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 - I am not Tom Bishop but I can't prove it

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
91
Hey I'm a fencesitter anyway.

But I'm pretty sure Sokarul is confidence the Earth is round.

I'm glad you are at least open minded enough... for people like yourself, there is hope... those who stubbornly cling to government dogma are more worrisome...

92
Yeah... "if".... some rock solid belief you guys have...

93
I go along with astronomy, as does the government. 

The government which is part of the conspiracy...

94


I choose to believe the earth is flat.  So there. :P

And like I said, that doesn't mean it actually is. 

That's correct.  Just because you guys believe the earth is round and have all these complex formulas and computers to prove it doesn't mean it is round.  You all live on this flat earth with me.  But if you want to go along with what the government says and live in ignorance, be my guest.  There are more and more people coming here every day who are questioning what they were told in school.  You can't stop the truth.

95
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Measurement_of_the_speed_of_light
Read it for yourself for all that I care.  Fe'ers chose to ignore facts all the time.  And I know you fall into that category.  Just because you donít believe in equations doesn't mean you don't follow them.


And what are facts?  Facts are theories and equations that you choose to believe.

I choose to believe the earth is flat.  So there. :P

96
Let me guess... they used computers...

By the way, I heard the "conventional wisdom" that nothing can go faster than the speed of light.  Is there a "proof" for that too?

Computers werenít around when they figured out the speed of light.  Try again.

There are equations that say nothing can go faster then the speed of light.  You can believe them or not believe them.   


Oh, so I get to choose whether to believe in these equations or not!  So do I also get to choose whether to believe that the equations to measure the speed of light are correct?  Or whether to believe the equations that were used to calculate the height of Everest are right?  How about whether to believe the earth is flat or round?

Let me guess... some things I can choose but others I can't.  Do you have a proof for that as well?


97
Let me guess... they used computers...

By the way, I heard the "conventional wisdom" that nothing can go faster than the speed of light.  Is there a "proof" for that too?

98
Ok, this whole measuring the height of Everest sounds like measuring the speed of light.

Exactly.  They can't prove it but they keep insisting that Everest is the tallest mountain on earth.


You canít prove their measurements are wrong.  And they do know what the speed of light is.

I'm not proving they are wrong.  I'm questioning whether the measurements are correct.  The truth is NO ONE knows how tall Everest is.

Speed of light, hahahahahahaha... when's the last time you went the speed of light in your car and looked down at the odometer?

99
How's about learning common sense?

And what's common sense?  That the earth is round?  That I'm really Tom?  Who's teaching this class in "common sense?"  You?


Common sense that you couldn't blow the top off a mountain without at least a few people noticing..

And yes I'm teaching the common sense class and frankly you're heading for a fail young man!

Who said a few people didn't notice?  Just because it didn't say so in wikipedia?  Did you go around the Himalayas asking the locals if they or their parents noticed any changes in Everest over the last decades?  I don't think so. 

100
Quote
I'll defer this to Tom.  I bet he's laughing his head off that all of you think we are the same.  Man, you guys have really lost it...

You both crap on with a lot of shit, so I'm inclined to believe that you are the same.

And also the strange and highly coincidental disappearance of Tom at the exact same time you appeared.

Anyway...you're a crackpot - a nuclear bomb large enough to blow the top off Everest would have left detectable quantities of radiation, of which there are none.


I never said you needed a nuclear bomb to blow the top off of Everest.  They could have used conventional explosives.

I also said you would probably need a nuclear bomb to destroy an entire mountain.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were other mountains that were nuked to keep the conspiracy going.

And one more thing... let's for argument's sake said nuclear weapons were used to lower the height of Everest.  When's the last time you went there with a Geiger counter?

It's amazing how many assumptions you guys make and call it evidence.  Learn to question your government.

Its amazing how you make up theories and then get made when we dont treat them as real.  Well in that case, heres my theroy.  They tried to nuck Mt Everest but the believers had a SDI program to stop them. 

Get mad?  I'm not mad, oh no... you guys are projecting your own feelings.  You are free to believe in what you want.  I'm just asking you to open your eyes and question government instead of going along with every single "official explanation" out there.  Think for yourself.


101
How's about learning common sense?

And what's common sense?  That the earth is round?  That I'm really Tom?  Who's teaching this class in "common sense?"  You?

102
Ok, this whole measuring the height of Everest sounds like measuring the speed of light.

Exactly.  They can't prove it but they keep insisting that Everest is the tallest mountain on earth.


103
Quote
I'll defer this to Tom.  I bet he's laughing his head off that all of you think we are the same.  Man, you guys have really lost it...

You both crap on with a lot of shit, so I'm inclined to believe that you are the same.

And also the strange and highly coincidental disappearance of Tom at the exact same time you appeared.

Anyway...you're a crackpot - a nuclear bomb large enough to blow the top off Everest would have left detectable quantities of radiation, of which there are none.


I never said you needed a nuclear bomb to blow the top off of Everest.  They could have used conventional explosives.

I also said you would probably need a nuclear bomb to destroy an entire mountain.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were other mountains that were nuked to keep the conspiracy going.

And one more thing... let's for argument's sake said nuclear weapons were used to lower the height of Everest.  When's the last time you went there with a Geiger counter?

It's amazing how many assumptions you guys make and call it evidence.  Learn to question your government.

104
You're still dodging the question. How do sunsets work? I think it's quite clear that even today Everest is the tallest object in that area, so how can anything shade it from the sun's rays?

Dodging the question?  For someone who doesn't believe in a conspiracy, you certain believe that one is happening on this forum.  What do you make of that?  I'll defer this to Tom.  I bet he's laughing his head off that all of you think we are the same.  Man, you guys have really lost it...

105
China didn't have nuclear bombs then.  And they stared climbing it in 1921.  I think they would notice if some went missing.

To bomb the top off, I'm not sure they would need to use nukes.  They would only need to use that to get rid of an entire mountain.

Also, if someone reported that Everest looked different, I'm sure the Chinese would have sent them to a "reeducation camp."

106
Quote
That's just a link... I don't want to read the whole damn thing to find out who the first person was to make it to the top.  Or did anyone ever?  I read some of it, and it seems people kept dying or having to turn back.  And what about measuring?  When was the first measurements made?  Does anyone here know?

Stop posting, there's really no need for you to humiliate your ignorance further more, as it's already more than enough.

Someone get this dog to stop barking at me.

107
Please read the post you just quoted, the measuring stuff was right there.

As for the first ascent, I'll quote from that link:

Quote
The summit was eventually reached at 11:30 a.m. local time on May 29, 1953 by the New Zealander Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay from Nepal climbing the South Col Route. At the time, both acknowledged it as a team effort by the whole expedition, but Tenzing revealed a few years later that Hillary had put his foot on the summit first.

Okay, okay, thanks... you added that in later... but this fits in with my guess that the Chinese bombed the top off.  The Cold War was in full swing by then...

108
Oh wait, I thought you found this entertaining... I thought you guys said you were here because you were bored... So now you are actually upset?  Upset that I'm voicing my beliefs?  Is there a rule somewhere that says you have to believe in such and such to post?  Can you please point this out to me?

Anyhow, going back to the subject of this thread, can you clue me in as to what the "official explanation" is for when Everest was first climbed and how tall it was and how it was measured?  Do you think you can do that for me, or are you going to curse and spit at me some more?

Let me rephrase what I said before, actually, your intelligence comes down to sub 0.

You think the earth is going to stop in its tracks (for you round earthers) because you phrase or rephrase something to me?  Are you sure you believe in a heliocentric model of the universe, or do you think the world revolves around you?

109
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_climbing_Mount_Everest

Quote from: Wikipedia
Radhanath Sikdar, an Indian mathematician and surveyor from Bengal, was the first to identify Everest as the world's highest peak in 1852, using trigonometric calculations based on measurements of "Peak XV" (as it was then known) made with theodolites from 240 km (150 miles) away in India. Measurement could not be made from closer due to a lack of access to Nepal. "Peak XV" was found to be exactly 29,000 feet (8,839 m) high, but was publicly declared to be 29,002 feet (8,840 m). The arbitrary addition of 2 feet (0.6 m) was to avoid the impression that an exact height of 29,000 feet was nothing more than a rounded estimate.

Rowbotham used theodolites, so you be careful what you say about them.

Edit: Sikdar's measurement is within 28ft of all other measurements, some with and without the 3.5m of snow that occasionally falls on it, so it's not exactly like there are wild figures about this, they are pretty consistent for something 29,000 feet tall.

That's just a link... I don't want to read the whole damn thing to find out who the first person was to make it to the top.  Or did anyone ever?  I read some of it, and it seems people kept dying or having to turn back.  And what about measuring?  When was the first measurements made?  Does anyone here know?

110
Oh wait, I thought you found this entertaining... I thought you guys said you were here because you were bored... So now you are actually upset?  Upset that I'm voicing my beliefs?  Is there a rule somewhere that says you have to believe in such and such to post?  Can you please point this out to me?

Anyhow, going back to the subject of this thread, can you clue me in as to what the "official explanation" is for when Everest was first climbed and how tall it was and how it was measured?  Do you think you can do that for me, or are you going to curse and spit at me some more?

111
See, how threatened these round earth theorists are... you say something that runs counter to their theory, and they get all angry and violent...

112
Come on, they've conducted tons of "tests" over the years.

Also, it could have been that Everest was originally tall enough for the sun never to set, but they would have bombed the top off.  It wouldn't surprise me if they got the Chinese to do it during the Cold War.  They control Tibet after all...


113
If there is a point at which the sun never sets, then Everest definitely doesn't reach it.  And if there were a mountain that reached that point, the government would have nuked it ages ago.  Do you think they want something like that around to disprove round earth theory?

114
Hahahahaha. Hahahaha. Haha. Ha.

 :-\ Are you serious? Now the mountaineers are conspirators too? Weak, Tom, very weak.

You can't prove it, so you use humor.  Nice try...

115
I bet all you round earth theorists are googling right now, looking for "evidence."  I googled too, and it appears that the height has been changed over the years (surprise, surprise...coming from scientists)... I bet someone is going to say that a computer says so... again, surprise, surprise...

116
Everest is the tallest object on Earth, it could not be obscured from the sun by any other object even if the sun was at ground level. It being 4828km up just makes life even more difficult. I'll draw you a picture if you don't get it.

What proof do you guys have that Everest is really that tall anyway?  Did you take a ruler out and measure it?

117
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Science
« on: April 25, 2007, 04:01:02 PM »
My government isn't the same as your government :) so I may have been throat-crammed something entirely different. We British think the Earth is spherical, but hollow with little bunnies living on the inside. It's all a conspiracy you see...trillions and trillions of pounds....

I actually believe in the hollow earth theory too, but I also believe in the flat earth theory.  I think these two theories need to be reconciled.  Let me post about this in another thread.

118
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Science
« on: April 25, 2007, 03:33:09 PM »
Well, in all honesty, Truthseeker, I'm sure you're a heckuva nice guy, but I think you're looney tunes if you think the earth is flat.   :)

Well, at least you're a nice guy.  I used to be like you once, but then I saw the truth.  It's okay, you'll get to where I am some day.  Hopefully, I can be of some help to you.

Seriously, if I was a round earth theorist who was open minded enough to consider other theories, I would be so threatened by this person who calls himself "sanity" (ha!).  The minute you cross over, they are going to blast you away and make fun of your intelligence.  That's the best these guys can do.

Not only have you contradicted simple logic, you have also contradicted yourself. 

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12908.0

"never believed that the world was round in school"

So you were once like us - believing that the Earth is round - but at the same time, you never believed that the Earth was round. That makes sense to you?

Oh come on... haven't you gone along with something that someone said even though you didn't quite believe it and later on realized that it was complete nonsense?  That's what I'm talking about.  I "believed" in it, but not with all my heart.  Something was fishy about it from the get go.  And now I'm convinced.

I suspect somewhere in you there is a voice that is wondering whether mankind has been duped into believing all this rubbish that the government has crammed down our throats.  I'm telling you, the truth will set you free.

119
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Science
« on: April 25, 2007, 03:28:34 PM »
I don't think Truthseeker and Tom Bishop are the same.  If they were, they'd be lying.  Why would they lie?  I don't understand why anyone would lie.  The Bible says to be honest!  I believe in the goodness of all people and that until we find real evidence to the contrary we should just take Truthseeker and Tom Bishop at their word.  If not, we fail as human beings and there is no hope for us! :)

Amazing isn't it, what these people believe in?  They refuse to believe there can be more than one person who believes that the earth is flat, so they have to make up this belief that we are all one and the same so they can point their fingers and project all their hatred onto us.  And they think just because we are on the same side that this "proves" that we are all Tom.  My God, is this really the best science can do?  Does it have to devolve into cheap name calling?  I don't see any flat earth theorists doing that here.  Only round earth theorists.  What does that say about them?

My, my, their belief systems must be so rock solid if they are so threatened by another valid theory which challenges their views.


That is a truly brilliant expose on...Reading Comprehenshion = Binary 0.  No one on this site, myself included, has said Tom is all of the FE minds in one person. I firmly believe that of the posters here, TheEngineer, Logic, Skeptical, and about 9 others actually are serious, regardless of their stance on the debate premise.

Tom, however, is not.

Tom has approximately 9 alternate accounts. I know this to be a fact for the following reasons:

A - He never denies it.

B - His language, diction, usage, and sentence structure change so minimally as to be insulting to the intelligence of a dung beetle. He simply has no psychological ability to mask his personality. Transparent as glass.

C - The mods themselves never deny it.

D - The mods themselves never actually go to the length of actually DISCIPLINING him for his behavior, because his presence has been institutionalized to ensure the debate can never be rationally exported past the same copy paste googlisms he is so infamous for lifting off StyleProject.com.

E - I have asked Daniel, point blank, in a pm, if Tom was serious or not, and he was evasive about who Tom even WAS. He didn't say he was or was not serious, but he seemed to lean away from Tom as a subject to begin with. This raisies questions.

F - Everytime someone posts with little to no posts that fit his pattern of speech and text and diction and etc, he disappears, then instantly reappears, JUST LONG ENOUGH for it to make sense.

G - He cannot debate his way out of a paper bag, and, honestly, as far as I have seen, has been the only person here, since I arrived, to outright ignore a post that put him in a corner. The others may jab at it, nitpick it, or whatnot, but he is the only one who consistently ignores a post he cannot refute. This is his signature, his modus operandi, name your cliche'.

The man is not serious, nor is he going to take responsibility for the shit he tosses into our hamburger. It's just that fucking simple.

If this man is not serious, why do you spend so much time trying to debunk him?  Let me guess, you have nothing better do.  Nice excuse.

120
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Science
« on: April 25, 2007, 01:50:42 PM »
Well, in all honesty, Truthseeker, I'm sure you're a heckuva nice guy, but I think you're looney tunes if you think the earth is flat.   :)

Well, at least you're a nice guy.  I used to be like you once, but then I saw the truth.  It's okay, you'll get to where I am some day.  Hopefully, I can be of some help to you.

Seriously, if I was a round earth theorist who was open minded enough to consider other theories, I would be so threatened by this person who calls himself "sanity" (ha!).  The minute you cross over, they are going to blast you away and make fun of your intelligence.  That's the best these guys can do.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5