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 - Why-Am-I-Here?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Quote
Hollow Earth enthusiasts continue to believe. Teed's Concave Earth theory, for example, was tested during World War II (19391945) by a Nazi scientist. He aimed a camera at a 45-degree angle into the sky from an island in the Baltic Sea, hoping to catch an image of a British fleet on the other side of the concave Earth. The experiment was unsuccessful.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Hollow_Earth.aspx

Another source
https://books.google.com/books?id=DoZhZ48Fxo4C&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=Dr.+Heinz+Fischer+nazi&source=bl&ots=b1yAL58rJG&sig=O5OfXUredbZadGJW-frrwhYZ0j0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCGoVChMI_rTluNuPxwIVip-ACh0QpQ5h#v=onepage&q=Dr.%20Heinz%20Fischer%20nazi&f=false

So a few Nazi's believed in hollow Earth.  They utterly failed to produce anything that would even be considered evidence to support such a nonsensical model.

all your sources are controled so they is invalid... nice try kid... funny how you cant even address my other points ayy lmao so sad and fail troll...
Oh I'm sorry little racist troll boy.  I thought it was self explanatory that the other points were just stupid and have been proven so multiple times on these forums.  Also I would have expected more than the usual conspiracy rhetoric of controlled sources. 
Horizon always at eye level, well no its not but it it were concave , there would not be a horizon at all.  Every time you looked further up you would just see more land.
The rectilinear experiment was shown to be full of inconsistencies and the controls were not adequate since they were proven to have failed.
Movement of the moon and stars, again there would be no sky with a concave Earth, and they do not match up with how they would move for a concave model.
Light bending around the Earth perfectly, well that is false and it also contradicts your Nazi example that was in fact a failure.

Side notes: One of the first concave fanatics in the United States also proclaimed himself to be Jesus Christ reborn and when he died he did not rise again as he foretold and lost his "flock".  With no one to give out the kool-aid, they lost interest.  Now we have another so called messiah who is just a Dumbass who will also be proven wrong on December 19th of this year kind of leading the charge with this stupid model.  But I guess he will just "recalculate" his prediction when t doesn't come true.  Odd, how does "God" get things wrong?  This theory doesn't even have any basis in a possible reality, at least with the flat Earthers they can say it looks flat out my window.  Concave Earth stupidity has to have even more stupidity to describe what anyone can see on a daily basis.

there is horizen on the concave earth cause there is mist and atosphere that blocks it... simple...
there is controled sorces... the illuminati/ freemasons/ nazi/repillians /jesuits/ jews allience are in control and it is proven when you look at history with an open mind...
and like i said... do you believe flag poles and pictures from liars are more accurater?/
and have you done no study on the concave earth?? the sky is a ball in the middle... basic research... same thing i tell the other guy... do some basic research before jumping into an argument... also you can stop calling me racist troll now cause im not racist and i dont hate any races i just know what i know... i have black friends who are jewish and evreything... OK good boy...

That is one of the worst excuses on the internet. I doubt you have any friends the way you are acting. That just shows how immature you are.

The horizon is not always at eye level.

im guessing you havent been in a plane...
I was on one a week ago. The horizon was not eye level.  It is also not at eye level when I go to the top of the mountains outside Denver.

you were conviently on a plane a week ago... lies...

I was in a plane 5 days ago. You know why? Because i was coming back from my vacation because its SUMMER!!! Your stupidity amazes me.

lies...
Buddy, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but just stating that every statement put forward is a lie... is not going to get you very far. It's useless, if you can't prove the lies to be lies, which, as far as I've seen, you've yet to do.
I have flown a plane, and turned it to both to port and starboard. I had to use the horizon to bring the plane back to neutral, as it can be more reliable than the instruments. I had to look out and down from the plane's cockpit to see the horizon as I was flying just above the cloud layer at 5,000 feet. I know you wont believe this, but you used the argument that you had climbed mount everest, which is a claim i find equally contemptible to mine, except I'm not lying with mine ;) Better luck next time!

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Circular Reasoning
« on: June 19, 2015, 02:40:16 PM »
Alright JRowe, you provided some form of logic. Ish. What I still fail to understand is why this version of space must be the correct one. What exactly is wrong with the original scientific version? Why does space need this convoluted concentration hypothesis? If ether is space, why does it behave so goddamn differently???

3
Flat Earth Debate / Circular Reasoning
« on: June 19, 2015, 12:24:31 PM »
For reasons I still can't quite fathom, I've read this website for a while. I have observed several cases of circular reasoning, which are quintessential to the argument's continued 'validity'. Am I wrong here?
Excuse the paraphrasing, but here's an example from infinite earth theory:
"There are hidden continents. How do i know this? The earth is infinite. How do I know the earth is infinite. How do I know this? There are hidden continents." You see the problem?
Here's an example from dual earth theory, in the form that JRowe requested, so here it is:
"We cannot go to space. Why not? The ether is too thick. How do you know? Because we can't go to space."
Again, there seems to be a problem. However JRowe at least cites 'logical deductions', which I have yet to see a coherent explanation of. Have I missed something with this circularity? Or have they???

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: When Round Earth Theory Breaks Down
« on: June 14, 2015, 10:17:53 AM »
I still await an answer Itchy...

Returning to an earlier point, how do YOU know there are hidden continents? You are displaying another example of circular reasoning:

There are hidden continents because the earth is infinite. How do i know the earth is infinite? There are hidden continents. How do I know there are hidden continents? The earth is infinite. How come these have never been discovered previously, and how on earth did YOU discover them?

P.S. Excuse the lengthy circular reasoning explanation, but I didn't want a JRowe -Esque "Your circular reasoning doesn't make sense."

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: When Round Earth Theory Breaks Down
« on: June 13, 2015, 11:42:33 AM »
Returning to an earlier point, how do YOU know there are hidden continents? You are displaying another example of circular reasoning:

There are hidden continents because the earth is infinite. How do i know the earth is infinite? There are hidden continents. How do I know there are hidden continents? The earth is infinite. How come these have never been discovered previously, and how on earth did YOU discover them?

P.S. Excuse the lengthy circular reasoning explanation, but I didn't want a JRowe -Esque "Your circular reasoning doesn't make sense."

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: evidence clouds do not exist
« on: May 31, 2015, 10:35:50 AM »
Have you never heard of ash clouds? Also the energy given to them by sunlight and other forms of heat explain the energy (in the form of heat) via the processes of radiation and conduction.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: evidence clouds do not exist
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:56:27 AM »
Slightly alternate logic here, but I'd like to introduce a new idea. Ash. Ash is heavier than air, this is easily observed in fireplaces, and the fact that it falls. How come there can be ash clouds if ash is heavier than air?

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Theory=fact?
« on: May 30, 2015, 09:44:34 AM »
Bloody hell I didn't expect this many replies. Anyway, no matter, moving on to the remainder of my question. What allows a theory to be accepted as fact? Take DET for instance. One person believes it, yet he asserts it as a fact, plain and simple. Compare this to gravity, which is believed by the majority of the human population. Is that a fact? Is it more a fact than DET? Less?
Discuss

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Theory=fact?
« on: May 30, 2015, 01:37:09 AM »
Maybe... give and example and justify it?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Theory=fact?
« on: May 30, 2015, 01:36:34 AM »
Alright, opinions here. When is a theory a fact? What determines that a theory becomes a fact? I've seen several assertions of 'fact' despite the names still being referred to as a theory. A hypothesis even. So, what is a fact?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: evidence clouds do not exist
« on: May 29, 2015, 06:05:11 AM »
Don't just assert that there's a circular argument. Justify it! Explain!

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Ether exist?
« on: May 29, 2015, 05:59:32 AM »
in the fact that JRowe has ignored my question
do you know how to read? i directly responded to it. you do realize that not one person has ever proposed that the earth is perfectly 2d? the term 'disk' is not always used to refer to a 2d shape,. it is used to refer to one for which the depth is far overshadows by its other dimensions. or are you now going to whinge that the compact disc (cd) and dvds should not be called disks as they are not perfectly 2d?

Also, "the disks"? There are more than one?
the two sides of the earth. do you know anything about dual earth theory? this has been well described for quite some time. seriously, try to educate yourself, this is getting pathetic. if you are not going to even try to learn about dual earth theory then stop acting like an expert, you're clearly not. this should not be too much to ask.

How is it possible for space to do that?
the aether exists in the same way as a mind, according to my personal beliefs. this is not part of dual earth theory. i also never wrote that statement, at least try to look at the context of a post before you blatantly lie

An how does said seemingly sentient ether communicate with you, and only you???
i have also never claimed that it only communicates with me. it is behind many perceived experiences of god, for example: and it does not speak in words, just impressions, so many people may feel its touch without realizing. i was just able to put the pieces together.
Alright JRowe. I asked you a question. What is on the sides of the 'disc'? If there are at least 11km there, then what exists there?
"disks" imply that there are more than one. Dual Earth Theory centres entirely around one disc. One disc, dual sided, not multiple discs. Learn...to...read?
The ether exists in the same way as a mind? Damn. Wasn't aware space existed as a mind. Any proof of this? Also, look no further than the quotation above your post, from BiJane, where that statement, albeit slightly changed as I manipulated it slightly to fit the context, is easily visible.
You are the only person i have ever heard about claiming to be spoken to by space/God/everything else. Surely people feel it's touch every second if it exists everywhere? Your arguments are flailing.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Ether exist?
« on: May 29, 2015, 02:43:07 AM »
While I remember, having scouted about on this forum for a long while: How does "the ether think you're a li'l bitch? How is it possible for space to do that? An how does said seemingly sentient ether communicate with you, and only you???

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: dual earth q&a - no debate
« on: May 29, 2015, 02:37:04 AM »
How is ether (still relevant to DET) sentient?
And how does it communicate with you, but nobody else???

15
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm dying on the inside.
« on: May 28, 2015, 11:49:05 PM »
If you mean "One piece of evidence the earth is not round" then I can't help you.
If you mean "One piece of evidence the earth isn't flat" then I ask how many?
For instance, the stories told by astronauts and pictures taken from space. The Hubble space telescope. The ISS. etc.
Hope this helps.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sandra bullock was really at space ?
« on: May 28, 2015, 10:10:56 AM »
I've started wondering. It's quite clear we all spend quite a substantial portion of each day arguing topics on this god-forsaken website. Why aren't we getting paid? We should be.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What do Flat Earth Believers Believe?
« on: May 28, 2015, 10:09:15 AM »
That's all well and good, and maybe i was a tad harsh, but some observations seem entirely unnecessary. Clouds? Air? Fairies? These are things everyone and their second cousin take for granted, but still they need questioning? That was more my point.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Ether exist?
« on: May 28, 2015, 08:45:47 AM »
without resorting to childish tantrums, I would like to point out further hypocrisy, in the fact that JRowe has ignored my question. Is he illiterate? By his logic, most certainly. I asked what is there, between the two hemispheres, to which he replied that the earth is huge (insert size doesn't matter joke here).
Take a look at a disc that is has an enormous circumference, and, to scale, a small depth. It is still a cylinder not a disc. Even depending upon proportionality, it is still a cylinder.
Also, "the disks"? There are more than one? Or was that a typo? Please be careful, or your readers might stop taking you seriously... wait... nevermind.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Ether exist?
« on: May 28, 2015, 06:38:25 AM »
The simple existence of the Mariana trench also implies that there are 11 km between hemispheres. What's there? Is that where the fairies live?

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: evidence clouds do not exist
« on: May 27, 2015, 11:43:17 PM »
If you take all three molecules in gas form and compare their atomic weights, you will see that water vapour will indeed be the lightest. HsO (16+1+1)=18 O2(2x16)=32 and N2(15x2)=30. This is basic maths and chemistry.
You profess to know about states of matter so I won't bother with that, but, as I previously highlighted, ingas form, these molecules both outweigh water.
Hope this helps.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Ether exist?
« on: May 27, 2015, 11:37:08 PM »
The Mariana trench is extremely deep. The connotations of this imply that the sides of the earth are quick thick. If so, what's there? If the mariana trench is deep enough to go through the Earth all together, then we would know. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Hence, from my own logical deductions, and using the idea of dual earth theory to some degree, the earth is a cylinder.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Ether exist?
« on: May 27, 2015, 01:01:50 PM »
If the earth is a disc, then it implies it is two-dimensional.
A three-dimensional disc is known as a cylinder.
Once you have said equipment, let us know. Maybe we'll take you more seriously then.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Ether exist?
« on: May 27, 2015, 12:47:26 PM »
The general consensus over centuries of mathematical trialing all points to one of two things. Flat or Round earth. The latter being supported by the vast majority, the former by the shrunken minority. If it lies, it lies very well. This model explains observations, but also disputes an increasing number of easily observable phenomena, which require far more complex thinking.
If you would, explain the Mariana trench, deep mining and the rest. Is the sun a disc as well? Is the earth entirely two-dimensional? This seems, even by your standards, far fetched, and also, shockingly, disagrees with a previous conversation we had on a previous thread I started, which still awaits a concrete answer.
I think you'll find I can simply hand wave and assert math, as it is one piece of evidence you have yet to provide. Indeed, it is much the same principle as in many other arguments where you simply hand wave and cite "ether". Hence this thread.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Ether exist?
« on: May 27, 2015, 12:38:27 PM »
Thank you Vauxhall, I appreciate it. I wasn't aware of this version of ether, only scepti's and JRowe's. JRowe's being the one currently under heavy dispute. If ether and space travel can co-exist, then, at least so far, I see no cause for dispute, as it seems acceptable that man has indeed visited the moon. As for Einstein, I certainly do not believe myself to be smarter, i still struggle with GCSE physics, although I must ask which model his version of ether conforms to. I assure you, JRowe disagrees.
The rest I appreciate, but cannot really address aside from, for the time being, accepting it. If you would be so kind as to give an example or two of your experiments, it would be much appreciated.
Thank you for your time.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Ether exist?
« on: May 27, 2015, 12:09:19 PM »
You concluded this based upon what evidence? Expand upon these logical deductions if you please, as it's clear very few people think the same way you do with regards to this matter.
I do, in fact, understand each and every one of those concepts, but they don't answer the statements. Many plausible outcomes from observations? I'm pretty sure a cylinder and a sphere look pretty different. Maths isn't my strongest subject, but even I can tell the difference. Maths, in my experience, doesn't tend to lie, and trigonometry performed by several civilisations across time, has resulted in an agreed upon round earth? You can't even pull the "different trigonometry" line, as your sun doesn't orbit the earth, in any sense of the word. I'll just leave the questions at that for now, that should be plenty.

Also, "the", not "teh"...

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Ether exist?
« on: May 27, 2015, 12:00:04 PM »
Perhaps I can answer your questions, but I cannot be bothered to read the entire thread. So please do repost your questions, and I will answer them as honestly as possible.

As one of the leading researchers of aether, along with Jrowe and a few others, I am more than qualified to have a discourse about this topic.
Alright Vauxhall, I'm game.
I'll just give a choice few, and bring up more as I remember them, because i don't want to wade through the shit this thread has become.
1. Why can't ether and space travel co-exist as concepts?
2. How do you know ether exists, and how it behaves differently to space, despite being "the same thing as space"-quotation from JRoweSkeptic.
3. Why do so many people have different versions of ether, but only your one is correct?
4. How did you discover it, and why haven't you disclosed any findings, rather turn offensive and obtuse?

On a side note, and I don't really expect an answer, but how do you research a concept such as ether, alongside someone like JRowe, who can't stand people disagreeing with him?

Cheers

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Ether exist?
« on: May 27, 2015, 10:12:51 AM »
JRowe buddy, you realise I can read what you're typing. You realise I know the slanderous allegations you are casting against me. If you would like, I will find at least 3 cases of where I have responded to something you have said, and directly disputed it. Would that help? It's difficult to argue a point when all I get in reply is a torrent of insults and repeated assertions that what i am asking to see has already been answered. Having read this thread several times, I have still yet to discover any links to any experiments you performed, or indeed any references made to said experiments.
Furthermore, I do understand occam's razor, but i fail to see how it applies. Your entire model relies on the idea of properties of ether that have yet to be agreed upon by anyone else, and does not comply with the general concept of space. It relies on the assumption there is a conspiracy concealing the true shape of the earth. It relies on all the 'astronauts', 'cosmonauts', and government agents being twisted and corrupted liars. It assumes that all the mathematical calculations deduced over the centuries by astronomers and mathematicians the world over are entirely wrong. Thats a lot of fucking assumptions, most of which involve a huge distrust of the human race. Is that your problem? Were you maltreated as a child, and turned against humanity? Cos your argument and insults seem to help reflect that.

you do not understand the model (and probably any kind of logic), let's leave it at that. you cannot tell the difference between a consequence and a assumption, you cannot tell the difference between an insult and an argument, you do not understand that people make mistakes, you don't understand that the same observations could have many proposed explanations, you do not udnerstand the concept of observational evidence, or the fact dual earth theory answers existing already-performed scientific experiments, or the simple fact is that all dual earth theory needs to do is explain all observations with fewer assumptions than the alternative.
it's amazing how often you repeat your question about who else discovered aether when it has been answered multiple times and you have not once acknowledge the fact i have answered it. thank you for making your dishonesty clear to everyone. you don't care about learning, you care about insulting.

stop taking part in discussions if you can't be bothered to take in what the other party says. it's the height of arrogance.

why are you here?
I have quoted your previous post, the one I previously referred to. Where are the answers? I asked questions, you didn't answer. It's that simple. I was merely highlighting your hypocrisy. While we're on the subject, would you be so kind as to explain why my example of circular reasoning is not circular? I could go and find it, but it would be far easier, and probably more understandable if you would now.
You're being evasive and you're being hypocritical. If that's education, then god help us all.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Ether exist?
« on: May 27, 2015, 08:42:10 AM »
I would like to take this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of the above discussion. Having been accused repeatedly of being illiterate and never answering the questions, I have just been treated to a list of accusations which fail to answer any questions, aside from with more questions, neither relevant to the topic, or the questions I have asked.
On a side note "udnerstand"... well done Mr. Skeptic.

I'm here to shut you lot up,

Why are you here?

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Ether exist?
« on: May 27, 2015, 07:21:13 AM »
JRowe buddy, you realise I can read what you're typing. You realise I know the slanderous allegations you are casting against me. If you would like, I will find at least 3 cases of where I have responded to something you have said, and directly disputed it. Would that help? It's difficult to argue a point when all I get in reply is a torrent of insults and repeated assertions that what i am asking to see has already been answered. Having read this thread several times, I have still yet to discover any links to any experiments you performed, or indeed any references made to said experiments.
Furthermore, I do understand occam's razor, but i fail to see how it applies. Your entire model relies on the idea of properties of ether that have yet to be agreed upon by anyone else, and does not comply with the general concept of space. It relies on the assumption there is a conspiracy concealing the true shape of the earth. It relies on all the 'astronauts', 'cosmonauts', and government agents being twisted and corrupted liars. It assumes that all the mathematical calculations deduced over the centuries by astronomers and mathematicians the world over are entirely wrong. Thats a lot of fucking assumptions, most of which involve a huge distrust of the human race. Is that your problem? Were you maltreated as a child, and turned against humanity? Cos your argument and insults seem to help reflect that.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What do Flat Earth Believers Believe?
« on: May 26, 2015, 11:53:51 PM »
DET is a consequence of JRowe's boredom sitting in his padded cell. He has a twisted imagination and some debilitating anger issues. That's the consequence.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4