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.

Topics - slappy

Pages: [1]
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Truthism?
« on: July 14, 2007, 05:47:11 PM »
Has anyone ever seen this? I LOLd.

My favourite part:

You can see the Reptilians via meditating, using hallucinogenic drugs, and sleep paralysis. However, these are the fourth-dimensional Reptilians, not the third-dimensional ones.

Anyway, enjoy the laughs.

So Roundy had a thread a little while back about some aspects of ENaG which pointed to Rowbotham being a biblical literalist. Looking at the end of chapter 20, while seraching for a list of diagrams, I stumbled upon some more stuff which I thought was kind of funny, almost too good to be true, and which illustrates Roundy's point further. I thought I'd post some of key 'passages' for you. Enjoy:

Having detected the fundamental falsehoods of modern astronomy, and discovered that the earth is a plane, and motionless, and the only known material world, we are able to demonstrate the actual character of the universe. In doing this, we are enabled to prove that all the so-called arguments with which so many scientific but irreligious men have assailed the Sacred Scriptures are absolutely false--not doubtful or less plausible, but unconditionally false; that they have no foundation except in fallacious astronomical and geological theories; and, therefore, must fall to the ground as valueless. They can no longer be wielded by irreverent smatterers as weapons against religion. If used at all, it can only be that their weakness and utter worthlessness will be exposed. Atheism and every other form of infidelity are thus rendered helpless. Their sting is cut away and their poison dissipated. The irreligious philosopher can no longer obtrude his theories as things proved wherewith to test the teachings of Scripture.

The process--the modus operandi and the conclusions derived therefrom have been given in the early sections of this work; and, as these conclusions are found to be entirely consistent with the teachings of Scripture, we are compelled, by the sheer weight of evidence, by the force of practical demonstration and logical requirement, to declare emphatically that the Old and New Testaments of the Jewish and Christian Church are, in everything which appertains to the visible and material world, strictly and literally true. If, after the severest criticism, and comparison with known causes of phenomena, the Scriptures are thus found to be absolutely truthful in their literal expressions, it is simply just and wise that we take them as standards by which to test the truth or falsehood of all systems or teachings which may hereafter be presented to the world. Philosophy is no longer to be employed as a test of Scriptural truth, but the Scriptures ought and may with safety and satisfaction be applied as the test of all philosophy.

Umm.. wait a minute.. so if someone in the bible would claim something about the natural world and it would happen that it was so, then suddenly everything else must also be true? This guy relishes logical fallacies doesn't he? Well.. that's one way to tell people never to question the bible again...

The Christian will be greatly strengthened, and his mind more completely satisfied, by having it in his power to demonstrate that the Scriptures are philosophically true, than he could possibly be by the simple belief in their truthfulness unsupported by practical evidence. On the other hand, the atheist or the disbeliever in the Scriptures, who is met by the Christian on purely scientific grounds, will be led to listen with more respect, and to pay more regard to the reasons advanced than he would concede to the purely religious belief or to any argument founded upon faith alone. If it can be shown to the atheistical or unbelieving philosopher that his astronomical and geological theories have no practical foundation, but are fallacious both in their premises and conclusions, and that all the literal expressions in the Scriptures which have reference to natural phenomena are demonstrably true, he will, of necessity, as a truth-seeker, if he should have so avowed himself, and for very shame as a man, be led to admit that, apart from all other considerations, if the truth of the philosophy of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true; and if so, they may, and indeed must, have had a Divine origin; and, therefore, there must exist a Divine Being, a Creator and Ruler of the physical and spiritual worlds; and that, after all, the Christian religion is a grand reality, and that he himself, through all his days of forgetfulness and denial of God, has been guarded and cared for as a merely mistaken creature, undeserving the fate of an obstinate, self-willed opponent of everything sacred and superhuman.

He cannot fail to see, and will not be slow to admit, that all the theories which speculative adventurous philosophers have advanced are nothing better than treacherous quick-sands, into which many of the deepest thinkers have been engulphed and possibly lost. By this process of mental concatenation many highly intelligent minds have been led to renounce and desert the ranks of atheism and speculative philosophy, and to rejoin or enlist in the army of Christian soldiers and devotees.

And now for my personal favourite:
To truthfully instruct the ingenuous Christian mind, to protect it from the meshes of false philosophy, and the snares of specious but hollow illogical reasoning; to save it from falling into the frigid arms of atheistic science; to convince it that all unscriptural teaching is false and deadly, and to induce great numbers of earnest deep-thinking human beings to desert the rebellious cause of atheism; to return to a full recognition of the beauty and truthfulness of the Scriptures, and to a participation in the joy and satisfaction which the Christian religion alone can supply, is a grand and cheering result, and one which furnishes the noblest possible answer to the ever ready Cui bono.

If that isn't biblical literalism and Christian fundamentalism then I don't know what the hell is. Yes, Rowbotham does state that we should believe these things not because of faith but because they have been demonstrated. I think he's full of shit there, and just trying to pose as legitimate and scientific. It's the same thing you see with all these centres for intelligent design today: "Oh we're not claiming these things simply out of faith, no no.. the science says so." Get the fuck outa here..

Flat Earth Q&A / Poll: Is Tom Bishop for Real?
« on: July 09, 2007, 03:42:40 PM »
Well after "debating" with him, I'm wondering.. can anyone really be that stupid? Surely this guy is just kidding.. or is he? What do you think? I know some people out there are convinced he's just screwing around.. others seem quite sure that he's serious, and others have doubts. I'm curious as to what the general distribution is. Apologies if this has been done before.

Flat Earth Debate / Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« on: July 05, 2007, 09:25:26 AM »
So this is a little thing that occured to me and I briefly posted my thoughts in The Canberran's thread, but I wanted to see what answer TomB could come up with because I haven't been entertained by him lately. There is a massive discrepancy between Robotham's experiments on the one hand and his use of the law of perspective on the other hand. Now you might say: "but slappy, haven't you and many others already shattered the law of perspective? Isn't this just pouring salt in the wound?" The answer is yes, but this is just to show what a manipulative prick (or astounding idiot) Rowbotham was... that and I like kicking bad theories when they're down.. I'm an ass, I know.

So here goes:

Rowbotham uses the law of perspective basically as a stand-in for the rotundity of the earth. Everything that is obscured in reality by the Earth's rotundity (sinking ships etc.) is obscured in exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree on the FE only via the law of perspective instead.

Interestingly enough however, in many of his experiments Rowbotham claims that things that should not be visible on a RE (due to its rotundity) are in fact visible, ergo the earth is flat. However, since the law of perspective is just a substitute for the earth's rotundity, anything that should not be visible on an RE should also not be visible on an FE (due to perspective of course). So then, I ask myself: aren't those experiments and the law of perspective mutually exclusive? I look forward to being entertained Tommy.

Flat Earth Q&A / funny FE cartoon
« on: July 02, 2007, 10:05:23 PM »
lol thought you guys might like this. the author takes a shot at the current creation vs. evolution 'controversy' by using FET.

Ok, I started this in a new thread because the other one kinda went in a different direction and the approach and focus here is different. Gulliver, you may find this useful for the RE primer. First, I will show another sinking skyline of Toronto, Ontario. Such pics are easy to obtain, as I've learned, due to the fact that they can be taken from the city of Niagara on the Lake, which is about 50 km across lake Ontario. Please see:,-79.071667&spn=0.1,0.1&q=43.255278,-79.071667.

You will notice a black line that I have drawn. I will come back to it later.

Based on this picture, I outlined the visible skyline, keeping all things the same size. Based on the known dimensions of the CN tower, I worked out the proportions of the tower (ie. distance from observation deck to tip / distance from ground to observation deck) to complete the skyline and to extrapolate precisely how much was being hidden. You are welcome to doublecheck my work. The black part of the skyline is the part originally visible in the above picture. The grey is the extrapolated size of the bulidings all the way to ground level. You will also notice that I drew in the skydome on the left as it should appear based on the scale of the drawing. The scale is 1 pixel = 10.7 feet. (I actually made it a bit taller as it sticks above the horizon line by a couple of pixels. Probably due to a bit of rounding error and human error. In any case the apporximate size is correct).

The black line in the original picture corresponds to the ground level as I calculated for Figure 1. It is meant to show you how much of the skyline is actually obscured from ground level. According to FE theory, everything above that black line is the wall of water that the skyline recedes into as it gets farther away. That's a hell of a wall there folks. Not buyin it? Neither am I, since I can still see above and beyond most of the waves above that black line and to the horizon. In the other 'skyline thread', I've explained why this wall of water idea is bullshit (I'm still wainting for a rebuttal there btw), and this has been touched on in many other threads as well. Never will the waves intersect your view of the skydome, but hey, I'll INDULGE your indea nonetheless, and show you that imperfections on the horizon are still not enough to obscure the skydome in this picture the way they should. So I took this experiment one step further and drew a diagram simmilar to one I had done for a previous post but with this skyline instead.

The dark blue is the water, and the light blue is the "imperfections at the horizon". Notice that it is 7 pixels thick at the very edge of the horizon! I am being extremely generous with how big I am illustrating these imperfections to be. Now in figure 2, I take the unaltered image of the skyline and i bring it to touch the DARK BLUE line (i.e. a part of the grey area goes behind the blue line. How odd that the skydome is not completelly hidden, even by this massive imperfection, as it should be. In Figure 3, I shrink the skyline until most of the skydome is relativelly hidden. (Notice it still isn't quite hidden.. in fact some of the grey is still there, but I felt I had made my point and didnt wanna waste any more time. In any case I tried to closely match the 'cutoff' from the original pic with the cutoff created by the 'imperfections at the horizon'.) Notice how much smaller the skyline would have to be in order for that much of it to recede even behind so large a line of imperfection along the horizon.

The conclusion? Even with a generous allowance for what you claim causes the sinking effect, the picture presented does not support your argument. Even if it were possible for these so called imperfections to cause the effect described (which it isn't), the skyline would still have to appear way smaller than it does! So even when I indulge your dumb ideas, your theory still doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Congratulations.

Flat Earth Debate / "sinking skyline" effect
« on: July 01, 2007, 11:49:54 PM »
Well I was lookin for some pics for my desktop and I stumbled across a pretty cool pic showing the 'sinking ship' effect.. well it's not really a sinking ship, it's Toronto's sinking skyline.. which is even better because now nobody can bitch and moan about how small it is b/c it's so far away and how therefore the pic is useless. Now for those of you that remember, I once started a thread where I attacked the law of perspective and many of my points were left unanswered since you FEers do what you always do best: post regurgitated and useless bullshit and then move on to another thread like the pussies you are. Do I think this is gonna be any different? Probably not, but hey.. the pic is cool, and it proves my point again. You're idiots.

Here is the skyline from about 50 km away or so, and following it is a picture taken from much closer for comparison purposes.

You'll notice how in the first picture the Skydome (now known as the Rogers Center) at the foot of the tower is completelly obscured. Now, small details like the features of the tower and the surrounding skyscrapers can still be distinguished (you can still see the rows of windows on the white skyscraper beside the tower) but that big fat stadium which is just under 300 feet tall and many of the surrounding buildings are magically hidden by the waves right? (which incidentally are subject to the same laws of perspective).. This isn't some subtle effect of something shrinking off in the distance, the effect is very distinct, especially with something as a skyline.

Anyway, I've already said why the law of perspective as used by Rowbotham is full of shit, and my rebuttals were left unchallenged. I'm not gonna bother going over it again because I've learned there's no point.. FEer's (and especially TomB's) stupidity is more boundless than the infinite plane of tundra beyond the ice wall. But I hope you enjoy the pics anyway. Cheers.

Flat Earth Debate / 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
« on: June 25, 2007, 11:33:07 PM »
I stumbled across this and I thought some of you folks might find it interesting. It doesn't deal with FE specifically, but rather with the characteristics of conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theories in general. I found it amusing how well these characteristics seem to fit FEers (and in particular our favourite: Tom Bishop.. like a glove Tommy boy, like a glove). I don't mean to begin yet another debate over conspiracy motives or any of that crap. I just found it interesting how simmilar and typical most conspiracy theorists are. I also thought Gulliver might find this somewhat useful for the RE primer (if you're interested in adding more about the probs with massive conspiracy theories and such, it's up to you).

Flat Earth Debate / Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« on: June 07, 2007, 07:07:16 PM »
I've mentioned this a bit already, and the Waves, Crests and Sunsets thread has touched on this subject quite extensivelly, but I wanted to add a bit more to the criticism of the 'law of perspective', and I used a new thread because those other ones seem to be dead (God knows, is it because no FEer can respond to them?). In any case, I do not find Rowbotham's chapter XIV (explaining why a ship's hull dissapears before its mast-head) to be at all satisfactory. His arguments are based on the range of the eye, which he gives as 110 degrees. (All sources I've looked at state the range of binocular vision as 140 degrees, but whatever, that's not particularly important in my criticism). In any case, he clearly defines the law of perspective on page 203, building it specifically what can be distinguished by the human eye and its limitations, and proceeds to build his argument from there. However, the same effect (that of a ship dipping below the horizon) can be seen at precisely the same time with a telescope or a camera or any other apparatus that has any kind of zoom feature. These devices should not be fooled by the law of perspective, at least not at the same time that the eye is, but they are. In fact, using a camera and zooming in or using a powerful land telescope, you can clearly and distinctivelly see a ship sinking below the horizon, it is not simply a trick of perspective on the eyes. Furthermore, with modern ships, one can see smaller features on the deck of the ship quite clearly, while the massive hull becomes obscured. This may not have been the case in the days of mast-heads, since mast heads are larger than the hull, but it certainly is true now. For example the following picture:

If it is true that distinctive parts of the ship should dissapear first (which would in fact be true as a ship moved farther away on a flat surface) then those smaller more distinctive objects on the deck of the ship should dissapear before the hull, but they do not. Saying that this isn't the case, contradicts the point Rowbotham is trying to make in Fig 73. (which is in fact a valid point.. however, note that even here, if one were to use a pair of binoculars or a good telescope, one would once again see the white dot in the middle of the figure).

I also want to make specific reference to Fig 74. As the circle gets farther away, the white segment becomes undistinguishable from its surrounding background and the whole object looks like a dark circle. However, it still looks like a circle! It doesn't dip below the horizon until it looks like a semi-circle. And in fact were it to get further away, it would continue to get smaller but it would still retain its shape as a circle until it vanished due to being obscured by fog or whatever.

The rest of the diagrams and their errors were adressed with paint diagrams in previous threads so I will not spend too much time on them. I will point out that Fig. 79 is seriously incorrect. The wheels of the locomotive engine would never dissapear below the horizon like that. It would gradually get smaller but it would always remain on top of the horizon. Rowbotham makes the interesting assertion that "The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point." This is where he is in fact wrong for all practical purposes, and this is what I probably should have started my argument with but anyway. What evidence does he have that this is an error? He seems to just pull this out of the air, and this is in fact the basis for why something nearer to the surface would dissapear first (according to him). I would love to see reference to any reputable work that mentions this phenomenon. But it is a simple matter of fact that all parallel lines would converge at the same vanishing point. He gives no reason for why this wouldn't be the case, just says that it is an error and lets that be that. He mentions that this is demonstrable but then doesn't demonstrate it (at least I hope his diagrams aren't attempts to demonstarte it because they're clearly inaccurate). You can demonstrate this with any 3D rendering program where you can build a virtual map and then move around in it. If the counterargument is that this is still a trick on the eyes and has to do with their limitation, I once again bring up the telescope or binoculars. There is simply no reason why you shouldn't be able to see a ship or object in its entirety through a land telescope even after 'perspective' has obscured it from the eyes. The diagrams in previous posts leave no doubt about this.

Thus, my point is, as it has always been, that the zetetic law of perspective is complete rubbish, and simply cannot explain the phenomena observed. If I wrong on any of these points, by all means correct me, and please do so in a specific manner. Tom, I don't want any 1 line answers. Cheers.

Final edit (I hope):

Alright, furthering my last argument. The following photograph helps me to illustrate my point:

The labels correspond to Rowbothams on his Fig. 76.

The white lines drawn clearly show the vanishing point in the picture. The green horizontal line is for reference purposes. Rowbotham argues that point H cannot be the true vanishing point because the angle C,H,E is not equal to the angle A,H,E. Thus he argues that the angle must be the same or it is not the vanishing point. This is plainly and simply WRONG. This is the reason why the bottom half of an object would dissapear before the top half, according to him and his diagrams. But most of the lines on there reach the vanishing point at different angles than C,H,E. This is to be expected, it is simply a matter of how your brain perceives depth. Lines further away from eye level, will approach the vanishing point at a steeper angle. In other words.. his attempt to explain the sinking ship phenomenon via his 'law of perspective' DOESN'T WORK or make any sense for that matter. Neither do his diagrams. I'm ready to debate.

Pages: [1]