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.
manarq, your insipid posts amount to nothing , I was not able to find a single one worth mentioning here.Wow you're really not used to people questioning and checking what you post are you. Actually I suspect it's more along the lines of people don't usually read the paranoid walls of text you post. All I've asked you to do is provide evidence that backs up the conspiracy stuff you've swallowed.
As I have said from the very beginning, your anemic messages reveal your unbelievable lack of knowledge about conspiracy theories (see for example the way you swallowed the hook, line and sinker by having actually believed the official chronological data re: Trotsky in Russia on May 4th).
Imagine what would happen if our discussion, or debate, would become more technical (new radical chronology, ether/aether gravitational waves)...insofar as you do not stand a chance with me here, even though we are discussing conspiracy theories only.
Red Symphony
I shall tell you even more: Do you know who financed the October revolution? "They" financed it, in particular through those same bankers who had financed Japan in 1905, i.e. Jacob Schiff, and the brothers Warburg; that means through the great banking constellation, through one of the five banks who are members of the Federal Reserve, through the bank of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., here there took part also other American and European bankers, such as Guggenheim, Hanauer, Breitung, Aschberg, the "Nya Banken" of Stockholm. I was there "by chance," there in Stockholm, and participated in the transmission of funds. Until Trotzky arrived I was the only person who was an intermediary from the revolutionary side. But at last Trotzky came; I must underline that the Allies had expelled him from France for being a defeatist. And the same Allies released him so that he could be a defeatist in allied Russia ... "Another chance." Who arranged it? The same people who had succeeded that Lenin passed through Germany. Yes, "They" were able to get the defeatist Trotzky out of a Canadian camp to England and send him on to Russia, giving him the chance to pass freely through all the Allied controls; others of "Them" - a certain Rathenau - accomplishes the journey of Lenin through enemy Germany. If you will undertake the study of the history of the revolution and civil war without prejudices, and will use all your enquiring capabilities, which you know how to apply to things much less important and less obvious, then when you study informations in their totality, and also study separate details right up to anecdotal happenings you will meet with a whole series of "amazing chances."
These are undeniable facts no matter how much drivel you post here manarq.
To see just how little you know about the real historical facts, here is the true story about the sinking of the Titanic, why and how it was done (the usual conspirative theories deal only with the Olympia/Titanic switch: http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_conspiracy_theory.shtml )
http://vaticanassassinsarchive.com/titanic.htm
www.titanicuniverse.com/the-titanic-conspiracy
Could someone please give me the CliffsNotes version of what's being talked about here?I'm not entirely sure, I think Sandokhan has been posting a load of BS that he thinks is verified because it comes from a conspiracy website and I'm questioning him about it's veracity. It's quite hard to argue with someone though who answers every question with a pasted wall of text that often doesn't really have much to do with the question.
Here are undeniable facts which will help you understand that the Red Symphony document claims are true:No.
Trotsky and his rebels had left New York on the SS-Kristianiafjord with 20 million US$ in gold.
The boat – chartered by JACOB SCHIFF – was held up on April 3, 1917 by the Canadian authorities at Halifax, Nova Scotia. But Jacob Schiff and his friends in the U.S. government and in England exerted their influence and soon the voyage could continue. After arrival in Europe Trotsky went to Switzerland to meet with Lenin, Stalin, Kaganovich and Litvinov and to co-ordinate their strategy.
Is this good enough for you?
I believe Tausami supports the idea of aetheric wind currents swarming around the edges, effectively holding the atmoplane in.Yeah because that wouldn't just strip the atmosphere away from the edge and carry it up and away from the Earth.
So you're not open mindedNot when it comes to the earth and space, no.I used to believe in it, many years ago.
I think I'm very open minded, but I'm also stubborn when I believe I am on the right track and will not be nudged off course by a collective bunch of people who shout and scream that I'm wrong, simply because mainstream science "theories" tell them they are right.
You're not convinced by mainscream theories?
To be honest. I believe we will in a world that is based on a hell of a lot of fabrication of science.
UA is EXACTLY the same as gravity. You cant distinguish between the 2 and the sooner that sinks the better.Not exactly, UA wouldn't produce the results seen by Cavendish. Hence why they have to attack the experiment.
You do realise that what you've written here is "I'm open minded about the stuff i believe in but not about the stuff I don't".I used to believe in it, many years ago.It goes to show that I've been subjected to all avenues of thought and came to a conclusion that the earth is definitely not a solid globe, whether rotating or not.
The rotating globe model was simply fed to me, which I quickly discarded quite early on. I knew the sun/moon and stars actually moved and took to thinking that the earth was a solid stationary globe with everything moving around at super speed. And then I thought, "nah, this doesn't make any sense."
I then found this forum and read it for a while and found that a flat earth actually started to make sense and I started sifting through the ins and outs of this thought. I even embraced the idea of an infinite earth and many other things, until I started to really put my mind to what it actually is, logically.
This is an interesting revelation but then I must rectify what markjo and hoppy said earlier in order to avoid any doubt. It may be true that you might not be a flat earther when you initially joined this forum but you were not round earther either. You already didn't believe in the round earth model.
I think I'm very open minded, but I'm also stubborn when I believe I am on the right track and will not be nudged off course by a collective bunch of people who shout and scream that I'm wrong, simply because mainstream science "theories" tell them they are right.
1: This is a worse argument than creationists asking for transitional fossils and when being shown one asking for the one in the new gap, have you measured latitude inbetween measured points A and B. Navies from a host of nations, UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, US etc have been plowing the seas for centuries, explorers and surveyors have made increasingly detailed maps and measurements.Sight Polaris on your sextant. Drive 111 km south. Sight Polaris on your sextant. Repeat.
Who did this for the entire earth, or even once?QuoteCelestial navigation has not only been used for hundreds of years, but it was accurate enough to not only get you where you wanted to go, but to map out exactly how you got there.
For hundreds of years ship wrecks have also been common and many innocent lives have gone missing to the sea. What is your source of navigational accuracy?QuoteYour FE model even says celestial objects will move steadily across the sky with distance. If you deny this happens, then again your model has serious problems as sunsets are supposedly caused by distance. As the sun goes from directly overhead to a few thousand kilometers away it drops steadily toward the horizon until it vanishes. Why should the same not happen to Polaris?
The sun is not Polaris. It does not follow that they behave exactly the same. Polaris is at a higher altitude than the sun in the Flat Earth model, for one.QuoteYou can also use GPS. However it work--be it LORAN or GEO satellites, you can't argue that it doesn't actually work. GPS constantly confirms that 1° latitude is 111 kilometers.
GPS doesn't 'confirm' anything. Is it verifying the degrees of Polaris from your horizon when it tells you that you are at 25 degrees North?QuoteA few commercial flights fly directly north-south, such as Atlanta-Lima. The latitudes of these places are known, and after decades of flying so is their distance. The combined information from all north-south flights can also show is that 1° is 111 kilometers.
Who calculated that?
Put simply you don't have a clue what you're on about.I know these videos, they are false for the reasons I have already explained before. You tilt polar axis 23.5 degrees otherwise youre not presenting heliocentrism. Mr Shaban was superbly right when he told me that heliocentric is a cheating model, jumping from heliocentrism to geocentrism when it has no other way or faces problems.
What is so terribly difficult to understand in the image, since you believe the Earth rotates, making 360 degrees every 24 hours? Its clearly shown to you... 360 degrees divided in 4 parts of 90 degrees. What else do you need to understand? These two axes belong to the ecliptic plane and alternate orientation of 90 degrees every 6 hours....because...and what a because... the Earth rotates upon the ecliptic plane according to you. Only the tilted polar axis doesnt change orientation in your model.
The Earth rotates upon the Polar axis. It does not rotate about the ecliptic. Any given latitude will not change the vertical angle of its facing towards the sun in a 24 hour period, if you could draw a 'line' on the point where one beam of light hit the earth or that day, it would all hit that same Latitude.
The Earth rotates upon the polar axis. Correct. But when the Earth rotates, isnt it upon the ecliptic plane which is the plane of revolution round the Sun? Dont heliocentrists say that the Earth rotates when it revolves round the Sun upon the ecliptic plane? So why its wrong to say that the Earth rotates upon the ecliptic plane? It both rotates and revolves in their model.
If one beam of light continuously hits the Earth on the same latitude, then every latitude of Earth will have one season per day and year.
Which is the reason of tilting the polar axis 23.5 degrees? Its the heliocentric need so that the tilting of the polar axis plus the rotation will allow seasons. I already explained that in their videos they dont show the Earth tilted when the sun rays hit the Earth. In other instances they even had the Sun moving. This is geocentrism, not heliocentrism!
People keep arguing that in my images the equatorial axis is not perpendicular to the polar axis. How do they arrive at such a conclusion? The equatorial axis IS always perpendicular to the polar axis. It just changes orientation as the Earth rotates, so does the ecliptic axis. Only the polar axis doesnt change orientation. Thats why here we need to understand the change of two axes - equatorial and ecliptic - as the Earth rotates
Its simple. If the ecliptic plane is 360 degrees, then every 6 hours the ecliptic and equatorial axes move 90 degrees. Why? Because in their model the Earth rotates.
See the previous image, it shows that the axes are orthogonal, 360:4=90 degrees.
How about you do a bit of work and work out where the dual-poled model predicts the sun will be at specific times for where you are and see if it matches up with what you observe.Bump.I'm sorry, but I don't have full knowledge of what your saying. What exactly are these predictions presented on the dual-poled model?
Still hasn't been answered.
Once again, a summary: Time spent in the Falkland Islands allowed me to regularly observe sunrises and sunsets during the southern summer. These observations disagreed from the predictions by a north-pole centered FE model by as much as 90 degrees, the observations always farther south than the predictions.
Currently living in the northern hemisphere, I regularly observe sunrises and sunsets during the northern winter (same time period as above). These observations disagree from the predictions by a dual-poled FE model (Antarctica as a Continent) by as much as 40 degrees, the observations always farther south than the predictions.
Is there an explanation as to how the sun can appear much farther south than it really is? If not, is there a model that correctly predicts observations of both hemispheres in all seasons?
These so called satellite dishes in those poor countries. What exactly are those dishes receiving?They are indeed for satellite tv, and again you show a complete lack of knowledge as they're not on every shack. The quality of the basic stations in Africa is poor (I've been there and watched it
Are they allowing the people to watch Satellite TV?
The reason I ask, is, every home/shack appears to have one. Many homes where I live do not have one and did not have one, even before cable was introduced, (just in case that was going to be used)..
So what's the deal here? are they for so called satellite TV or what?
) and one of the first luxury items people buy when they can afford it is satellite tv.
Where have I said it's not true? In the absence of any evidence though then all this is is a made up scenario. I imagine the following are far more likelyAt least you prefaced that with "imagine" so you agree it's just a made up scenario?
I didn't make the claim, but I would imagine that if the British had him assassinated, they would not leave evidence behind. The Brits may not have a lot of teeth between them, but they surely would have covered up their dirty deeds.
"Imagine" does not equal "it's not true". I said that if it is true, this is the way I would see it playing out.
At least you prefaced that with "imagine" so you agree it's just a made up scenario?
I didn't make the claim, but I would imagine that if the British had him assassinated, they would not leave evidence behind. The Brits may not have a lot of teeth between them, but they surely would have covered up their dirty deeds.
I didn't say he wasn't assassinated, I asked if there was any evidence for the claim that the British secret service assassinated him. I haven't made any claim merely asked for Sandokhan to support his claims, if you don't understand the concept of "burden of proof" then please don't use it.It seems pretty obvious he was assassinated. Kroutchov made a heel-face turn on Stalin politics as soon as he went head of Soviet UnionThe Cold War was entirely faked.Have you any evidence for any of this?
After the assasination of Stalin by the British secret service at the end of February 1953 (Stalin was planning to attack Europe in the summer of 1953), the new rulers of the Soviet Union agreed to play the game until 1989.
Burden of proof for saying he wasn't assassinated lies on you, btw
The Cold War was entirely faked.Have you any evidence for any of this?
After the assasination of Stalin by the British secret service at the end of February 1953 (Stalin was planning to attack Europe in the summer of 1953), the new rulers of the Soviet Union agreed to play the game until 1989.
You are jumping ahead as you have not demonstrated they were hiding the shape of the earth as opposed to simply in error.So are you saying that before space flight pretty much everyone who thought of the earth as round was just wrong? The evidence was compelling enough to change the Papal view of the position of the Earth in the cosmos, and yet apparently this same evidence is enough to convince you that the Earth is flat!
"All the satellites"? I'm talking about one...the ISS. There aren't hundreds of satellites up there. And the ISS isn't seen in the same spot every night.You might be interested in the following app
