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 - James

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 171
This is false, the border of the Ice wall is a vast escarpment of ice.

I have long warned of this hubris. For six years I have campaigned in favour of the notion that the so-called "Ice caps" are in fact our only buffer against the atmolayer floating into the outer reaches away from our needful lungs. This, truly, is one of the greatest horrors facing modern man.

No doubt many of you have been enjoying that triumph of globularist cultural penetration, the godless bacchanal festival of the New Year. In this society the frivolities of the Decemberial cessation are carefully presented by the media as an enlightened and secular celebration of the coming of a new annual cycle.

And so, in the spirit of this monstrous deception, I shall share with you my "New Year's Resolution" - namely to completely abandon the very concept of a New Year, and indeed of years generally, and encourage you to do the same - and celebrate instead a festival which is commensurable with the true science. For the twisting falsities of the beloved New Year Festival are at the very heart of the insidious conspiracy against the truth which has plagued us and perpetuated the deception of Man through Time.

Clerical experts amongst the worlds religions have endlessly argued amongst themselves about the invalidity of each other's religious ordinances - adherents to Jewish Orthodoxy shun the conventional holidays of Christendom; the Mahometan and the Hindoo abscond from one another's sacred festivals - and yet they all have been deceived by the most unholy festival of the lot, the "secular" celebration of the turn of a year, which is the greatest of all lies.

May I be the first to remind you that the very notion of a globularist year is the highest order of blasphemy against science.  What revellers at this time do not realise themselves to be celebrating is nothing less than an article of faith - the maniacal doctrine that the Terra Firma has flown full-cycle around a giant round Sun like a hummingbird around a flower.

Heraclitus once said that the Sun was the size of a man's foot. His estimate was closer than the most conservative estimate of 21st century Round Earth scientists, and he, at least, knew that this modest Sun was flitting itself over the solid immovable Earth, that no such "year" as the Globuarist posthulates has ever existed. As the great John J Jasper declared in his famous sermon, "De Sun Do Move". His religion was in this regard truer than that of the most pious Round Earth Believer.

In sooth a "year" is an ideological construct with no basis in reality, more tenous than the wildest conceptions of divinity; the New Year Festival is a high service to the oppressive religion of International Globularism.

Though it surely seemed like it after you had become so drunk, I can assure you that the Earth was not spinning this December the 31st.

Flat Earth Believers / Re: Supermoon Concerns
« on: January 03, 2012, 10:37:03 AM »
The Moon's moistness is one of its key pathologies. The Ancient Egyptians knew that moisture was a fundamental decaying force, therefore they preserved their dead by drying them and housing them in the desert. Dried food was also left for these gentlemen, as wet foods like grapes and fresh meat would increase the decay of their mortal bodies.  As both Lardner (1854-6: pp. 114-115) and Charles Dickens (in Rowbotham, 1881: p. 144) have observed, the Moon's moistening power is counterbalanced by the drying power of the Sun.

It is no mistake that the Ancient Egyptians worshipped Ra, the god of the Sun Disc (and, during the Amarna heresy, the Sun-deity of Atenism), no doubt in part because of his powers of drying and thereby providing and preserving life. The pyramids of the great Pharaohs were aligned with heliological trajectories in the sky in order to harness the Sun's drying and immortalising powers.

We can learn much from the Ancient Egyptians about our attitudes towards celestial bodies.

Lardner, D. (1854-6) 'The Museum of Science and Art', London: Walton and Maberly.
Dickens, C. All the Year Round cited in Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctica can melt??
« on: October 27, 2011, 11:15:18 AM »
Yes, Antarctica could melt due to planar warming, and we would all be in grave danger. The real conspiracy of so-called "GLOBAL" warming is to disguise the true disasterous danger of planar warming, by pretending there is a "globe" to be warmed. The only warm globes are the spherical scientist's brains, warm with mysteries and quackery. But there is a warm plain, and we live on it.

But the Moon is flat and so are all of the images I post. I do not see the distinction - you seem to have spheres on the brain!

My computer screen is flat, so the object is flat. As Thork rightly pointed out, what happens in a computer game is not what happens in the real universe. Otherwise we would have blocks falling all around us and yellow balls clunking around eating this and that. That is not true - look out of your window.

Mars, for the record, is bioluminescent.

I tell it straight from the bowels of science; if my readers disagree then I pity them.

They are for the edification of the public on a range of issues.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 29, 2011, 08:03:20 AM »
Jraffield1, that is the doctrine of Popperian falsificationism whose constraining influence I reject.

How may I connect to this footage?

But according to the absurd globularist mythology, absolutely every body of matter exerts its gravitation everywhere. If I am standing on the Earth, you may say up is away from the centre of the Earth, but by their own farcical story the gargantuan spherical Sun exerts enough of its own gravity to heft the Earth and everything on it about in space at a thousand miles an hour.  So the Sun is said to be the "dominant body" or "reference point" and up becomes away from the centre of the Sun.  And yet I do not feel myself falling towards the centre of the Sun, what ridiculous fantasies are conjured by the globular science brought to its logical conclusion!!

And yet, so the globular scientist earnestly tells us, there is still a bigger body around which a billion gargantuan Suns are hurled, its gravity being so much greater than all of theirs combined - so even as I stand on the Earth, which is hurled by the Sun, which in turn is hurled by the great Sun-hurler, ought I not to suppose that up is away from the centre of the great galactic blob around which all of these many huge Suns are supposedly whizzing?  So here already we have three complicated ups operant all at once! And yet only one of them barely approximates the direction I knew from the day I was born as up.

Truly, globularism is a mess of bizarre fancies and wild daydreams.

I have created six thought-provoking tweets to get you started.

In a bid to further disseminate my important work and discoveries, I am instantiating a Twitter portal from which I will promulgate addenda to my extensive research on this website.  I shall be posting my every musing on issues as diverse as geology, cosmology, natural history, unnatural history, geography, and any number of other fields of thought.

I invite you to educate yourself by registering a subscription to my account at the following web address:

Together we will unravel the very mysteries of the cosmos, one Tweet at a time.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Map of Antarctica
« on: September 28, 2011, 07:53:47 AM »
There are hundreds of islands in the vast oceans of the Earth. That could be any one of them.

The plot thickens.  Are you trying to tell me that there are different kinds of up with respect to different deposits of elements?  How many more bizarre footnotes does the shaky globularist definition of up require?

If I am standing next to the great pyramid at Giza, is up-with-respect-to-limestone somewhere off to my side?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Davis Plane: Possible explanation of UA
« on: September 27, 2011, 10:03:51 PM »
I never created the term "the Cambridge model". I have nothing to do with Cambridge. It was presumably applied to my work at a later date by my readers.

Flat Earth General / Re: Earth from 107,000 feet above
« on: September 27, 2011, 07:21:17 PM »
The very title of the programme is a brazen lie. How we could trust this man I do not know.

Please be respectful. I have hidden my face in shame, and altered my picture to an educational slideshow demonstrating my beliefs. Please refrain from your mockery and return to the topic at hand, which is the direction of up.

A more convincing thesis than your insane pan-up-ism.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Davis Plane: Possible explanation of UA
« on: September 26, 2011, 08:41:41 AM »
We are not moving at a speed, we are accelerating.

Flat Earth General / Re: Speed of light
« on: September 26, 2011, 07:27:27 AM »
On the contrary, speed is an artificial construct derived from acceleration.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Davis Plane: Possible explanation of UA
« on: September 26, 2011, 06:10:45 AM »
It most certainly can be explained; modern science suggests that it is occurring because of the Big Bang. Once we abandon the globularist confusions about the nature of "up", we arrive at a very simple fact that the Big Bang was monodirectional. It went up. And it is still going up.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Davis Plane: Possible explanation of UA
« on: September 26, 2011, 05:52:51 AM »
Dear Mr Heath,

There is no need to conduct our scientific interchange under the clandestine cover of e-mails.  I am more than happy to hear your claims on the forum here, where the tribunal of public scrutiny will engender an attitude of the truth.  I am particularly interested to know why an infinitely wide disc cannot uniformly accelerate, as this is manifestly what is occurring at present in the universe.

I invite you to release an object from your hand; you will see the entire cosmos rise at a steady acceleration to meet it.  I appreciate that you may believe some mystic force to be at work, that the object is moving down from your hand under the impetus of this force.  But I beseech you to consider that this is the bias of your perspective, as you yourself are being accelerated upward by the great heaving Earth beneath us.  I ask you - whither this mystical force?  Have you ever observed a graviton, the explanatory panacea of the globularist account of physics?  I must say that the Earth moving in accordance with the forces we understand from our very lives requires a good deal less explanation than objects being mystically drawn to the Earth by an unseen force, transmitted by an unseen particle, a force which you presumably claim is operative across every cubic centimetre of the universe. I am eager to hear your reasons for believing such a story.

Best wishes,
James MacIntyre
Flat Earth Society, department of Palaeontology and Moon Studies

Flat Earth General / Re: Speed of light
« on: September 26, 2011, 05:37:00 AM »
I do not believe in speed. There is no such thing. Drunken physicists have been measuring an imaginary quantity. The only comprehensible measure of movement is acceleration.

Up is a universal constant. It is monodirectional. There is only one up.

I have it in PDF. I think I may have downloaded it from the site.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: About The planet
« on: September 24, 2011, 10:19:04 AM »
On the contrary, those who believe in witches in the current age go against the grain of contemporary understanding. I am an intellectual radical.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: About The planet
« on: September 24, 2011, 10:02:18 AM »
I know that it is true that witches exist, I was just trying to think of a good example for a globularist witch-unbeliever such as Puttah. Since he does presumably not believe in witches, I thought it was a good way of example, but I did not mean it to express my own views, which are epistemically witch-rich and zetetic.

It is true, the globularist is so confused in his wild theories that he does not even know what direction up is.

The Zetetic explanation of up:
Up is a single direction away from the surface of the Earth. Down is the opposite of up.

The Globularist explanation of up:
Up is the direction of the sky if the observer of up is at the top of the Earth, but that up becomes down if the observer is down at the bottom of the Earth, and what used to be down becomes his up, but the old up remains up for the upward observer, and the new up, which used to be down, remains down for the upward observer.

Which explanation makes more sense?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 171