RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.

  • 39 Replies
  • 4834 Views
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8698
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2011, 08:46:31 AM »
Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology? Which part exactly are you contesting?


I find your refraction argument as compelling as you would find my arguing for sunken ships by refraction, I'd wager.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
« Reply #31 on: October 07, 2011, 09:49:19 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The ocean is never calm.

Please provide evidense for this claim

Please visit an ocean.

Lucky for me and the rest of the world living in the modern age Lots of people do this all the time, and then they return with evidence.  Please Learn to google.



Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41263
Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
« Reply #32 on: October 07, 2011, 11:47:32 AM »
Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology?

What evidence to you have to support these allegations?

I find your refraction argument as compelling as you would find my arguing for sunken ships by refraction, I'd wager.

That depends on the evidence you have to support your version of refraction.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11671
Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
« Reply #33 on: October 07, 2011, 12:11:59 PM »

Why are you more willing to trust my pictures than my words? What next? Do I need to make sure a physics teacher from a local Monetey community college is there to sign off on the results?

.
No but the results should be notarized.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8698
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
« Reply #34 on: October 08, 2011, 07:12:21 PM »
Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology?

What evidence to you have to support these allegations?

I refuse to believe that in your many years on the forum you have conveniently not read any of this.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41263
Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
« Reply #35 on: October 08, 2011, 07:29:22 PM »
Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology?

What evidence to you have to support these allegations?

I refuse to believe that in your many years on the forum you have conveniently not read any of this.

I've heard allegations.  I'm asking for evidence.  There is a difference.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8698
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
« Reply #36 on: October 08, 2011, 07:31:06 PM »
Which issue is in serious dispute?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41263
Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
« Reply #37 on: October 08, 2011, 09:28:09 PM »
Which issue is in serious dispute?

Whether or not Wallace fairly won the bet.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8698
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
« Reply #38 on: October 08, 2011, 10:17:29 PM »
Well, I'd say the judge's decision to return the money to Hampden suggests that he did not.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17720
Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
« Reply #39 on: October 09, 2011, 01:16:41 PM »
Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology?

What evidence to you have to support these allegations?

Read "Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea" by historian Christine Garwood