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 - bullhorn3

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth General / Re: Live -- Felix Baumgartner makes record jump
« on: November 14, 2012, 05:47:03 AM »
Can anyone provide any evidence that the "fake spacewalk" photo was ever presented by NASA as an official photo?
Rene said NASA mailed it to him after he asked for it.  The photo is also in Collins' 1974 autobiography.
By the way, both photos and the video are obviously fake, you cant see any star(!)
I was being sarcastic, a sky with no stars was one of the argument people used to discredit moon landing videos.
Hmm. Interesting observation none the less.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Username's FE Model
« on: January 26, 2008, 09:14:23 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer
But I'm less dense than a rock, right?


Quote from: Agent Z ♫
The Julian calender was innacurate.
Wrong.  The original Julian Calendar which was created by the Egyptian cosmographer Sosogenes IS astronomically accurate.

Quote from: Agent Z ♫
Didn't they have to add 40 days to the year because they figured out they weren't adding leap years.
The notoriously corrupt and contemptible papacy added ten days to the Julian Calendar in 1582 (nowadays the diffrence is 13) under Pope Gregory.  This scientifically inaccurate Gregorian calendar which the western world uses now was created by the jesuit jew Clavius, and there was much opposition to it on scientific and religious grounds in the west as well as the East where opposition to the Gregorian Calendar continues for religious and scientific reasons.

Unfortunately, it seems that the most likely way for the restoration of the Julian Calendar is perhaps a world war in which the west devastates itself and the Old Calendar Orthodox Christians seize power and restore the true reckoning of time.

Flat Earth Debate / The Mufti of Saudi Arabia
« on: November 25, 2007, 10:38:41 AM »
Based upon many misinformed Arab news reports (and an evolutionist website), I earlier made the mistake of attributing the Flat Earth view to Sheikh Ibn Baz who was the Mufti of Saudi Arabia back in King Fahd's days.  Under the pseudonym of "Lord Byron", I mistakenly attributed flat earth belief to him.

  Sheikh Ibn Baz did write a book in 1974 arguing for spherical geocentrism, but not Flat Earth as was claimed by several Arab news agencies in the mid-1990's.  Ibn Baz himself refutes this claim as demonstrated in the following wikipedia article:

  Ben Baz accurately asserted that traditional muslim cosmology is geocentric sphericism.

Quote from: questions
I want you to provide one scrap of evidence that PROVES when Jesus was born.

The present Feast, commemorating the Nativity in the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, was established by the Church. Its origin goes back to the time of the Apostles. In the Apostolic Constitutions (Section 3, 13) it says, "Brethren, observe the feastdays; and first of all the Birth of Christ, which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month." In another place it also says, "Celebrate the day of the Nativity of Christ, on which unseen grace is given man by the birth of the Word of God from the Virgin Mary for the salvation of the world."

In the second century St Clement of Alexandria also indicates that the day of the Nativity of Christ is December 25. In the third century St Hippolytus of Rome mentions the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, and appoints the Gospel readings for this day from the opening chapters of St Matthew.

In 302, during the persecution of Christians by Maximian, 20,000 Christians of Nicomedia (December 28) were burned in church on the very Feast of the Nativity of Christ. In that same century, after the persecution when the Church had received freedom of religion and had become the official religion in the Roman Empire, we find the Feast of the Nativity of Christ observed throughout the entire Church. There is evidence of this in the works of St Ephraim the Syrian, St Basil the Great, St Gregory the Theologian, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Ambrose of Milan, St John Chrysostom and other Fathers of the Church of the fourth century.

St John Chrysostom, in a sermon which he gave in the year 385, points out that the Feast of the Nativity of Christ is ancient, and indeed very ancient. In this same century, at the Cave of Bethlehem, made famous by the Birth of Jesus Christ, the empress St Helen built a church, which her mighty son Constantine adorned after her death. In the Codex of the emperor Theodosius from 438, and of the emperor Justinian in 535, the universal celebration of the day of the Nativity of Christ was decreed by law. Thus, Nicephorus Callistus, a writer of the fourteenth century, says in his History that in the sixth century, the emperor Justinian established the celebration of the Nativity of Christ throughout all the world.

Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople in the fifth century, Sophronius and Andrew of Jerusalem in the seventh, Sts John of Damascus, Cosmas of Maium and Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople in the eighth, the Nun Cassiane in the ninth, and others whose names are unknown, wrote many sacred hymns for the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, which are still sung by the Church on this radiant festival.

The Lounge / Re: Britain in Five Words or less
« on: November 22, 2007, 06:24:13 PM »
Q - A motto for the BRITISH?

A - The Sons of BRUTUS

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: November 22, 2007, 06:20:11 PM »
The physics of Bolzmann, Rutherford, Max Planck, Einstein, and Neils Bohr, et cetera are THEORETICAL rather than objective (unlike the classical physics which preceeded them).
  What I mean by asserting that the concoction of neutrons is part of some kind of conspiracy is that a theory (Rutherford's) with a lot of evidence against it was misrepresented as an incontestable and proven fact to the public.  Any number of explanations could be made which would have less problems when tested than Rutherford's nuclear hypothesis.  When irreconcilable problems in the nuclear theory eventually came to the fore (such as the serious opposition to the idea of electrons in the nucleus mentioned by Larson), a new particle was concocted - the neutron - which placated or distracted critics of the nuclear theory.  Can anyone show evidence that the "discovery" of neutrons in 1932 was anything other than a theory devised to rescue another faltering theory?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: November 22, 2007, 06:02:44 PM »
Forgive me in advance as I will not be able to adequately run down your list in the amount of time we would both prefer, but I do intend to get around to it eventually at any rate. 

At any rate, the following extract from the quote I posted above rather gives the impression that the concept of neutrons is a much vaunted theoretical explanation misrepresented as a discovery in 1932 in order to silence criticism of an aspect of Rutherford's nuclear atom theory.

"But while we can thus disregard details in taking a birds-eye view of the situation, the question as to details must be faced sooner or later, and this has proved to be full of difficulties. It was quickly recognized that the simple picture originally conceived was not capable of representing all of the known facts, and that the nucleus must contain something more than the positively-charged particles. The first hypothesis that was proposed as a means of meeting this situation was that some electrons existed in the atomic nucleus in addition to the extra-nuclear electrons originally postulated, and this was the accepted view for the next twenty years or so. There are, however, some very serious objections to the idea of electrons inside the nucleus, and the theorists gave a sigh of relief in 1932, when the discovery of the neutron supplied a new building block that could be substituted for the nuclear electron. Since 1932 the atomic nucleus has been assumed to consist of protons and neutrons in the appropriate proportions for each element and isotope."

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: November 22, 2007, 05:47:15 PM »
Quote from: Agent Z
If you can re-explain the nuclear atom, then I'll agree with you.
You need to first be familiar with its very recent history.

Flat Earth Q&A / Does any really belive this?
« on: June 21, 2006, 03:06:23 AM »
i now reckon it is flat too ... and two out of three bullhorns is no bull

« on: April 16, 2006, 08:55:33 PM »
so u like this forum even if they mock your ideas?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / hey hey hey
« on: January 14, 2006, 07:40:45 PM »
i said it is merely evidence he exists

Technology, Science & Alt Science / but he does exist
« on: January 14, 2006, 06:00:29 PM »
the fact that bullhorn has a user name is evidence that he exists  we have seen his posts on the internet   the only thing the government is covering up about flat earthism is its own ignorance

Pages: [1]