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 - Captain_Bubblebum

Pages: [1] 2 3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ok i have a general question...
« on: January 28, 2008, 07:07:37 AM »
Rowbotham was almost certainly a tacit atheist - a look at his projects and beliefs not specifically relating to zetetic science will help you to infer this.

The first documented Zeteticist, Thales of Miletos, was only "religious" in his beliefs about water as the divine element behind all things.

what you're saying might actually have made sense if you didn't make up so many fake words.  if you're gonna make up words and pass them off as "real" then DON'T have them beginning with the letter 'Z'.  everyone knows theres only one word that begins with 'Z' and thats 'Zebra'.


He certainly wasn't a Christian - he lived some 650 years before Christ.

not true.  no one lived before christ.

The Lounge / Re: I ROCK
« on: January 28, 2008, 06:56:33 AM »
lolololololol I urinated on Wal-Mart the night before last.

isn't that what Wal-Mart is for?


Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Mind Control
« on: January 28, 2008, 05:36:06 AM »
Every significant election in a democracy is rigged and always has been.

lol, wtf no they're not.

...Cathy O'Brien.  Her websites and some quotes from her uncensored book 'TRANCE-formation of America'...

dude, seriously, WTF? :o  are you serious???  you shouldn't believe a single thing you read in a book with the title 'TRANCE-formation of America'.  IT'S NOT A CLEVER PUN!  that's like a headline you'd expect to see in a crappy newspaper that has tits on page 3.  you have to pay attention to the little details in things, especially when you're getting facts from these things. :P

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: bishop has a problem with his stories
« on: December 06, 2007, 12:44:39 PM »

The sinking ship is a perspective effect occurring where the perspective lines intersect with the vanishing point. The effect can be countered and reversed by applying a telescope to the eye.


This is in a previous thread.  You said that, Tom Bishop.  So, I devised an example.  An infinite flat plane, all the distance in the world for those objects to break the horizon line, and they still didn't.  That's the point I am making.

I absolutely agree with your point. On an infinite plane with a perfectly transparent atmosphere, receding objects at a level lower than the observer will never break the horizon line.

I support this simulation 100%, Ferruccio.

Not only does he contradict himself, I already created POV-RAY renderings proving his point to be wrong.

200,000 prisms on an infinite flat plane, ones below the eye level, ones above the eye level.  They never intersect the horizon.

The same thing zoomed in 10x, still no intersection.

The same thing zoomed in 20x, but this time on a sphere the size of earth (assuming the prisms are 1 meter and 2 meters tall, respectively)

A more extreme example, this time with 100 and 200 meter tall "skyscrapers"  stretching out for 20,000 kilometers.  Curvature can clearly be seen.

Tom, just because it may have been a long time ago that your views have been proven wrong does not mean you should be reintroducing them in hopes that I'm still not lurking around to discover them.

i dont see how creating evidence is reliable in any form? i could draw an image of a guy (around 6ft 2.7") holding a car off the ground (its a big car, like the size of a of those coach buses, you know? they can hold upto about 64 seated people? but its a car, not a bus.  just so we have that clear.) but it wont prove that its possible.

The Lounge / Re: OK I'll bite..simple question?
« on: December 06, 2007, 12:31:49 PM »
You have the reasoning skill of an average female elephant.
You should learn that female elephants are the more intelligent of the elephants. Not only do they lead their herd, they can remember hundreds of square miles of terrain and minute details such as what time of year there was water in a place....

lol, you've gotta be kidding?  you're using instinctual primal shit as a basis for proof of intelligence??

btw, they may be more intelligent, whatever, but they still get fucked my male elephants. :P

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: living on the edge...
« on: December 06, 2007, 10:45:41 AM »
so now there's a theory the earth is infinite as well as flat? if thats the case then is it okay if any1 explain gravity to me again?  i know how gravity works in the flat earth model where the planet is finite, but im having trouble gettin my head around this infinite theory.

Username, i understand you're uncertain of the infinite earth thing (in this case), so its kool if you or anyone else takes some time in getting back to me on this one. :)

The Lounge / Russian National Socialism on the rise!
« on: January 21, 2007, 02:14:51 PM »
haha, that reminds me of a post someone put up on this place once, trying to justify their claim that nature was intelligent.  retards would be evidence against that claim.  but yeah, i agree, i cant find any logic to support how being racist is good.

The Lounge / Russian National Socialism on the rise!
« on: January 21, 2007, 01:56:29 PM »
ahhh kool, i'll check up on those wacky guys :)

The Lounge / Russian National Socialism on the rise!
« on: January 21, 2007, 12:43:39 PM »
having a variety of people to choose from is better than having a fixed type of inbreeds to choose from.  how is a pure race better, though? and what makes that particular pure race better than another race which is pure?  ie.  you've got a pure black and a pure white - what defines one being better than the other in terms of generalizing?

The Lounge / Russian National Socialism on the rise!
« on: January 21, 2007, 09:09:36 AM »
whats so good about having one pure race?

The Lounge / Awesome hi-res pictures of space!
« on: January 17, 2007, 09:16:34 AM »
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
Sanirius, if you knew me personally, you would have expected that, and, therefore, would have rolled your eyes instead of laughed.

its a strange thing when a human being has an opportunity to be funny then intentionally ruins the moment.

The Lounge / Dogmatic Atheism
« on: January 17, 2007, 08:16:26 AM »
Quote from: "jk12"
The purpose of rain, is simply to rain, for that is the nature of rain.

are you being sarcastic? cos you should know by now (assuming you have experienced geography lessons in school at some point) that it rains for a reason, and it is not simply to rain.  water is evapourated from the ocean/sea, turned into clouds, clouds cant cope with the amount of moisture residing within them, and they have to rain inorder to get rid of it (this is called the "hydrologic cycle").  this helps to sustain life on the planet.

Quote from: "me"
If the Dark Energy can push the Earth up at increasing speeds of 9.8m/s/s how could something slow down something considerably smaller except for Dark Energy?

its anti-dark energy - dark energy's sister and greatest enemy.  like a really ugly sister no one pays attention to cos they're just way too ugly, you know? so she grows into a total biatch an tries to bring everyone down to her level. :P

EDIT:  she's only strong enough to have an effect on space debris.

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity.
« on: January 16, 2007, 03:53:34 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Aside from your last answer, which is dumb, all of your answers have in common "because the one thing is different from the other thing".  Similarly, UA doesn't affect our bodies, but does affect the stars and planets, because they are different and react differently to different forces.  They're not the same, so you can't assume they'll behave the same way.

what can stars have incommon with planets that would attract such a force as dark energy?  is it because they are big? like really really big?  that'd be my guess.  whats yours?

I've stated many times in this thread, gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. The Sun and Moon are accelerating with the Earth.
I have a question regarding this.. if the Earth is moving up at a speed of ....MPH and counting, and a meteorite hits it. Shouldnt there be a hell of a lot more damage seeing as theyre both going really fast towards each other. If a car hits a motionless car head on there is damage but there is more if they are both moving fast towards each other. Explain why there isnt more damage please.

its a conundrum explained easily.  you see, the earth, moon, and sun are all accelerating as you've said, and so is every other planet and star in the universe.  the dark energy causing all things to be in this constant "universal" state also effects meteorites (dark energy doesnt discriminate against anything apart from all life on earth, as we're "just along for the ride" apparently).  both objects in this case, earth and meteorite, are, with respect to eachother, accelerating at the same rate, so this variable has no greater impact (haha pun!) on the meteorites collision with the earth.

i can say it in a more clear way but im so tired!  i havent had any pro plus pills in what seems like days!  it remains a brilliant drug, im still a fan :D

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Assumptions
« on: January 13, 2007, 11:36:58 AM »
yeah, they aint too bright, probably aint too hot either.  poor saps.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Assumptions
« on: January 13, 2007, 11:23:22 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
There is no observation I can make that leads me to the conclusion that God exists. Every observation I can make leads me to the conclusion that the universe exists.
There is no comparison between the two.

dont some believe that God made everything? so they could, and probably would, argue that the observation of their very existance is proof that God is real?

for the record i dont believe in god, i think that religion is just a way for someone to have a set of guidelines to live their life by, like they need some spooky purpose to live towards.  science rules. 8-)

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Assumptions
« on: January 13, 2007, 10:58:25 AM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
He understood, he just didn't see what Beast's point was.

(I think)

lol, then my mistake. :)

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Assumptions
« on: January 13, 2007, 10:47:46 AM »
Quote from: "beast"
We have every reason to believe that the universe does exist and absolutely no reason to believe that it does not exist. In fact by definition of what we mean by the universe, it has to exist or we couldn't ponder the question.

knight, how can you not understand what beast has said?? we would not exist if the universe did not exist, and since we exist, the universe exists.

The Lounge / Stop the promotion of Witchcraft and Sin in our schools!
« on: January 12, 2007, 10:07:08 AM »
i get you now :)   i think this site should get a new sensor, something that substitutes bad language with words that arent an oxymoron.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: rebuttle to "rebuttle to its a conspiracy"
« on: January 12, 2007, 09:06:50 AM »
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
Actually, we don't.
The only evidence for the existence of the universe is that we can sense it.

i was going to agrue that what you said about basing our belief that the universe exists because we can sense it was too vague, but having thought about it over and over i came to realise that sensing the universe describes it perfectly.

all i can say is - you know that you yourself exist, right? and you can see that other stuff exists, right? the sheer fact that we exist proves that the universe exists because it has to. everything around you is in the universe.  just because the universe, as a whole, cannot be described in a fathomable way doesn't mean its non-existant.  its the very real concept of the universe, however that can be comprehended.

The Lounge / Stop the promotion of Witchcraft and Sin in our schools!
« on: January 12, 2007, 08:06:14 AM »
haha nice one sodapop, i came so close to calling you out on being a racist! :P

black son of a noble seamstress

what the heck is a "noble seamtress"? i thought a noble person was suppose to be a person whom society respects, but how can anyone respect a seamstress?

The Lounge / Dogmatic Atheism
« on: January 10, 2007, 04:01:27 PM »
Quote from: "rustyslacker"
Because the Earth is only 6000 years old? >.>

LOL!!!?!!! *spews out ass as a result of immense unexpected funnyness* :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

The Lounge / Dogmatic Atheism
« on: January 10, 2007, 03:53:09 PM »
Quote from: "beast"
But how do you know Hitler's presence on Earth was his first presence.  What's to say that he didn't create the universe and then, 13.7 billion years later, come into the universe and defend German nationalism at the expense of minorities?  More to the point, how is that statement any less likely than the statement that the universe was created by God?

at the expense of repeating myself (sorry) - my father told me.

The Lounge / Dogmatic Atheism
« on: January 10, 2007, 03:49:45 PM »
Quote from: "rustyslacker"
All the religious debates I've seen are the same.

Theist states beliefs -> Atheists point out there is no objective evidence -> Theist gives subjective, obviously church-supplied evidence -> Atheists refute -> Theist insults atheists -> Atheist (s) make massive rant blowing theist's logic to smithereens.

Can we just make this a thread template so we don't have to keep doing it over and over? :D

yeah, and can there be something done about their names?  i'm sure im not the only one that finds it hard to follow a discussion late at night with sleepy eyes trying to distinguish the word "theist" from "atheist".  one letter.  ONE LETTER!  thats not much difference at all, infact if i didnt know any better i'd say they were the same thing.  'A' isnt even that great of a letter to make such a difference anyway.

The Lounge / Dogmatic Atheism
« on: January 10, 2007, 03:41:46 PM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
I believe this God created the Universe.
As of yet, a reason for the creation of the Universe has not been discovered. I attribute it therefore, to God.

Quote from: "beast"
Completely illogical. What evidence do you have that the Universe was created by God and not by Adolph Hitler? You have no evidence for either.

wrong compadre, the universe existed before Adolf Hitler so he couldn't have created it - father told me so!

The Lounge / Master Beast - everything you need to know
« on: January 10, 2007, 02:44:38 PM »
hahahaha its the best comeback for that kind of foolish grammar.

did anyone find the whole beast thing at the start of this thread too long to actually finish reading?  i got about a third of the way through, it seemed like an okay story though.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Australia doesn't exist
« on: January 10, 2007, 02:33:32 PM »
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Weeeeaaaak.  Turn off the radio and go visit an underground record store and find some actual good music.

I would, but every time I try to go underground, I end up going to the hospital and having to explain to my parents what I was doing on the roof again.

I'll agree to disagree with you, TDN.

Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
...I don't get it.

i think its a hospital joke or something :?

The Lounge / Dogmatic Atheism
« on: January 10, 2007, 02:15:22 PM »
haha i like this guy kwaun Se cos he's mad and a whole new type of dick i've never actually known before.  Tell us more about what you see as an injustice in a world with anti/non-religions and liberals and hippies. :lol:

Flat Earth Q&A / Half baked idea
« on: January 10, 2007, 02:23:28 AM »
lol, i dont know that the mythbusters could actually resolve it because there was an episode i saw where they apparently "Busted" the myth that a high speed wire could cut a body in half (like in die hard 3 when bruce willis & samuel L. jackson jump onto the ship off the bridge & some bad guy gets sliced by a broken cable).  But it is possible, they just didnt try hard enough.  Maybe it'd be different with the FE theory if they got scientists in for help....they'd have to be pretty darn thorough though, no slacking off!

Pages: [1] 2 3