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 - flat_earth_really?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Flat Earth General / Re: On the Notion of Dr. Samuel Rowbotham
« on: October 29, 2011, 03:53:08 PM »
Ever had a can of Dr Pepper?
I was not aware that he is a real doctor either. I guess I learned something here today.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So, this is my first time here....
« on: October 29, 2011, 03:50:24 PM »
We do have physical evidence.
Your post on this was weak at best.
Quote
I have already stated a case for it based off of physical evidence.
Again, weak.
Quote
Read Charles Fort: The Book of the Damned where he in hundreds of places disproves the contentions of those claiming x fell from the sky, so x is from earth.
How would that be relevant? I never claimed that the red rain is caused by something from earth. What I actually said was that the people you referenced specifically claimed that it came from a meteorite. You seem to have made the leap to bioluminescent moon bacteria yourself. Sounds like something along the lines of X didn't come from Earth so Y came from the moon.
Quote
The same thing used to happen with meteorites.  People thought they came from the Earth.
People being incorrect about something in the past is not proof that they are incorrect about something now. Different times, different technologies available, different knowledge at their disposal, etc. This is a really weak case you have presented here. I cannot see how logic would bring anybody to the conclusions that you have drawn. I'm not trying to be smart or sarcastic here, I just can't understand your logic.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So, this is my first time here....
« on: October 29, 2011, 10:59:54 AM »
Until then, you can just take it on the tenuous string or ignore it.  I have said quite a few times that this is a leap and that its just an idea.
To be fair, you did also state it as being backed up by physical evidence:
We have physical evidence that the moon indeed has life.  Periodically it even falls to earth due to aetheric currents.  The weather system can be seen with the naked eye.
My question, now that you are acknowledging it as a "leap and just an idea", is why not a more mainstream idea?

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So, this is my first time here....
« on: October 29, 2011, 08:36:56 AM »
We have physical evidence that the moon indeed has life1.  Periodically it even falls to earth2 due to aetheric currents3.  The weather system can be seen with the naked eye4.
There are four bold statements in that post, none of which seem to have any basis in reality. Would you mind posting evidence/links about these?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search
http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/images_aa/Moon_phases.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_rain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala
Research: Manna
I really can't see anything in those links that points to any of the four points listed above.
In fact, quite the opposite:
Quote
Both samples (from rainwater and from trees) produced the same kind of algae, indicating that the spores seen in the rainwater most probably came from local sources.
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala#Official_report

Where is the physical evidence of life on the moon? (and that is just one of the four points)
I guess you didn't read the whole link.

Quote
It was not until early 2006 that the colored rains of Kerala gained widespread attention when the popular media reported that Godfrey Louis and Santhosh Kumar of the Mahatma Gandhi University in Kottayam proposed a controversial hypothesis that the colored particles were extraterrestrial cells

Also review:  Book of the Dead by Charles Fort for hundreds (and likely thousands if you review his entire bibliography and his other works) of similar events.  Also note his statements concerning the explanations that come up often for this kinda stuff.
I read the whole link. I must admit that I hadn't heard about this phenomenon before and its pretty fascinating. However, it seems quite a stretch for the imagination to go from cell-like particles of extra-terrestrial origin (suggested but not proven and widely treated with skepticism due to insufficient proof) to bio-luminescent bacteria lighting up the moon in phases which perfectly replicate the phases that would be seen if the moon is simply acting as a reflector of sunlight. How is the moon bacteria idea more plausible/likely?

From a (very) little research it seems that their claim was that it came from a meteorite, not from the moon:
Quote
Louis also discovered that, hours before the first red rain fell, there was a loud sonic boom that
shook houses in Kerala. Only an incoming meteorite could have triggered such a blast, he claims.
This had broken from a passing comet and shot towards the coast, shedding microbes as it
travelled. These then mixed with clouds and fell with the rain. Many scientists accept that comets
may be rich in organic chemicals and a few, such as the late Fred Hoyle, the UK theorist, argued
that life on Earth evolved from microbes that had been brought here on comets. But most
researchers say that Louis is making too great a leap in connecting his rain with microbes from a
comet.
Taken from http://www.eyepod.org/Red-Rain.html

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So, this is my first time here....
« on: October 28, 2011, 03:12:50 PM »
We have physical evidence that the moon indeed has life1.  Periodically it even falls to earth2 due to aetheric currents3.  The weather system can be seen with the naked eye4.
There are four bold statements in that post, none of which seem to have any basis in reality. Would you mind posting evidence/links about these?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search
http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/images_aa/Moon_phases.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_rain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala
Research: Manna
I really can't see anything in those links that points to any of the four points listed above.
In fact, quite the opposite:
Quote
Both samples (from rainwater and from trees) produced the same kind of algae, indicating that the spores seen in the rainwater most probably came from local sources.
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala#Official_report

Where is the physical evidence of life on the moon? (and that is just one of the four points)

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So, this is my first time here....
« on: October 28, 2011, 11:09:30 AM »
We have physical evidence that the moon indeed has life1.  Periodically it even falls to earth2 due to aetheric currents3.  The weather system can be seen with the naked eye4.
There are four bold statements in that post, none of which seem to have any basis in reality. Would you mind posting evidence/links about these?

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So, this is my first time here....
« on: October 26, 2011, 05:54:05 PM »
-Oh who am I kidding. Your model of the earth doesn't even allow for the processes that would normally produce a magnetic field to take place. Unless your notion of "flat earth" is more akin to a cube, or a rectangular prism with considerable thickness, which would have by this time stabilized into a sphere anyway, even without the assistance of gravity.
A very well put post and I agree with pretty much the entire thing. Unfortunately it will inevitably get derailed or you'll be called an angry noob and told to read the FAQ.
Wondering about the piece I quoted; what are the processes that make the magnetic field as I'm not actually aware of them.
Secondly, why would a cube/rectangular prism stabilize into a sphere in the absence of gravity?

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why do you hold zeteticism in such high regard?
« on: October 25, 2011, 05:02:21 AM »
Thread derailing aside, what has zeteticism given us? Please post a link to where this info came as well.

So far there is the as yet unsubstantiated claim regarding electricity. Anything else?
The field of human chronobiology, for one.
Interesting. Any chance of a link or explanation?
http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/30/foer.php
His methodology as he describes it epitomizes, at least to me, a zetetic pursuit.
It does seem zetetic in nature, I agree. I'm not so sure that it has provided anything groundbreaking to society, though.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why do you hold zeteticism in such high regard?
« on: October 25, 2011, 05:00:22 AM »
The Wright Brithers were Zetetics. They started from inquiry, not hypothesis. They did not "build on the shoulders of giants" like a disreputable scientician. They did their own experiments and let reality do the talking.
Their first powered flight used a gasoline engine. Are they credited with inventing this too?

If you start off on the biases and misconceptions of others you are doing a disservice to your work. It should not be assumed that the research of others is valid.
And yet when anyone suggests that Rowbotham may have been wrong about the shape of the Earth it is tantamount to sacrilege.

The correct way to proceed is to start off on a clean slate, make no assumptions, do the experiments, account for every possibility, and let the results do the talking.
Didn't Rowbotham already believe that the Earth was flat because it says so in the bible? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society#Origins.E2.80.94the_Zetetic_societies

Many inventors are Zetetics. They do not start off by creating a hypothesis and then try to prove it true. They do not build their work off of the card house theories of others. They start off by inquiry, doing a series of basic experiments to explore all possibilities until they discover what is true and what is false.
Most "inventions" today are simply better versions of what is already in existence, e.g. faster computers, more fuel efficient engines, more powerful weapons, etc.

Zeteticiscm is superior to the scientific method because it brings us to the certain truth rather than just a truth. For more information please read Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe "Zetetic and Theoretic Defined and Compared" --

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm#page_1
That sounds pretty religious right there. I could just as easily argue that the problem with zeteticism is that once it has been used to "prove" something, all conflicting evidence is ignored as it disagrees with "the certain truth". In science there are no certain truths - that is the realm of religion.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The problems with bendy light
« on: October 25, 2011, 04:42:19 AM »
Hey question if you are all zetetics then why can't say bendy light works because you yourself have never observed or tested it? Just saying you are internally inconsistent here.

That's just a technicality.
I'm inclined to agree with logicalskeptic here. Take gravity as an example of something that they disregard. In an effort to make gravity sound ridiculous they call it magical or a figment of our imagination, then they go and imagine universal acceleration in its place. How can you disregard one theory, claiming it has no basis in reality, then replace it with a theory that is at least as implausible.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why do you hold zeteticism in such high regard?
« on: October 24, 2011, 11:11:07 AM »
Thread derailing aside, what has zeteticism given us? Please post a link to where this info came as well.

So far there is the as yet unsubstantiated claim regarding electricity. Anything else?
The field of human chronobiology, for one.
Interesting. Any chance of a link or explanation?

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why do you hold zeteticism in such high regard?
« on: October 24, 2011, 09:25:16 AM »
Thread derailing aside, what has zeteticism given us? Please post a link to where this info came as well.

So far there is the as yet unsubstantiated claim regarding electricity. Anything else?

13
It seems you missed my post where I explained that this experiment has been performed three times.

To the point, the experiment was performed dozens of times by Dr. Rowbotham over the course of many years for groups of globularists and planists alike. The only questionable result recorded is the case of Wallace's attempt to defraud Hampden.
Words like defraud, cheat and swindle are being used in this thread very freely without any evidence.
Also, where is there a mention of a questionable result to the experiment?

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why do you hold zeteticism in such high regard?
« on: October 24, 2011, 05:41:13 AM »
The zetetic method requires an ingredient that the scientific method does not. You. Zeteticism is finding out for yourself. You are 100% sure of the outcome because you know it happened that way. Scientific method is just taking other people's word for it. People who screw up and make mistakes, people who are lazy, people who cheat to gain notoriety, people who may want to deceive you etc.

Zeteticism removes the problem of other people and their agendas. Its a cleaner, more pure form of science. Its you seeking the truth for yourself.
That does sound nice and all, but if everyone was to find out for themselves, so to speak, then there would be a crazy amount of differing results/theories & nobody would agree on anything because they can all "prove" their theories to their own satisfaction. Examples abound on this website alone with theories such as spotlight sun/non-spotlight sun, finite disc/infinite plane, etc. Nobody tries to disprove any of them, instead simply accepting them as another possibility.


The difference, where mainstream science is concerned, is that you're not just trying to convince yourself: you need to convince the scientific community. Papers & theories get peer reviewed by people with the highest levels of education in the relevant fields. Other scientists try to prove your theory incorrect. It is only by standing up to intense scrutiny that theories get widely accepted.

For the most part, this results in agreement on an "accepted" model/theory/whatever unlike the sleight of hand that goes on around here. People keep debating until they get proved to be incorrect, then they just pick another model to support.

This is all pretty much beside the point, however. My main question was what has zeteticism done to earn such respect? What theories, models, ideas, etc has zeteticism given the world that have caused FE people to trust it more than mainstream science? The only answer given so far is PizzaPlanet's statement that it has given us electricity, although he hasn't yet linked his sources.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Why do you hold zeteticism in such high regard?
« on: October 22, 2011, 02:14:34 AM »
A Google search of zetetic/zeteticism yields very few results. The most prominent ones that I can see are either here on TFES or ENAG. A guy called Marcello Truzzi is also mentioned, but his "version" of zeteticism seems to be different to how it is used here. Other than that, its just online dictionary definitions of the word.

I don't understand why the zetetic method is held in such high regard here. Why do you trust the zetetic method on the shape of the Earth when, as far as I know, it has never been used to prove anything of significance other than the shape of the Earth.

Science has given us things from the home computer to the TV & other technology. It has given us the combustion engine, made it possible to travel huge distances around the world in a relatively short time period.

What has zeteticism given us other than a disputed notion of a flat earth, along with ridiculous assumptions of aetheric winds, bendy light, universal acceleration, ice-wall ninjas and other ideas to try to "make it work" so to speak?

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: It looks that way
« on: October 21, 2011, 05:04:19 PM »
From a PM:
Quote
flat_earth_really?,

You have received a warning for insulting other users and/or staff members. Please cease these activities and abide by the forum rules otherwise we will take further action.

Regards,
I called nobody any derogatory racist remarks so I guess they take issue with more than just that.
Oh, yeah, they do random shit too. Did the message say which mod it was?
Yes they gave their name. My intent wasn't to complain about any particular mods, though, only to highlight the fact that  the 'n' word isn't the only insult they take offense to.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET's gravity
« on: October 21, 2011, 09:11:14 AM »
I tried being friendly and helpful
No you didn't. You said what I had done was silly:
Calling people out on something everyone here does is very silly!
How is that friendly or helpful?
Helpful would, for example, involve explaining why people do that.
Friendly would, for example, have not included calling me silly.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: It looks that way
« on: October 21, 2011, 07:33:06 AM »
Also, you still didn't back up or retract your accusations of sexism & discrimination. Do the mods have no problems with libel?
The mods have no problems with libel, nor sexism/discrimination. The only thing you can't do is use a single derogatory word referring to dark-skinned people.
From a PM:
Quote
flat_earth_really?,

You have received a warning for insulting other users and/or staff members. Please cease these activities and abide by the forum rules otherwise we will take further action.

Regards,
I called nobody any derogatory racist remarks so I guess they take issue with more than just that.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET's gravity
« on: October 21, 2011, 07:25:24 AM »
So you're hiding comments now by using transparent text?
Hello, and welcome to the Flat Earth Society.
Here's a quick newbie-hint: Calling people out on something everyone here does is very silly!
Enjoy your stay!
I haven't seen that done anywhere else, and to my knowledge its the first time someone has done that to me. Since when does everyone doing something mean anything? It's still a comment out of context and hidden.

Here's a quick real world hint: Actually thinking the world is flat is very silly. Doesn't seem to stop plenty of people claiming it on this website, so I guess looking silly isn't really much of a problem round here.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET's gravity
« on: October 21, 2011, 06:37:55 AM »
Actually, I found the problems for myself and later discovered that many agree with me.
How zetetic of you, starting with a conclusion, then finding evidence to agree with it.

Still too thick. Try adding water
So you're hiding comments now by using transparent text?
Is that supposed to be of some significance in this thread? Looks more like a response to where you ran away butt-hurt from your previous comments here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51150.msg1258855#msg1258855 and here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51150.msg1258744#msg1258744
Maybe you should respond to them in the correct thread. While you're at it, if you use non-transparent text it'll be a little easier to read.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Gosh the Conspiracy has a lot to do!
« on: October 21, 2011, 06:24:00 AM »
USA have been at war with more than one of those countries since THE CONSPIRACY allegedly began.
http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html
Apparently it's perfectly possible to simultaneously be at war and in far-going co-operation.

From that article:
Quote
Only in the late 1980s, with warming political relations, did momentum for major space cooperation begin to build.
I don't see anything about collaboration regarding the first moon landing or Yuri Gagarin's space flight. Unless they were both inadvertently taking part in the same conspiracy...are there two simultaneous conspiracies?

23
It seems you missed my post where I explained that this experiment has been performed three times. Twice where the result confirmed a flat earth and once where the result was annulled due to arbitration irregularities.
To put it another way, you could say it was performed twice by people who used it to show the earth was flat and once to prove that the earth is not flat. The fact that the same experiment can be used to show such obviously conflicting results would call into question whether the Bedford Level Experiment is valid at all.

...rather than examine the two confirmed results...
The third one was confirmed by arbitrators according to the original agreement.

they instead prefer to pick and play with the prospect that convicted swindlers Wallace and Walsh may have been correct.
There is no suggestion anywhere in what you linked that W&W were swindlers. In fact, Hampden was convicted of libel for making accusations of cheating.

Boot on the other foot, you would say we were grasping at straws.
Boot on the other foot, you would point out that you have still ignored my analysis of the document you linked, where no reference is made to cheating or swindling by the parties involved. You are attempting to use the fact that the wager was nullified on a technicality to nullify the result of the experiment. How am I the one grasping at straws?

24
I missed the part where a post on http://www.futilitycloset.com/about/, described as "a collection of entertaining curiosities" is an explanation or refutation of what I posted about the official transcript that you linked earlier. Go again, perhaps?

25
Am I missing something here on this article, linked by Thork? http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/LA313_Commercial_Law/Cases/Hampden_v_Walsh.html

Does it not simply say (in a roundabout way) that there was no legal reason for the money to have been handed over because Hampden complained before the money was paid out?

There is no mention of Walsh's verdict being incorrect or underhanded, simply that because the complaint was made before the money was paid, the wager is basically null and void.

Quote
therefore, plaintiff having, demanded his deposit back before it had been paid over by defendant, the was entitled to judgment.

Quote
But if, before the money was so paid over, the party depositing repudiated the wager and demanded his money back, he was entitled to have it restored to him and could maintain -an action to recover it

The determinant of the result was ruled invalid. A valid result was never announced, which is why the bet was nullified - because there was no result.
With this in mind, I agree that it's difficult to render the result valid or invalid when there's no result to affect in the first place.
Not true - the bet was nullified because Hampden complained before the money was paid out. The official transcript makes no mention of the validity of the result.

The only result mentioned anywhere on anything that has been linked is that Wallace won the bet by showing curvature on the surface of the water. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C00EFDF113EEE34BC4852DFBE66838A669FDE&oref=slogin.

By complaining in time, Hampden was able to nullify the wager after losing and get his money back on a technicality. As Markjo said, he weasled out of the wager once he had been shown to be incorrect. He then accused Wallace of cheating resulting in Wallace winning multiple libel suits against Hampden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Other_controversies

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: It looks that way
« on: October 21, 2011, 01:10:20 AM »
Don't be sexist. The mods have serious issues with discrimination.
If mods want to get annoyed, do they need you to correct me first? Are you some kind of pre-mod correctional officer?
I'm not a mod.
Where did I suggest you are a mod?
Also, you still didn't back up or retract your accusations of sexism & discrimination. Do the mods have no problems with libel?

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET's gravity
« on: October 20, 2011, 02:08:16 PM »
In answer to the OP: Cavendish was a very poorly performed experiment. Even many globularist scientists agree with this. It completely failed to take other factors into account.
Funny how you're quite happy to take mainstream scientists' opinion on a "poorly performed experiment" that doesn't "take other factors into account" when it suits your belief, yet you disregard the opinion of mainstream scientists who have come to the same conclusion regarding the Bedford Level experiment, the basis for all of this rubbish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment#Refraction

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Gosh the Conspiracy has a lot to do!
« on: October 20, 2011, 02:01:27 PM »
When have two space powers ever gone to war?
The Cold War was one of the driving forces behind the space race.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: It looks that way
« on: October 20, 2011, 01:59:07 PM »

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: It looks that way
« on: October 20, 2011, 10:18:07 AM »
Don't be sexist. The mods have serious issues with discrimination.
How many sprinting world records are held by women? Do the Olympics, etc. discriminate or is it that women being, on average, slower than men is indisputable? How is this discrimination?

What part of "what if" don't you get?
"What if" you read the post that I was responding to, in bold for your convenience?

The post that you were responding to was directly related to your "fixing" my "what if" post.  Now let it go.  I intentionally had a woman beating Tom.
Let what go? You keep responding to this as if I disagreed with you somewhere along the way.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5