Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Godspoke

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible and flat earth.
« on: July 13, 2016, 06:43:27 PM »
I love watching people try and tie religion with the ridiculous argument of a Flat Earth theory. When do we admit we're grasping for straws, and contradicting ourselves all at the same time?

2
you don't actually believe half of the country's going to secede do you?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Faked Moon Landing
« on: July 13, 2016, 06:00:46 PM »
Excellent, the internet really needed another moon landing hoax conspiracy thread.  There can't be any others about.

Well done.   :'(

glad you decided to try and bring some substance to this thread. well done.

as for the ones claiming that this isn't valid evidence. I'm aware. This is merely all speculation regarding the conspiracy. If you choose to refuse reason and logic that is your own problem.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Faked Moon Landing
« on: July 12, 2016, 04:39:15 PM »
Just wanted to drop some common bulletpoints and information from an author by the name of Guy P. Harrison.

It includes things intended to persuade on why this conspiracy is outlandish, and why the most common arguments are invalid. I will link the original article as well, but I would like some feedback.



• The US government has lied about other things. Of course it has, and will again. However, pointing out that the US government is capable of lying does not prove that it lied about Apollo. Watergate is not evidence of Moongate.

• The absence of stars in photographs. Cameras were set for the proper exposure to photograph well-lit astronauts wearing white suits and the highly reflective Lunar Module, not the faint light of distant stars in dark space. Had the cameras been set to properly capture the light of stars, the astronauts would have been overexposed.

• No blast crater under Lunar Module. In order to land, the Lunar Module’s descent engine was throttled back and shut down prior to contact with the surface of the Moon. If the vehicle’s engine had been engaged at anything near its ten-thousand-pound thrust capability, it could not have landed.

• The flag moved. The American flag that was displayed on a rod extending horizontally from a flagpole did not move because of wind. It moved because of the astronaut’s manipulation of the flagpole during his effort to drive it into lunar soil.

• They lied. Hundreds of thousands of NASA personnel and contractors might have lied and then kept lying about it for all these decades, but I doubt it. Over the years I have interviewed more than twenty Apollo engineers, mission control personnel, and astronauts. Maybe they lied to me about their work and personal memories, but I doubt it. There are too many people telling the same story. Faking a Moon landing would be easy compared to the challenge of getting thousands of conspirators to keep the lie all these years.

• The US lied because it was determined to win a public relations war with the USSR. And the Soviet Union could have won by exposing such a vast American fraud. But the Soviets, also technologically sophisticated in space, knew the landings were real and acknowledged it.

• NASA could have faked it. Maybe NASA could have produced convincing video on a terrestrial sound stage that was good enough to fool non-experts. But why do it so many times? There were nine missions to the Moon, six of which landed. The Apollo 16 and 17 crews each spent three days there. Why? If this was all a daring PR stunt, why increase the risk of discovery with multiple missions? Why make it necessary for so many astronauts and ground personnel to lie and maintain the cover up? If this were a hoax, doesn’t it seem more likely that NASA would have faked one landing, had a big parade, and then promptly shut down the operation?

Like all conspiracy theories that are short on evidence, the Moon-hoax claim relies on the absence of good thinking. Please don’t let irrational beliefs like this one set up shop in your head without a fight. Force unusual claims to earn their way in with an abundance of evidence and logic. Make sure you understand and never forget how vulnerable the human mind is to falling for even the craziest of claims. Never forget that believing nonsense is only human. None of us are immune.

There is no shame in this vulnerability. But there is no excuse for anyone to embrace nonsense as a result of being intellectually passive and lazy. Get your own house in order when it comes to conspiracy theories. Be diligent. Work at culling your own bad conclusions within and then offer a helping hand to your fellow humans so they might do the same.

- Guy P. Harrison
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/about-thinking/201607/the-greatest-conspiracy-theory-all-time

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is this that i have photographed?
« on: March 27, 2016, 02:23:33 PM »
this is proof the firmament does not exist .

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3039109/watch-these-5th-grade-girls-send-a-gopro-into-space

I mean who's writing the checks for these fifth graders Sir Richard ?

and claiming you've seen something that renders itself transparent, literally inconceivable from the rest of the sky, isn't very reputable at all. I mean no ones sent a GoPro to the firmament ?

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Water in zero gravity
« on: March 27, 2016, 02:14:00 PM »
face it. this depth of liquid realism can not be faked or simulated in a CG environment. I mean you can of course go ahead and prove us wrong be creating your own zero g scene of you playing with bubbles with a handful of software and tell us how that comes out. Not to mention the level of interaction these astronauts use with the liquid. How do you suppose they do this in a livestream ?

I mean I hope you understand how pointless it is to argue " this footage isn't genuine because NASA. "

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why is there no Standard FET Model?
« on: March 27, 2016, 02:08:29 PM »
in my experience on this forum, the only ones willing to argue the integrity of their FET model are the same people who just come here to troll. Jroa is a great example. And anyone else who tries usually gets shot down as they fail to derail a further argument, much like Jroa does. I've given up. This forum is better left for entertainment rather than discussion.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is this that i have photographed?
« on: March 24, 2016, 12:03:07 PM »
how exactly is the firmament visible in a photograph ?

you have a baseless argument, and accusing me of being American is ignorant to say the least. You don't know a single thing about me. I'm sorry, but there's no evidence of a firmament. I have friends who's children, only 14 years old have sent their Barbie into space with a GoPro attached to it. No firmament. Keep dreaming pal.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is this that i have photographed?
« on: March 23, 2016, 05:45:04 PM »
"The heavens tell of the glory of God the wonders of His Earth declare the firmament"

I must hold myself back at your inane and foolishly formed assumptions.  What difference does it make to the existence of God if the world is round, square, elliptical, or round?  Having faith in God has NOTHING to do with the world being flat or round.  You make an extremely odd connection between the necessity of the world being flat and your faith in God although they are mutually exclusive.  It seems that you contend to understand God, which you know is not possible and you should know better than making presuppositions about God's universal design.  Your argument is twisted an ill-conceived. 

Your apparent faith has clouded your judgement and led you to a highly biased conclusion.  Now you spend the rest of your days trying to cram a square into a circular hole just so that your world view will remain in harmony. How very "scientific" of you.
I must say I am beginning to understand why "trolling" exists (I only learned the word here and then search its meaning). Not that my post was a troll (or what one calls a post made by a troll). Your response, as most responses from hello-centrists are full of vituperation and anger at anyone who would well dare to challenge cherish beliefs.

My point was simply this- the post above (or writings or what ever they are called) uses the existence of the the firmament to question the flat earth theory.  I give not one whit, scientifically, whether it was put in place by God Almighty, Zeus, Auhra Mazda (Google term if you wish- but I have stood before the ancient temple fire once upon a time) or by Biffo the Bear in a pink suit. I actually possess a telescope and can (and do) view the firmament on occasion. The existence of the firmament neither proves, nor disproves, the theory of the flat earth.

The firmament exists, that is all I can say.

I do find it interesting that most Helio-centrists believe not in subordination (you should search "Subordination by Dr. Samuel Johnson) and encourage everyone to "go their own way... or be all you can be... or cut your own path" yet when confronted with someone who actually does takes up arms against the mores and thinking of the masses they are aghast with indignation.

I would also urge you to be more careful in your word choice and meanings. You put to mind the story told by Dr. Johnson:

"Dr. Johnson, you smell!" At which Johnson replied something like, "Incorrect, Madam, you smell me, and I stink!"

No sir, your verbal masturbation is getting tiresome.  Again, you are terribly patronizing and as usual you have provided no proof of anything, which I would construe as quite pathetic since in your life-long pursuit of your flat earth you cannot present one lousy piece of evidence that can be tested and proven.  Bravo.  IF you own a telescope it must not work.  Try pointing it at the moon one of these days and take a close look at it during one of the moon's phases and you "should" clearly see that it is not "self-illuminated."
Oh Dear, You MUST be an American, there can be no doubt of this. I have not conversed with so  many Americans since my unit did going maneuvers with a American Amoured Scouting unit in Germany whilst I was in the military. I admit they were most jolly and genial at least at first, but the foul language that spewed forth was monstrous to behold. In addition I have never seen men so prone to fight over the smallest point of discussion nor so eager to bully people. One lesson I learned is to not give a "Yank" as we called them more than a dram of liquor or a fight of some type would soon erupt.

It does strike me that you appear to be losing your temper because someone is defending the Flat Earth Theory on a Flat Earth Forum. Although I became certain during my time with those jAmericans that they had little concept of irony, I suspect that  even you, should see a bit of irony in this situation. You remind me of a house guest who complained to my mother about the water pressure in the W.C. Her response (to my Father not to the guest) was "well if they don't like the water pressure they should jolly well go home."

Regarding evidence and proofs I would suggest that you click (as they say) on my profile and then (it turns out that one can do this) read through all my posts. You will quickly see that I am not a "dodger" (an American colloquialism, apparently, that I learned from a round earth friend I made on this fair forum). I provide explanations and theory for phenomena.

I would also point out that although it may appear I am omni-present... I confess to not being so. I do feel like a rabbit in a race of hounds, many round earthers visit this site but few flat earth's. So it is up to a small few of us to answer these reqest and respond to many queries- some of which are repetitive and some, well down right silly, such as pointing to the existence of the firmament as proof of a round earth, as if late earth theorists don't acknowledge the existence of the firmament.

To close I really do not understand, given the apparent quick tempered and aggressive nature of Americans the United States has not erupted into Civil War once again. Of course given the fact that you are close to electing a fascist who has promised riot if not elected we may all well see it break out in the very near future, which will surprise me  none at all.

you're claiming the firmaments existence without any physical proof. you claim to have seen it, yet you and everyone else are still absent any genuine evidence. that is where the problem lies, contrary to the millions and millions of people who work in the space industry, some of whom have actually helped build probes that are sent off to orbit Mars etc.. Need I remind you, all of these people are accused of lying, and their silence is the bi product of a government check. Face it, you're the saddest kind of conspiracy theorist. You might as well believe the worlds controlled by lizards. The paranoia is staggering honestly.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Liquid Behaviour ISS footage
« on: March 07, 2016, 10:44:52 PM »
It's just disheartening seeing people claim that these videos are not genuine, but then fail to deliver the youtube video in which proves its absence of ingenuity.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How does the UA model explain gravity waves.
« on: March 07, 2016, 06:14:19 PM »
jane confirmed jroa a troll.

today is happy day in the forums.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Liquid Behaviour ISS footage
« on: March 02, 2016, 12:18:00 PM »
The behavior of liquids in weightlessness is entirely different when seen in a parabolic arch, than when seen on footage of the ISS.

Fluid behavior in an absence of earth gravity is not something done easily with CGI.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

How could this illusion be done, and for as long as it is?

For instance, this video of Scott Kelly, he uses two paddles with a hydrophobic surface to slightly tap the liquid back and forth between the paddles. This would be impossible in a parabolic flight as the liquid would not have a still motion.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

oh and anyone who states that this isn't genuine because of its affiliation with NASA will be ignored. Remember this is the INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION, NOT THE NASA SPACE STATION.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is special
« on: March 02, 2016, 12:13:36 PM »
isn't that the beauty of the sarcasm ?


15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is special
« on: March 02, 2016, 11:58:33 AM »
No he's agreeing with you, the Earth is different. FErs are certain the Earth is flat. This guy is certain the other celestial bodies are not. Therefore, the Earth is special.

16
well I originally did. then found that none of them seem to withhold the mental capabilities to remain rational when participating in discussion. you can't just say, NASA lies to us, that's why the ISS is fake. Including the hundreds of hours of footage shot. That's ridiculous, and if you don't see a flaw In that method of thinking well then there's not much else to say here.

17
alpha pretty much closed this thread already I can't believe yendors still at it.

poppys tried to disprove the integrity of NASAs ISS footage before, and failed.

I've lost faith that any FEr can.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Zero G Footage?
« on: February 18, 2016, 09:27:05 PM »
I sense jroa's sarcasm.

its obvious they're all trolls just having the time of their lives basically.

where do I sign up? I mean I can spew the same baseless bullshit you guys can.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How does GPS work if no satellites?
« on: February 17, 2016, 06:51:46 PM »
clap clap jroa

i bet the government paid you to be a mod

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Zero G Footage?
« on: February 17, 2016, 06:13:05 PM »
Refer back to the video I linked, that is clearly not CGI.

and like I said before, you can do things to verify if footage is genuine or not.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Zero G Footage?
« on: February 16, 2016, 07:45:25 PM »
so you don't believe in the FE theory entirely? because I clearly was referring to whats stated in the wiki.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Inertia, a way to truly prove/disprove the FE.
« on: February 16, 2016, 07:44:22 PM »
has anyone ever really proved NASA's ISS footage to be fake. Or even furthermore their any of their footage? Can I get a link here or something lol?

Because its entirely possible for people to do independent forensic work to verify doctored and or undoctored footage.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy question?
« on: February 16, 2016, 04:40:33 PM »
so you're really willing to believe an entirely separate world government wants to lie to you about the shape of the earth for whatever reason, but you refuse to believe in Gravity, I think you've some insecurities we need to account for.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If gravity doesn't exist....?
« on: February 16, 2016, 04:07:09 PM »
didn't think they'd be able to answer that one for ya Luke.

so because GR disproves gravity to an extent that means Einstein believes in FE?

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Inertia, a way to truly prove/disprove the FE.
« on: February 16, 2016, 03:58:41 PM »
if I had a nickel for every time jroa and or the engineer derailed a thread with personal insults, and or a lack of evidence,

I'd probably be just as rich as this guy who pretends to build rockets

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Zero G Footage?
« on: February 16, 2016, 03:46:59 PM »
so if the dome isn't at the heighth detailed in the wiki then that must mean you all just pretend to know about the stuff you believe is true

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If gravity doesn't exist....?
« on: February 15, 2016, 10:54:59 PM »
I think anyone is smarter than a FEr

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Zero G Footage?
« on: February 15, 2016, 10:54:17 PM »
don't be a troll. you can only be in a sustained parabolic arch for a few minutes.

how would they have conducted interviews that our live, and hours long?

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Zero G Footage?
« on: February 15, 2016, 12:59:50 PM »
I just love how easily people like to dismiss this kind of footage as just simply green screen and harness lol.



30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Zero G Footage?
« on: February 14, 2016, 10:13:44 PM »
can a FE send me a video that debunks this kind of footage? please?

Pages: [1] 2 3