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 - FETlolcakes

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
61
The fact that you & papabot can't understand a very simple concept of how a rocket works doesn't preclude it from being true, scepti. It seems you need to be told this about everything you find impossible to believe: incredulity isn't an argument, it's a fallacy.

Papalegbone sets up its silly strawman about gases doing work in a vacuum then simply knocks it down and declares victory. Only idiots (read: you, it & a few other retards lurking around) claim a rocket works by 'pushing off of the atmosphere'. Sokural asked the simple yet pertinent question of how two gas molecules hitting one another outside of the rocket/combustion chamber propels a rocket forward. The only response he gets is legbot copypasta bullshit & non-sequitars (funny how that sums up everyone of its posts).

So, would you like to do us a favour and explain how this mechanism works? You must believe in it if you think a rocket cannot work in a vacuum. Explain it absent your usual spiels about indoctrination/NASA/fantasies etc.

PS- You're both far too dense to realise it, but even that simple video proves you both wrong... but of course we get the usual meaningless, moronic objections.

62
*Same-old debunked argument*

Hi papabot.

I'd like to toss a gem of wisdom your way: repeating a wrong argument an infinite amount of times won't all of a sudden make it right. I'm really sorry.. but not really.

So, we know the gas doesn't have to do any work on the vacuum; its already done its work on the rocket that, you know, it has been shot out the bottom of at a great rate of knots. Apparently you think that if a rocket were put in a vacuum chamber and fired, the gas would simply shoot out and the rocket wouldn't move at all? LOL? Where has the energy of the expelled gases gone? You understand of course that the combustion starts inside the rocket, don't you? Of course you do; no one is that stupid. Apparently the gas does absolutely no work on the rocket at all when shot from it.. yea, forget about N3 and conservation of momentum & energy: they're just part of the ConspiracyTM!

Meh, no point at all trying with this bot, fellas; he's already been shown how he's wrong at least a hundred times.

Stop wasting time here with us papabot, go and publish your findings in a scientific journal. Oh wait, nevermind, that will never happen because even 4th graders know you're wrong.

Pip-toodle!

63
Bahahahah... Papa-bot always good for a laugh (at)!

It still hasn't describe how a rocket does work by pushing on the atmosphere. Apparently the gas expelled at a very high rate of speed doesn't do any work at all until it hits the atmosphere! Amazing! Any evidence provided of this claim? Of course not, just a terrible lack of understanding of N3... and of basic physics.

That's programming for you folks: garbage in, garbage out. Don't blame the bot; it can't help the nonsense it spouts.

If, of course, this demonstrably absurd claim had any merit whatsoever, there would be an effort to publish said claims for peer-review but that will never, ever happen. I wonder why?

64
Flat Earth General / Re: Forces of nature, Brian Cox - pt2.
« on: December 02, 2016, 01:45:27 AM »
Poor scepti. Must suck to not be able to provide evidence for just about everything you blather on about in this forum.

How high is the ISS, scepti? Eh, high enough.
How fast is the ISS traveling, scepti? Eh, fast enough.
How can it always appear on schedule, scepti? Eh, reasons.
But scepti, I photographed the ISS and here are the pictures, how is that possible? Eh, because I said so!

Must suck to live in a world where everyone lies to you about nearly everything and all for reasons unknown! This is nothing more than paranoid delusion. It genuinely makes me wonder if you suffer from schizophrenia and I don't mean this in a pejorative way; if that were the case, I'd feel sorry for you. It would fit for someone who has continually shared his delusions about his status in the world from his achievements, his work-in-progress projects to his apparent genius.

Here's an idea, scepti: Why don't you sell one of your helicopters and buy a really nice telescope along with some professional photography gear and film/photograph the ISS once it flies over your head (as scheduled)? I know this will take some practice, but at least it will get you out of your parent's basement and out into the real world for a little while. Perhaps some fresh air might flush out some of those prominent fantasies you have in your head. I do wonder what you might say if you did indeed capture something that looks exactly like the ISS... it might just be a watershed moment for you to leave your fantasy world behind and enter the real world for, perhaps, the first time in your life.

65
Flat Earth General / Re: The Real Question
« on: November 21, 2016, 06:21:54 PM »
Would anyone care to recommend an intellectually honest FET YouTube video?

Pretty sure none would exist if they were constrained by such a thing.

Nonetheless, I'd definitely check out Flat Earth Scientist's YT channel... it is unintentionally one of the funniest channels in existence.

66
Flat Earth General / Re: Forces of nature, Brian Cox - pt2.
« on: November 21, 2016, 06:11:37 PM »
All you're doing is attempting to ridicule by using the same old ridiculous nonsense.

Such projection, scepti! I say this because that is literally all you do: mock, ridicule and use appeal to incredulity fallacies in lieu of an actual argument.

Quote
Your use of the bucket and water or your best friend's use of a kayak on a river is proving nothing for your fictional globe.

It's an attempt to get the simpletons to follow the discussion by use of an analogy. It actually is useful and does work for those with enough brain power to follow along. Alas, this excludes you.

Quote
I never thought so many people would abandon basic common sense in favour of nonsense - and clear nonsense at that.

What common sense? You clearly can't seem to grasp the concept of a frame of reference. You're all tied up in knots and you barely know left from right; it's embarrassing.

It's amazing that someone can post as much as you do and not get a single thing right, at least when it comes to science... that's hard to do, so I'll give you that.

Quote
I do expect people like you to rigidly adhere to your strict indoctrination, because admittance to positive thought on alternate theories on the topic of Earth and space,  would render you embarrassed among your peers.

You're like a broken record. I swear, if you weren't allowed to post the same rant every post you make, all of your posts would be 95% shorter.

Quote
The smartest people on Earth are the people who actually do real science and who search for clues to what their reality potentially is.

Ok, so definitely not you or any of your ilk, then. Glad we can agree on something!

Oh and yea... how's that Ice DomeTM model going?

Quote
The most gullible are those that blindly follow something that is blatantly wrong and really should be questioned

Like the purported existence of your Ice DomeTM model? Again, I agree with that!

67
Flat Earth General / Re: What more proof do you need?
« on: September 23, 2016, 04:00:47 PM »

"It says CIRCLE..."

"A circle is a 2D object which cannot exist in the real world."

"A sphere however is the most perfect form of a circle there is because no matter how you look at it, there's always a circle somewhere."

"A disc is only a circle."

What exactly are you trying to prove?

"The earth is in no way flat."

"...very obviously completely ignorant about earth sciences."

"Religion is just a cancer ... even if it may help some people..."

"Utterly hilarious.. and sad, too."

Quoting people out of context doesn't make you smart, it just makes you a disingenuous idiot.

68
Flat Earth General / Re: What more proof do you need?
« on: September 23, 2016, 10:22:28 AM »
It's par for the course for this site, but people actually trying to use an ancient book of desert fables to prove something about the world around us? Utterly hilarious.. and sad, too.

The bible is so demonstrably wrong in the things it purports, it is ludicrous to use it as some sort of historical evidence for something oranything for that matter. The story of genesis is bunk. The earth is not 6000 years old. The earth is in no way flat.

Sure, it's your prerogative to quibble over details and argue semantics about crap written in an ancient book, but geez... what a waste of time. Surely the fact that the people who wrote the bible were very obviously completely ignorant about earth sciences and got mostly everything wrong shows that it most certainly wasn't divinely inspired?

Religion is just a cancer that has sadly lived on into the modern day, despite the fact that it is detrimental to the world as a whole even if it may help some people on a personal level.

69
How goes that Ice D- oh wait, nevermind, you just lied your big boy ass off about that... like most other things you've claimed on this forum, actually.

You do realise you have literally zero credibility on this forum right? Nothing you say has any bearing on anything, let alone reality. This thread is just another to throw on the pile of worthless threads that pertain to your 'ideas' which, as far as I can see, no one but you subscribe to.

70
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ask me About DET!
« on: September 14, 2016, 11:20:18 PM »
Well, I'd respond to the points you made about DE but you ended up saying:

You specified internally consistent, so quite why you're now comparing it to the real world is beyond me. That's a separate discussion.

Ok, so it's my bad. We're not meant to compare any of this to the real world. We're meant to discuss it like kids might quibble over details about the world of Harry Potter. I would object to this because it doesn't seem to be what's happening here, but I'll just let it go.

I think I'll just focus on sunrise/sunset, given aether is in this model is a can of worms I don't want to even bother with; I'll let others do that.

If you do in fact understand the equator, then the extension is simple enough. Look at the overall diagram JRowe drew, and trace out the path of a person at the equator. Then trace out the path of a plane. Then you get to include the Sun, subject to the same flow, that comes out on top. Like everything else in the model, it's a spotlight, so it only shines in one direction. As it rotates (the whirlpools that are used to explain several other aspects enter into it here too) the light from it gets blocked.

Why does the sun disappear from the bottom up and appear from the top down in sunset and sunrise respectively? On both occasions, the sun appears to be blocked by a physical object ie. the earth. Is it just a coincidence that it just appears the earth is cutting off/blocking the sunlight, when in fact it's just a whirlpool(?) doing it? I wonder why this doesn't happen at any point in the sky, rather than say the horizon. Do you understand where I'm coming from with this?

I wonder if you could be bothered to draw a diagram of this? I'm not even going to object to aether performing magic here, given I understand the parameters of our discussion now.

So, people who're wrong about something deserve no respect?

Sigh... reductio ad absurdum much? People who subscribe to an outdated, backwards belief in the face of mountains of empirical evidence deserve no respect, especially when they're intellectually dishonest about the existence of said evidence. Being ignorant about something is one thing, but a belief in a FE doesn't even come close to that given the information/data/photographs/videos readily accessible to just about anyone.

So, yes, they deserve no respect, especially considering such people can and do sway other gullible people to abandon reason.

This site really is an interesting,  if disturbing,  look at the human psyche.

Agreed. It's interesting to see the mentality from time travelers thrust forward thousands of years into the future, decreeing everything they don't understand as fake, wrong or a conspiracy... because reasons!

Good times.

71
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ask me About DET!
« on: September 13, 2016, 06:49:00 PM »
Firstly, you don't need to deduce nothing special happens at the equator. That's the natural assumption: that nothing special happens. The equator point makes sense if you look from an in-model perspective. If a low concentration forms (the necessary origin assumption, like "The matter at the Big Bang exists,") then dust would be carried on flows of aether towards this. The flow would result in a low concentration left behind in the wake of the inwards flow, and so on, that's what creates the disk, and creates it in this format. The edge of the disk is the edge of the original low concentration, where the remaining low concentration inside the Earth is 'exposed.'

Let us not try and draw comparisons with real scientific theories like the Big Bang with JRowe's ad hoc DE. They are not even close to being comparable.

Onto your 'explanation'... the only thing I got from it was something along the lines of: aether flows, stuff happens, something dust aaaand presto, you got yourself a DE with a sun, moon and planets on the 'inside' of a DE! If you think I'm being overly dismissive, please try reading your explanation back to yourself aloud. Notice how, despite the assumptions, there is no coherent connection between one assertion to the next? Apparently aether is space and can not only interact with matter, but can actually form planets and suns but can't actually be detected/measured. Do I have that right?

Yes, I went quickly, because you're asking for a ridiculously long essay and I have no desire to write it when I have no idea what your specific issues are.

Weird. You say what I'm asking would take a ridiculously long essay to explain then in the next breath say you have no idea what my specific issues are? Which is it?

As for sunrise/set, do you understand the equator? It's connected to that, but I can't do much unless you understand that principle first.

Oh, I understand the equator thing all right. It makes no sense of course, but I understand it much like I understand how Neo can do what he does in the Matrix.

Apparently, if I stood right on the equatorial line, one half of my body would be on the northern disc and my other half on the southern disc. And, because of something something aether concentration something something no-space, no one notices anything. My body also simultaneously traverses the space between the discs where I would pass by the sun, moon and planets (without noticing of course) when crossing the equator. You know, I used to think that bendy light was fantastic in its stupidity, but JR's aether takes the proverbial cake! Not only can it flow and concentrate, it can simulate gravity and bend light from one side of the world to the other, all without anyone noticing!

As for the sunrise/sunset, I would like to hear your explanation for this because once upon a time I was able to get JR to expound on it briefly, so I am curious if your explanation is remotely comparable to the one he gave me (as charmingly incoherent as it was).

Because joining a forum for the exclusive purpose of insulting and mocking and deriding is such a monumentally juvenile and idiotic way to act it deserves precisely zero respect.

Who said anything about it deserving respect? I said I understood it.

Secondly, the idea of a FE and its proponents also deserve the same amount of respect ie. zero.

Lastly, welcome to the internet. Are you new here?

That's not how it works. Most models I've seen are fairly internally consistent, the problem being you need to take the time to actually learn and understand what's being said, rather than rejecting it automatically on the basis that it's wrong. For example: can you provide such a contradiction with DET?

Well, firstly I take exception to your use of the word model for reasons you would already appreciate.

Not only that, the FE/DE models can never be internally consistent if they are trying to describe real-world phenomena because... well, they're wrong, aren't they? I mean, if you start with the premise that all of these models describe a fictional world, I suppose it's just harmless pontificating. When, however, one tries to shoehorn this nonsense into the real world, that's when objections get raised.

Here's a much more interesting and challenging (IMO) idea for you Jane: Try creating a non-RE model that is a) internally consistent, b) describes real-world phenomena and c) is falsifiable.

Lastly, contradictions with DE? Well, since no one can actually seem to understand the properties of aether which is this model's answer to everything, it's hard to even get a grasp on anything concrete let alone find contradictions in vague, hand-waving walls of text.

72
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ask me About DET!
« on: September 13, 2016, 07:29:38 AM »
"Here's the model, explain!" doesn't really help. That's not a question. "It's ridiculous," is not a valid addition to any discussion if you're not providing details of why. Your argument at the moment comes down to "It's different."

Hmm, not really. I'm saying how on earth anything in DE actually fits reality. How does one deduce that we live on either side of two flat planes which are separated (but not really) because something something aether? Again, how does one deduce that nothing special happens at the equator despite the very opposite appearing to be true? Glib remarks about it logically following from something something aetherial affects is nonsense. There seems an awful lot of connective dots missing from the 'assumption' that aether is space and aether flows and... therefore DE? Can you fill in the blanks? Dare you even try?

If you start with the precepts, and acknowledge reality, then that model is more or less what follows. You'd get a flat disc, we observe stars rotating in opposite directions but the Sun moving in one... Etc.

I... have no idea what this means. Again, you've gone from A to Z in single step, ignoring everything inbetween. How does starting with the assumption that aether is space and aether flows does any of what you've just said follow? How do you get a flat disc from these assumptions? How do you get dual flat discs from that?

Let's just ignore for now that we still have no idea where anything even is on a DE, therefore we can't actually measure anything.

Also, would you attempt to explain how a sunrise/sunset works because I still have no idea?

FET doesn't have credence. A chat on an internet forum isn't going to change that. If you signed up to a forum for the sole purpose of deriding and insulting people then I couldn't care less about your opinion, frankly.

Well, much like you, I don't take things too seriously. I simply attempt to inject logic and reason into discussions (if you can call what happens on these forums that) and call people out whom make fallacious arguments. Secondly, I appreciate the fact that, because FE has no basis in reality, that people will rightly deride those who subscribe to such backward nonsense and why shouldn't they? They are ripe for the picking because a belief in a FE was outdated literally millennia ago.

As for speculating about the world of Harry Potter, people do that. It's fun too. FET just offers more material, because it gives rules and gives a claim and you can have some fun working on how it all connects. It's actually a fair challenge.

I think the thing you are missing is that every single model* presented on these forums have no internal consistency whatsoever. You seem to think that rambling ad hoc responses to questions constitute a model. Square pegs are continually forced into round holes whenever someone asks a question the model creator never thought of (see JRowe vs equatorial aligned telescopes as an example). They then attempt to say that all of what they posit fits reality whilst simultaneously ignoring reality. Where are the thought experiments in any of that?

In DET's case, the way space works is pretty complicated when you get down to it

Complicated... well, that's one way to put it. Complete bullshit would be another. If I had to guess, JR was reasonable enough to admit that the FE hypothesis was erroneous, thus he came up with the idea of a DE which solves a few FE problems (but really just creates countless more). Everything 'followed' from there, including the convoluted, magical aether which does whatever JR says it does.

Mystery solved, I think! What did I win?

*I use that term very loosely because there are no FE/DE models, just a jumbled mess of contradictory ideas thrown into a blender.

73
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ask me About DET!
« on: September 13, 2016, 12:17:10 AM »
Apparently, nothing special happens at the equator. Also apparently, one can deduce that the world is in fact a two-sided disc with the sun & moon (and whatever else) in the middle of the discs and the discs are separated (but not really) to allow the space for the sun & moon (but not really) and when you cross the equator (but not really) you are instantly teleported (but not really) through the center of the discs, across the sun & moon (and whatever else), without noticing anything. That's some... amazing deduction right there! I'd bet my life that JRowe has never even been to the equator in his lifetime, but still he deduced all of this somehow (but not really)!

Feel free to explain any of this Jane because IMO nothing you've regurgitated thus far makes any sense to me whatsoever.

On another note, I understand some of your objections about how some RE'ers conduct themselves on this site, but I can't understand why you think anything on this site or the very idea of the FE itself deserves anything else but derision. Subscribing to such absurdities should be met with nothing but derision because the alternative to this is actually sitting down and debating such nonsense, thus giving the idea of a FE actual credence. You may like intellectual exercises, but what you're doing is nothing of the sort. If nothing else, it's stretching your imagination muscle... slightly.

Aak is right in the fact that hypothetical conjecture and thought experiments are based on the real world, not imaginary ones ie. denpressure & FE/DE. You're basically asking people to speculate about the world of Harry Potter.

74
Flat Earth General / Re: Answered Questions
« on: September 02, 2016, 12:23:38 AM »
Oh dear. JRowe thinks his wall of rambling, incoherent text constitutes a working FE model! You can see just how much attention this working model is receiving; so many threads and so many discussions going on all at once! Oh wait..

Don't worry though, the answer to all of the objections raised about his model is aether. So, I'll give it you, JRowe: when you say you've answered our questions, you aren't wrong. It's just a shame it's all meaningless gibberish with no basis in the real world. When you get back from planet Vulcan where people instantaneously teleport from one flat disc, travel past the sun, stars and moon, and end up on the other flat disc without noticing anything fantastic just happened, tell us what it feels like to live on an oblate spheroid again. Does it feel any different?

Honest question: How many other people are convinced about your DEH?

75
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions for sceptimatic
« on: July 22, 2016, 07:44:17 AM »
They don't. They may fall at very similar (to the eye) rates but not exactly. As long as there's some resistance, no matter what amount, two different objects will fall at different times. the issue is in having something so accurate to prove this and there isn't anything that would be conclusive. It's down to common sense by using atmosphere to do the same test to see the objects fall at different rates.
A helicopter drop or skyscraper would suffice.

This seems a very arbitrary, ad hoc response. Is it because all of the experiments conducted show that objects fall at the same rate and thus you must invent some reason why this is so? How did you come to the conclusion that in order for us to see a difference in acceleration of falling objects that a test chamber would have to be the height of a skyscraper? How tall of a skyscraper? When does it start to make a difference and, again, how did you determine this if by your own admission all experiments would be inconclusive because the difference would be too small to measure?

You've come to some incredible conclusions about the world having not conducted a single noteworthy experiment or even any at all.

They fall because energy was used to put those objects into a place where their energy has now become potential energy, until released.

Again, why just in the downward direction? How I picture your model is by molecules being stacked (your description) and by pushing/displacing them in the upwards direction, the molecules push back down again etc. This should also work in every direction if what you propose were true. Your responses to this question are not in any way satisfactory.

It is. Gravity is just a ruse. Atmospheric pressure upon  any dense object pushed into it, is reality.

I guess I just have to take your word for it then because you offer literally zero evidence for this claim. Am I a free thinker yet?

Newtons law of supposed gravity does not hold true at all.

Well, every experiment ever conducted in evacuated chambers disagrees with your assertion and conform to Newtonian mechanics. I suppose mathematics is a conspiracy/load of baloney because it agrees (for all intents and purposes) with Einstein and Newton?


76
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions for sceptimatic
« on: July 22, 2016, 06:13:41 AM »
No scepti. He specially stated a vacuum chamber not space. Therefore gravity applies.
You cannot make anything like a vacuum at sea level. You can get lower pressure and that's your lot, depending on your pumps ability to restrict pressure from gaining entry back into the chamber as it's being allowed to expand out of it.

All you're arguing is semantics. Call it a vacuum chamber, evacuated chamber or a low-pressure chamber, it doesn't matter; what matters is the result. Let's say a very cheap evacuated chamber can achieve a 0.000001 Pa, why do two very different objects of varying densities and surface area fall at the exact same rate? Why do they fall at all? I thought air pressure = gravity? Here we have a very, very, very low pressure chamber, yet Newton's laws seem to hold true.

Please just answer the questions and stop arguing semantics about what a vacuum is. If you can't, we all understand.

77
Flat Earth General / Re: Why would NASA lie ?
« on: July 22, 2016, 05:33:58 AM »
In a word: reasons.

In all seriousness though, that's about as good as a response you're going to get. Some think they make money out of it, but never go into any actual details of course.. that might take some actual effort! It's all just idle waffle, despite what some of the ego-maniacs on this board think, and means nothing in/to the real world.


78
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions for sceptimatic
« on: July 22, 2016, 02:27:14 AM »
We're all not worthy, DNO. Questioning scepti about his constantly spouted bullshit and repeated lies is sacrilege and can potentially lead to another Scepti MeltdownTM.

Anyway, apparently it's atmospheric pressure which replaces gravity in scepti's little world. For whatever reason though, this 'pressure' (created from what though? Is it a force that creates/causes itself?) pushes only in the downward direction because of 'molecule stacking'... or something? But, in an evacuated chamber (very, very low pressure), all objects fall at the same rate!? I thought atmospheric pressure pushes everything down? Scepti attempts to explain this by saying that there is less resistance on the objects when they're falling so they fall more freely?!!!?!?!? What?? I thought it was the pressure that was 'pushing' everything down in the first place? Now we have much, much less pressure and not only do things not float or fall slower, they fall faster?

I am confuse.

79
Flat Earth General / Re: Forces of nature, Brian Cox - pt2.
« on: July 21, 2016, 04:17:14 PM »
For someone who has incredible difficulty comprehending the simplest of physical concepts, I'd be amazed if you managed to tie your shoelaces let alone construct a working pendulum.

Nonetheless, how did you construct your pendulum? What controls do you have in place? What is your latitude and how much is the pendulum expected to move? Do you care to post videos or pictures of your construction, or are we just going to have to take your word for it? What with Sceptimatic spending the better part of the last week lying his ass off about his Dome Model pictures and video(s), you can appreciate my skepticism. That, and the fact that all FE'ers I've ever seen post here seem to have an almost fatal allergy to experiments or stepping into the outside world.

Until you actually provide more details, your posts declaring 'no earth movement' are worthless. If they're forthcoming, great! Until then though, let's just wait to analyze your setup and results before reaching a conclusion :)

80
Flat Earth General / Re: SpX-9/CRS-9 Launch and Landing Attempt
« on: July 20, 2016, 10:51:44 AM »
For what you did, you lost all my respect. Now go away and don't bother me again in this name. Use your other names if you want to talk with me from now on.

If lying wasn't bad enough, here you are trying to lay the blame of this at the feet of rayzor. That is low. Every 'free-thinker' having seen this unfold will think so too. This has been your biggest public blunder yet which says a lot, frankly, because you set the bar so high previously.

Well, at least we found one way in which you actually deliver on something.

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty, sure, but you really fucked this one up. Far better to have bullshitted that we were all unworthy to behold your amazing Ice DomeTM model either in pictures or video than to claim such pictures/videos exist and that you would send them to people privately (but only if they never divulged what was sent on this forum... I wonder why!). Oh well. The silver lining here scepti is that, if any of the free-thinkers who peruse this forum were on the fence about you being completely full of shit, they now no longer have any doubt. Why is that a good thing, you ask? Well, it's taken them to a new level of awareness see, the thing you most crave for everyone!

Poor scepti, that Ice DomeTM really is smashing down all around you.

*Edit* quote tags zzZz

81
Flat Earth General / Re: SpX-9/CRS-9 Launch and Landing Attempt
« on: July 20, 2016, 02:32:21 AM »
Scepti is full of projection. He's just projecting all of his shortcomings and failings onto everyone/everything else. He's totally full of shit and anyone with a singular firing neuron can see it.

His latest bullshit story about sending 'emails' to rayzor of his 'Ice Dome model' is just the latest of his incredibly long list of public gaffes and lies. From holding 13 academic qualifications, to being an inventor, a patent holder, to living in a mansion and owning expensive cars, scepti is very obviously fond of spinning a yarn... too bad it's unraveling for him (though, in truth, I doubt anyone actually believed a word he has posted on this forum).

It's OK scepti, you can come clean now. We all know you're a fucking liar; I think you'll feel better if you just admit it publicly and get it off your chest. I know how hard it can be to remember all the lies you've told; much easier just to fess up and cop the backlash than continue with your bullshit stories.

Honestly, I wouldn't even really care about your lies if it weren't for the fact you're just a monumental hypocrite. I bet a good 80% of your posts are just sanctimonious whining about 'the elite' and 'the lies they tell' and how you're a 'free-thinker' and we're all just 'sheep who can't think for ourselves'. Seriously, shut the fuck up you daft lying clown. You ranting about other people lying is pot calling the kettle black at best.

Slightly OT I know, I'm sorry, but this is just turning into another scepti merry-go-round thread where he asserts this, that and the other and, when asks to back any of it up, he just leads everyone in a circular 'debate'.

82
Flat Earth General / Re: SpX-9/CRS-9 Launch and Landing Attempt
« on: July 19, 2016, 07:48:03 AM »
That last paragraph from Copper sums up exactly where I was heading.

I just told my friend that we don't have class tomorrow....he asked me "did you get that from a peer reviewed journal?" lol. It is somewhat of a running joke that you cant say anything in science without backing it up. I would just like to see a bit less of a running commentary about being duped and more info to actually bring some substance to your view point Mr.Scepti :)

To me, I saw a launch and a landing (I admit it was in somewhat of a tacky and over the top, commercialized manner).   
What do you mean by tacky and over the top?

Also, tell me about this space rocket launch. Tell me what rocket it was and whether it was manned or not. Tell me where you were when yous aw this and what scope you used to clearly see that it was a space rocket.

You are not obliged to answer my questions, as you well know. It's entirely up to you.

And if he answers your questions and I daresay he will, what of it? How is answering your questions going to determine anything of value? You're just going to deny all of it anyway, regardless of what is said. You're a broken record and a liar to boot. The *only* argument you ever bring forth is incredulity; never any evidence (even circumstantial), never anything of substance, not even deductive reasoning.

Not matter the circumstances, no matter the amount of evidence or eye witnesses, it's always wrong if you deem it so. This will be too; indeed, you've already labeled it as such. Your evidence for this? Nothing of course, just general hand waving and prattle about irrelevancies.

I'd ask you to prove me wrong but, frankly, you're incapable. Basically, if it's mainstream, it's all wrong/a scam.

83
Flat Earth General / Re: SpX-9/CRS-9 Launch and Landing Attempt
« on: July 18, 2016, 12:25:09 AM »
Wow, great video. Thanks for posting.

Yet another, according to the FE'ers, enormously convoluted and prohibitively expensive public show to fool people into believing in space exploration/satellites and the Globe... all for reasons unknown. Who wouldn't subscribe to such a theory!

84
So, um... yea.

85
Oh here we go.... Scepti trying to give himself an out where there is none. Let me guess, either rayzor will miraculously fail to send you a return email (which you apparently need all of a sudden for no good reason whatsoever) or he will continue waiting for an email from you that you will claim you've sent but never did. You will deny all of this of course and blame rayzor, gmail/google/carrier pigeons/whatever.

Oh poor scepti, what a tangled web you weave! Far better to just admit you lied years ago.

That said though, I'm sure however this plays out will be entertaining, scepti-style.
Try not to ruin this for your good friend, Rayzor.
Any more crap like this and you spoil it for your very good friend, Rayzor. Do I make myself clear?
Answer to this before I get going.

This is between you and me,  honour your promises and I'll give you no drama.   
Then have a word with your little snappy dog. Whack his nose with a newspaper or whatever. If I don't get an apology from your snappy dog within the next 5 minutes, he ruins it for you and we will have no further correspondence as regards my dome and diagrams leading up to the building and workings of it.

I apologize unreservedly, scepti. I am sorry, I was out of line. Please accept my humblest of apologies  :-[

86
Oh here we go.... Scepti trying to give himself an out where there is none. Let me guess, either rayzor will miraculously fail to send you a return email (which you apparently need all of a sudden for no good reason whatsoever) or he will continue waiting for an email from you that you will claim you've sent but never did. You will deny all of this of course and blame rayzor, gmail/google/carrier pigeons/whatever.

Oh poor scepti, what a tangled web you weave! Far better to just admit you lied years ago.

That said though, I'm sure however this plays out will be entertaining, scepti-style.
Try not to ruin this for your good friend, Rayzor.
Any more crap like this and you spoil it for your very good friend, Rayzor. Do I make myself clear?
Answer to this before I get going.

Enough stalling, good buddy. Send rayzor the goods, he deserves it I'm sure you'll agree.

87
Oh here we go.... Scepti trying to give himself an out where there is none. Let me guess, either rayzor will miraculously fail to send you a return email (which you apparently need all of a sudden for no good reason whatsoever) or he will continue waiting for an email from you that you will claim you've sent but never did. You will deny all of this of course and blame rayzor, gmail/google/carrier pigeons/whatever.

Oh poor scepti, what a tangled web you weave! Far better to just admit you lied years ago.

That said though, I'm sure however this plays out will be entertaining, scepti-style.

88
Nothing to report (except spamming bot)

89
Nothing to report (except spamming bot)

90
I've got this new script where if you quote a post, it deletes everything of non-value and leaves the rest. Time for a test run:

Nothing to report (except spamming bot)

Hm, well, look at that... works a treat! Carry on.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8