
...And yet no responses to any of Levee's arguments pointing out the blatant fallacies inherent in Heliocentric cosmology. That's about par for the course.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: markjo on June 20, 2013, 06:30:31 PM
...And yet no responses to any of Levee's arguments pointing out the blatant fallacies inherent in Heliocentric cosmology. That's about par for the course.
Since Levee's posts can be painful to read, would you please summarize some of these "blatant fallacies" that you are referring to?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Shmeggley on June 20, 2013, 06:53:15 PM
...And yet no responses to any of Levee's arguments pointing out the blatant fallacies inherent in Heliocentric cosmology. That's about par for the course.

Levee's "arguments" can't even explain his supposedly accurate 15km sun distance. All he knows how to do is endlessly copy paste post the same crap, even a year later. He got totally decimated in Googleotomy's Ham radio/moonbounce thread yet still came out totally convinced he was right and calling everyone else stupid. He's either totally deluded or a really, REALLY tallented and persistent troll.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: sandokhan on June 22, 2013, 01:03:12 AM
shmeggley, you have really lost your mind.

At the ham radio earth-moon distance thread, I flushed the toilet with googleappendectomy's and your arguments right into the sewer system.

To come back here after the bloody massacre that went on for some 20 pages, where I showed in all its glory your fulminant ignorance of the original Maxwell equations is truly delusional.


Here is the complete demolition of the RE theory right from its start.

Helium Flash Paradox



The fusion of hydrogen to helium by either the PP chain or the CNO cycle requires temperatures of the order of 10,000,000 K or higher, since only at those temperatures will there be enough hydrogen ions in the plasma with high enough velocities to tunnel through the Coulomb barrier at sufficient rates.


The Mass-5 and Mass-8 Bottlenecks

The helium that is produced as the "ash" in this thermonuclear "burning" cannot undergo fusion reactions at these temperatures or even substantially above because of a basic fact of nuclear physics in our Universe: there are no stable isotopes (of any element) having atomic masses 5 or 8. This means that the two most likely initial steps for the fusion of helium-4 (the next most abundant isotope in stars after hydrogen-1) involve combining the He-4 with H-1 to form a mass-5 isotope, or combining two He-4 nuclei to form a mass-8 isotope. But both are unstable, and so immediately fly apart before they can undergo any further reactions. This produces a bottleneck to further fusion at mass 5 and at mass 8.


High Temperatures and Helium Fusion

Only at extremely high temperatures, of order 100 million K, can this bottleneck be circumvented by a highly improbable reaction. At those temperatures, the fusion of two He-4 nuclei forms highly unstable Beryllium-8 at a fast enough rate that there is always a very small equilibrium concentration of Be-8 at any one instant.

The situation is somewhat like running water through a sieve. Normally the sieve holds no water because it drains out as fast as it is added. However, if the flow of water into the sieve is made fast enough, a small equilibrium amount of water will be in the sieve at any instant because even the sieve cannot empty the water fast enough to keep up with the incoming water.

This small concentration of Be-8 can begin to undergo reactions with other He-4 nuclei to produce an excited state of the mass-12 isotope of Carbon. This excited state is unstable, but a few of these excited Carbon nuclei emit a gamma-ray quickly enough to become stable before they disintegrate. This extremely improbable sequence is called the triple-alpha process because the net effect is to combine 3 alpha particles (that is, 3 He-4 nuclei) to form a C-12 nucleus.



And, of course, this scenario is based on the following assumption: gravity compresses the core where, at high temperature and pressure, nuclear fusion occurs.


But there is no such thing as attractive gravity:


http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541)


http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542)


The helium flash paradox NULLIFIES, DESTROYS ANY RE THEORIES ABOUT THE BIG BANG, AND SPACE TIME CONTINUUM.


STARS EXPLODE AND SUPERNOVAS

PRODUCE HEAVY ELEMENTS

The problem—The Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium. Somehow, the 90 heavier (post-helium) elements had to be made. The theorists had to figure out a way to account for their existence.

The theory—The first stars, which were formed, were so-called 'first-generation stars' (also called 'population III stars'). They contained only lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of these stars repeatedly exploded. Billions upon billions of stars kept exploding, for billions of years. Gradually, these explosions are said to have produced all our heavier elements.

This concept is as wild as those preceding it.

1 - Another imaginative necessity. Like all the other aspects of this theory, this one is included in order to somehow get the heavier (post-helium) elements into the universe. The evolutionists admit that the Big Bang would only have produced hydrogen and helium.

2 - The nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium to change itself into any of the heavier elements. This is an extremely important point, and is called the 'helium mass 4 gap' (that is, there is a gap immediately after helium 4). Therefore exploding stars could not produce the heavier elements. (Some scientists speculate that a little might be produced, but even that would not be enough to supply all the heavier elements now in our universe.) Among nuclides that can actually be formed, gaps exists at mass 5 and 8. Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5. This first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium. Even if it spanned this gap, it would be stopped again at mass 8. Hydrogen bomb explosions produce deuterum (hydrogen 2), which, in turn, forms helium 4. In theory, the hydrogen bomb chain reaction of nuclear changes could continue changing into ever heavier elements until it reached uranium;—but the process is stopped at the gap at mass 5. If it were not for that gap, our sun would be radiating uranium toward us!

'In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8. This basic objection to Gamow’s theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea.'—*William A. Fowler, California Institute of Technology, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90.

Clarification: If you will look at any standard table of the elements, you will find that the atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.008. (Deuterum is a form of hydrogen with a weight of 2.016.) Next comes helium (4.003), followed by lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811), etc. Gaps in atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.

But cannot hydrogen explosions cross those gaps? No. Nuclear fision (a nuclear bomb or reactor) splits (unevenly halves) uranium into barium and technetium. Nuclear fusion (a hydrogen bomb) combines (doubles) hydrogen into deuterum (helium 2), which then doubles into helium 4—and stops there. So a hydrogen explosion (even in a star) does not go across the mass 5 gap.

We will now ASSUME that hydrogen and helium explosions could go across the gaps at mass 5 and 8:

3 - There has not been enough theoretical time to produce all the needed heavier elements that now exist. We know from spectrographs that heavier elements are found all over the universe. The first stars are said to have formed about 250 million years after the initial Big Bang explosion. (No one ever dates the Big Bang over 20 billion years ago, and the date has recently been lowered to 15 billions years ago.) At some lengthy time after the gas coalesced into 'first-generation' stars, most of them are theorized to have exploded and then, 250 million years later, reformed into 'second-generation' stars. These are said to have exploded into 'third-generation' stars. Our sun is supposed to be a second- or third-generation star.

4 - There are no population III stars (also called first-generation stars) in the sky. According to the theory, there should be 'population III' stars, containing only hydrogen and helium, many of which exploded and made 'population II' (second-generation stars), but there are only population I and II stars (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 35-36).

5 - Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. The theory requires that countless billions of stars exploded. How could haphazard explosions result in the marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of suns, stars, binary stars, galaxies, and star clusters? Within each galactic system, hundreds of billions of stars are involved in these interrelated orbits. Were these careful balancings not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars would fall into their galactic centers—or they would fly apart! Over half of all the stars in the sky are in binary systems, with two or more stars circling one another. How could such astonishing patterns be the result of explosions? Because there are no 'first generation' ('Population I') stars, the Big Bang theory requires that every star exploded at least one or two times. But random explosions never produce orbits.

6 - There are not enough supernova explosions to produce the needed heavier elements. There are 81 stable elements and 90 natural elements. Each one has unusual properties and intricate orbits. When a star explodes, it is called a nova. When a large star explodes, it becomes extremely bright for a few weeks or months and is called a supernova. It is said that only the explosions of supernovas could produce much of the needed heavier elements, yet there have been relatively few such explosions.

7 - Throughout all recorded history, there have been relatively few supernova explosions. If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now. Research astronomers tell us that one or two supernova explosions are seen every century, and only 16 have exploded in our galaxy in the past 2,000 years. Past civilizations carefully recorded each one. The Chinese observed one, in A.D. 185, and another in A.D. 1006. The one in 1054 produced the Crab nebula, and was visible in broad daylight for weeks. It was recorded both in Europe and the Far East. Johannes Kepler wrote a book about the next one, in 1604. The next bright one was 1918 in Aquila, and the latest in the Veil Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud on February 24, 1987.

'Supernovae are quite different . . and astronomers are eager to study their spectra in detail. The main difficulty is their rarity. About 1 per 650 years is the average for any one galaxy . . The 1885 supernova of Andromeda was the closest to us in the last 350 years.'—*Isaac Asimov, New Guide to Science (1984), p. 48.

8 - Why did the stellar explosions mysteriously stop? The theory required that all the stars exploded, often. The observable facts are that, throughout recorded history, stars only rarely explode. In order to explain this, evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago, the explosions suddenly stopped. Very convenient. When the theory was formulated in the 1940s, through telescopes astronomers could see stars whose light left them 5 billion light-years ago. But today, we can see stars that are 15 billion light-years away. Why are we not seeing massive numbers of stellar explosions far out in space? The stars are doing just fine; it is the theory which is wrong.

9 - The most distant stars, which are said to date nearly to the time of the Big Bang explosion, are not exploding,—and yet they contain heavier elements. We can now see out in space to nearly the beginning of the Big Bang time. Because of the Hubble telescope, we can now see almost as far out in space as the beginning of the evolutionists’ theoretical time. But, as with nearby stars, the farthest ones have heavier elements (are 'second-generation'), and they are not exploding any more frequently than are the nearby ones.

10 - Supernovas do not throw off enough matter to make additional stars. There are not many stellar explosions and most of them are small-star (nova) explosions. Yet novas cast off very little matter. A small-star explosion only loses a hundred-thousandth of its matter; a supernova explosion loses about 10 percent; yet even that amount is not sufficient to produce all the heavier elements found in the planets, interstellar gas, and stars. So supernovas—Gamow’s fuel source for nearly all the elements in the universe—occur far too infrequently and produce far too small an amount of heavy elements—to produce the vast amount that exists in the universe.

11 - Only hydrogen and helium have been found in the outflowing gas from supernova explosions. The theory requires lots of supernova explosions in order to produce heavy elements. But there are not enough supernovas,—and research indicates that they do not produce heavy elements! All that was needed was to turn a spectroscope toward an exploded supernova and analyze the elements in the outflowing gas from the former star. *K. Davidson did that in 1982, and found that the Crab nebula (resulting from an A.D. 1054 supernova) only has hydrogen and helium. This means that, regardless of the temperature of the explosion, the helium mass 4 gap was never bridged. (It had been theorized that a supernova would generate temperatures high enough to bridge the gap. But the gap at mass 4 and 8 prevented it from occurring.)

12 - An explosion of a star would not produce another star. It has been theorized that supernova explosions would cause nearby gas to compress and form itself into new stars. But if a star exploded, it would only shoot outward and any gas encountered would be pushed along with it.


A complete demonstration that the RE are the most ignorant bunch of folks that have the audacity to participate in scientific discussions.


Next time we meet, we go into fifth gear: the faint young sun paradox, the impossibility of a spherically shaped sun, the galactic orbit paradox, and much more.

shmeggley, do not kid yourself: it takes less than 2 minutes to discover you have no qualitication to even dream to debate with me, given your total ignorance of the helium flash paradox.
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Rama Set on June 22, 2013, 05:13:27 AM
I actually read all that Sandokhan, but you need an editor because you say the same thing over and over.

You failed to mention that lithium was created in the Big Bang as well.

Yes supernovas do not happen that often, but fortunately there are a mind boggling amount of stars. So many that if you point a telescope anywhere in the sky, there is a better than 50% chance you will observe a supernova that night. (Not a home telescope, but one in an observatory).

I have never heard that nucleosynthesis through stellar fusion was a strictly linear process going through each atomic mass in turn. Does one of your sources speak to this?
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: RyanTG on June 26, 2013, 02:07:28 AM
A planet/satellite located at some 384,000 km distance would look COMPLETELY DIFFERENT; this single photograph is a certain proof that we have been lied to all along for the past 250 years as to the nature of the heliocentric solar system.

Since when have photographs been acceptable pieces of evidence in the Flat Earth Society?

I'm just going to say what all Flat Earther's say in regards to images of a spherical earth; photoshopped.

*EDIT* Also as a side note, how could you possibly know what a 370km high satellite would look like through a telescope as it transits across the sun? You have no other data point to compare it to, you don't have an example of a satellite 1km high transiting a 20 meter diameter sun at an altitude of 500km which is presumably your depiction of the heavens, so how can you know anything?

Seems like motivated reasoning to me, once again...


Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Antonio on June 26, 2013, 03:28:12 AM
Like this one?  ;)
(http://www.free-meditation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Sun-in-hand.jpg)
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: icanbeanything on June 26, 2013, 04:12:34 AM
Like this one?  ;)
(http://www.free-meditation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Sun-in-hand.jpg)

Clearly, the Sun is only 1cm in diameter. This photo is certain proof of it. I don't understand how people can think it's a huge ball of fire much larger than the Earth. Look at how it fits between two fingers!
Title: Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET
Post by: Genius on June 26, 2013, 04:25:43 AM
Look at this artist's rendition of the internal of a Dyson Sphere:

(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/124/5/b/dyson_sphere_by_ipid-d4wn4pr.jpg)

Although clearly fake, it shows that the creation of pictures that suggests any idea as to the Earth's shape can be easily faked. It would be bad for me to go about, waving this as proof.

Good proof for the RET, however, is the large amount of amateur pictures and videos out there. Along with videos and photos from before decent video/photo editors were available. I have suggested that the FES use a weather balloon to ensure that the Earth is not round, and so they can confidently continue their debate against the "conspiracy", but it is clear this will not be done. Anyone that knows me on this site will be aware I lacked the brains to safely get the weather balloon up and back, but many here seem to be smart, if not misguided.

Weather balloon GPS space flight iPhone camera footage homemade spacecraft 100,000 ft altitude HD (http://#ws)

100,000 ft. from a weather balloon (http://#ws)

The point of this post is to just make sure that no more pictures are used as evidence of anything. Science, peeps, science. Even if I suck at it.