Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions

  • 461 Replies
  • 130532 Views
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #420 on: February 02, 2018, 05:32:25 PM »

eat
pie
earth chan is not flat :(  8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
So what?  ;) ;) The flat earth is round!  ;) ;)
Look
If you're trying to tell us something, it's not working!
Pie are not squared.
Pie are round
Cornbread are squared.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 05:37:05 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3390
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #421 on: March 30, 2018, 03:56:20 PM »
Time to prepare and take whatever precautions are necessary.  A second blue moon for the month is predicted and there is only one day left.

Just be smart...

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 35913
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #422 on: March 30, 2018, 05:03:53 PM »
I lined my welding helmet with tinfoil. I am more prepared than ever before.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #423 on: April 11, 2018, 06:39:10 PM »
The earth is flat because gucci gang lil pump jake paul mans not hot big shaq and... um...

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37363
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #424 on: April 17, 2018, 07:22:20 PM »
Pie are not squared.
Pie are round
Incorrect.
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.

Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #425 on: May 03, 2018, 08:22:59 PM »
The Moon does not exist. It is only a holographic projection made by the C.I.A. (Cat Intelligence  Agency).
I sailed off the edge of the earth an have photos to prove it!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37095
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #426 on: May 07, 2018, 06:32:47 AM »
You sure have a purty mouth. 

*

rabinoz

  • 16893
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #427 on: May 15, 2018, 03:15:43 AM »
You sure have a purty mouth.
But the eyes, just imagine those under a full moon - scary!

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 14356
  • Quantum Ab Hoc
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #428 on: May 25, 2018, 04:22:18 PM »
We do not reject scientific process. We think its poorly defined, and I think you'll agree if you look at the science you learned in your academic career, those who actually "use" science, and what you think is true retrospectively and analytically.

Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #429 on: June 17, 2018, 06:04:30 AM »
Why is this not in CN? It has nothing to do with anything. Can I start a post about the supernatural powers of Goji juice in FE general?


Read Earth Not a Globe. This section was linked to in my original post, had you taken the time to read it.


And no.

So... I did. The problem I find with the Zetetic Theory, is that it doesn't follow scientific... Anything. A scientist must create an experiment, with only a definite answer. Ex: Theory: the water in the bucket is wet. Experiment: i will reach my hand in the bucket, then pull it out. If wet, water is wet. If dry, water is not wet. If done outside during a rainstorm, it would warp the results. If done inside, in a dry, controled environment, the results would be conclusive. (Obviously this is a simple example). Now, from what I've read, the Zetetic Theory is "I think the water is wet. Well my hand was wet, and the water sloshed in the bucket, therefore, putting the 'facts in logical order,' i would say water is wet. Now, i observed the water for long stretches. I allowed it to remain inactive. I never touched it, so I couldn't contaminate it with other 'wet.' So, given my evidence, I will say, water is wet." As for moonlight gene. Im pale. Ive been known to burn on a cloudy day. I have never once, not once, been effected by the moon. Seeing as it reflects the suns rays (New Moon phase will prove this) shouldn't I, a pale fellow who burns if looked at funny, burn, or scar, or in some way shape or form, be effected?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37095
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #430 on: June 17, 2018, 02:15:55 PM »
Pretty much everything you said is incorrect.  Neither the scientific or zetetic methods ever prove anything.  At best, you gather evidence for or against an idea.

The main difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method is that the scientific method has one start with a supposition and then you work through the other steps in order to provide evidence in favor of it.  With the zetetic method, you don't first have to make an educated guess before moving on to the rest of the steps.  No hypothesis is required to start. 

*

rabinoz

  • 16893
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #431 on: June 17, 2018, 03:29:39 PM »
Pretty much everything you said is incorrect.  Neither the scientific or zetetic methods ever prove anything.  At best, you gather evidence for or against an idea.

The main difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method is that the scientific method has one start with a supposition and then you work through the other steps in order to provide evidence in favor of it.  With the zetetic method, you don't first have to make an educated guess before moving on to the rest of the steps.  No hypothesis is required to start.
Really?
So how did the "zetetic method" lead to the Universal Acceleration Hypothesis?

So how did the "zetetic method" lead to the hypothesis that the sun, moon, planets and stars circle above the earth?

And so on.


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37363
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #432 on: June 19, 2018, 10:52:19 AM »
The main difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method is that the scientific method has one start with a supposition and then you work through the other steps in order to provide evidence in favor of it.  With the zetetic method, you don't first have to make an educated guess before moving on to the rest of the steps.  No hypothesis is required to start.
In other words, Zetetics have no idea of what they're trying to prove or how to prove it.
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.

*

Shifter

  • 8685
  • ASI
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #433 on: June 19, 2018, 02:17:53 PM »
The main difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method is that the scientific method has one start with a supposition and then you work through the other steps in order to provide evidence in favor of it.  With the zetetic method, you don't first have to make an educated guess before moving on to the rest of the steps.  No hypothesis is required to start.
In other words, Zetetics have no idea of what they're trying to prove or how to prove it.

In other words, their investigations are not tainted by any pre conceived bias.
SHIFTER
 ANNIHILATOR OF PAPA LEGBA
 ANNIHILATOR OF RABINOZ
 ANNIHILATOR OF JACKBLACK

Quote from: rabinoz to Shifter
you are better than I am

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37363
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #434 on: June 19, 2018, 07:08:27 PM »
The main difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method is that the scientific method has one start with a supposition and then you work through the other steps in order to provide evidence in favor of it.  With the zetetic method, you don't first have to make an educated guess before moving on to the rest of the steps.  No hypothesis is required to start.
In other words, Zetetics have no idea of what they're trying to prove or how to prove it.

In other words, their investigations are not tainted by any pre conceived bias.
A properly designed experiment will conclusively confirm or refute any preconceived bias.
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.

*

Shifter

  • 8685
  • ASI
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #435 on: June 19, 2018, 07:23:37 PM »
The main difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method is that the scientific method has one start with a supposition and then you work through the other steps in order to provide evidence in favor of it.  With the zetetic method, you don't first have to make an educated guess before moving on to the rest of the steps.  No hypothesis is required to start.
In other words, Zetetics have no idea of what they're trying to prove or how to prove it.

In other words, their investigations are not tainted by any pre conceived bias.
A properly designed experiment will conclusively confirm or refute any preconceived bias.

Give me an example of a modern experiment done today where the scientist doesn't already think he knows what the outcome is?

If you find one, then is it motivated by knowledge? Or money?

I worked in the medical research industry and the researchers who used to apply for grants have have a drug manufactured by a company on the stock exchange wanted big things out of it. A lot of promises were made, hence, a lot of cherry picking of data and changing of the rules in the middle of the experiment were done as a result.
SHIFTER
 ANNIHILATOR OF PAPA LEGBA
 ANNIHILATOR OF RABINOZ
 ANNIHILATOR OF JACKBLACK

Quote from: rabinoz to Shifter
you are better than I am

Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #436 on: June 19, 2018, 09:39:52 PM »
Pretty much everything you said is incorrect.  Neither the scientific or zetetic methods ever prove anything.  At best, you gather evidence for or against an idea.

The main difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method is that the scientific method has one start with a supposition and then you work through the other steps in order to provide evidence in favor of it.  With the zetetic method, you don't first have to make an educated guess before moving on to the rest of the steps.  No hypothesis is required to start.
Really?
So how did the "zetetic method" lead to the Universal Acceleration Hypothesis?

So how did the "zetetic method" lead to the hypothesis that the sun, moon, planets and stars circle above the earth?

And so on.

And also :
(1) The Ice Ring on a flat earth
(2) The Horizon on a flat earth
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 14356
  • Quantum Ab Hoc
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #437 on: June 20, 2018, 09:24:00 AM »
The main difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method is that the scientific method has one start with a supposition and then you work through the other steps in order to provide evidence in favor of it.  With the zetetic method, you don't first have to make an educated guess before moving on to the rest of the steps.  No hypothesis is required to start.
In other words, Zetetics have no idea of what they're trying to prove or how to prove it.

In other words, their investigations are not tainted by any pre conceived bias.
A properly designed experiment will conclusively confirm or refute any preconceived bias.
Incorrect. However, giving this to you, do you think properly designed experiments exist in reality and in practice?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37363
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #438 on: June 20, 2018, 09:44:58 AM »
The main difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method is that the scientific method has one start with a supposition and then you work through the other steps in order to provide evidence in favor of it.  With the zetetic method, you don't first have to make an educated guess before moving on to the rest of the steps.  No hypothesis is required to start.
In other words, Zetetics have no idea of what they're trying to prove or how to prove it.

In other words, their investigations are not tainted by any pre conceived bias.
A properly designed experiment will conclusively confirm or refute any preconceived bias.

Give me an example of a modern experiment done today where the scientist doesn't already think he knows what the outcome is?
For many years astronomers were convinced that the expansion of the universe was slowing down and might eventually stop and then ultimately collapse upon itself.  In the late 1990s, they made a bunch of measurements with the Hubble space telescope to measure the rate of slowing.  However, they found that the expansion of the universe was not slowing down.  To their complete shock, they found that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating.  This forced the scientific community to rethink everything that they thought that they knew about the universe.
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.

*

Shifter

  • 8685
  • ASI
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #439 on: June 20, 2018, 02:34:43 PM »
The main difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method is that the scientific method has one start with a supposition and then you work through the other steps in order to provide evidence in favor of it.  With the zetetic method, you don't first have to make an educated guess before moving on to the rest of the steps.  No hypothesis is required to start.
In other words, Zetetics have no idea of what they're trying to prove or how to prove it.

In other words, their investigations are not tainted by any pre conceived bias.
A properly designed experiment will conclusively confirm or refute any preconceived bias.

Give me an example of a modern experiment done today where the scientist doesn't already think he knows what the outcome is?
For many years astronomers were convinced that the expansion of the universe was slowing down and might eventually stop and then ultimately collapse upon itself.  In the late 1990s, they made a bunch of measurements with the Hubble space telescope to measure the rate of slowing.  However, they found that the expansion of the universe was not slowing down.  To their complete shock, they found that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating.  This forced the scientific community to rethink everything that they thought that they knew about the universe.

And those twerps walked away with prize money and a Nobel prize for their 'discovery'

I bet with a different set of data or if new data was found their findings could be deemed as rubbish. What do they care? They walked away with money and a medal.
SHIFTER
 ANNIHILATOR OF PAPA LEGBA
 ANNIHILATOR OF RABINOZ
 ANNIHILATOR OF JACKBLACK

Quote from: rabinoz to Shifter
you are better than I am

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37363
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #440 on: June 21, 2018, 08:45:11 PM »
The main difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method is that the scientific method has one start with a supposition and then you work through the other steps in order to provide evidence in favor of it.  With the zetetic method, you don't first have to make an educated guess before moving on to the rest of the steps.  No hypothesis is required to start.
In other words, Zetetics have no idea of what they're trying to prove or how to prove it.

In other words, their investigations are not tainted by any pre conceived bias.
A properly designed experiment will conclusively confirm or refute any preconceived bias.

Give me an example of a modern experiment done today where the scientist doesn't already think he knows what the outcome is?
For many years astronomers were convinced that the expansion of the universe was slowing down and might eventually stop and then ultimately collapse upon itself.  In the late 1990s, they made a bunch of measurements with the Hubble space telescope to measure the rate of slowing.  However, they found that the expansion of the universe was not slowing down.  To their complete shock, they found that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating.  This forced the scientific community to rethink everything that they thought that they knew about the universe.

And those twerps walked away with prize money and a Nobel prize for their 'discovery'
Yes, they won a prize for completely upending the status quo that you claim must not be challenged.

I bet with a different set of data or if new data was found their findings could be deemed as rubbish. What do they care? They walked away with money and a medal.
No kidding.  A different set of data would have led to different results which probably would not have led to a prestigious prize for upending the status quo. 
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.

*

Shifter

  • 8685
  • ASI
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #441 on: June 21, 2018, 08:57:30 PM »
The main difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method is that the scientific method has one start with a supposition and then you work through the other steps in order to provide evidence in favor of it.  With the zetetic method, you don't first have to make an educated guess before moving on to the rest of the steps.  No hypothesis is required to start.
In other words, Zetetics have no idea of what they're trying to prove or how to prove it.

In other words, their investigations are not tainted by any pre conceived bias.
A properly designed experiment will conclusively confirm or refute any preconceived bias.

Give me an example of a modern experiment done today where the scientist doesn't already think he knows what the outcome is?
For many years astronomers were convinced that the expansion of the universe was slowing down and might eventually stop and then ultimately collapse upon itself.  In the late 1990s, they made a bunch of measurements with the Hubble space telescope to measure the rate of slowing.  However, they found that the expansion of the universe was not slowing down.  To their complete shock, they found that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating.  This forced the scientific community to rethink everything that they thought that they knew about the universe.

And those twerps walked away with prize money and a Nobel prize for their 'discovery'
Yes, they won a prize for completely upending the status quo that you claim must not be challenged.

I bet with a different set of data or if new data was found their findings could be deemed as rubbish. What do they care? They walked away with money and a medal.
No kidding.  A different set of data would have led to different results which probably would not have led to a prestigious prize for upending the status quo.

This is my point. What faith do you have that these scientists worked with every available data point that exists?

Its common for scientists to cherry pick data. What assurances do you have that they didn't do that? Perhaps the data they had told them the expansion was slowing so they go 'well if we take out these few data points and move some decimal places here and there.... Voila!! An expanding universe going faster and faster!!!'
SHIFTER
 ANNIHILATOR OF PAPA LEGBA
 ANNIHILATOR OF RABINOZ
 ANNIHILATOR OF JACKBLACK

Quote from: rabinoz to Shifter
you are better than I am

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37363
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #442 on: June 21, 2018, 09:10:20 PM »
Its common for scientists to cherry pick data. What assurances do you have that they didn't do that? Perhaps the data they had told them the expansion was slowing...
You don't seem to understand that data showing that expansion was slowing is exactly the data that they were expecting, but they found that the data didn't support their preconception.  The accelerating expansion was completely unexpected and had to pass a lot of review before it was finally accepted.
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.

*

Shifter

  • 8685
  • ASI
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #443 on: June 21, 2018, 09:13:57 PM »
Its common for scientists to cherry pick data. What assurances do you have that they didn't do that? Perhaps the data they had told them the expansion was slowing...
You don't seem to understand that data showing that expansion was slowing is exactly the data that they were expecting, but they found that the data didn't support their preconception.  The accelerating expansion was completely unexpected and had to pass a lot of review before it was finally accepted.

But coming up with an 'expected' result would not net them a Nobel prize and lots of $$$.

If the corruption is with the data itself than you can repeat the experiment with corrupted data over and over and you will get the same hogwash expanding universe result they came up with

In truth the universe is not expanding. The only thing expanding it seems is the air in between these egg heads ears
SHIFTER
 ANNIHILATOR OF PAPA LEGBA
 ANNIHILATOR OF RABINOZ
 ANNIHILATOR OF JACKBLACK

Quote from: rabinoz to Shifter
you are better than I am

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37363
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #444 on: June 21, 2018, 09:27:47 PM »
Its common for scientists to cherry pick data. What assurances do you have that they didn't do that? Perhaps the data they had told them the expansion was slowing...
You don't seem to understand that data showing that expansion was slowing is exactly the data that they were expecting, but they found that the data didn't support their preconception.  The accelerating expansion was completely unexpected and had to pass a lot of review before it was finally accepted.

But coming up with an 'expected' result would not net them a Nobel prize and lots of $$$.
What makes you think that they set out to win a Nobel prize with their experiment?

If the corruption is with the data itself than you can repeat the experiment with corrupted data over and over and you will get the same hogwash expanding universe result they came up with
That's why the data is checked by many different scientists to see if it's valid or corrupt.

In truth the universe is not expanding. The only thing expanding it seems is the air in between these egg heads ears
If you can't beat 'em, belittle 'em, right?
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.

*

Shifter

  • 8685
  • ASI
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #445 on: June 21, 2018, 09:38:08 PM »
Its common for scientists to cherry pick data. What assurances do you have that they didn't do that? Perhaps the data they had told them the expansion was slowing...
You don't seem to understand that data showing that expansion was slowing is exactly the data that they were expecting, but they found that the data didn't support their preconception.  The accelerating expansion was completely unexpected and had to pass a lot of review before it was finally accepted.

But coming up with an 'expected' result would not net them a Nobel prize and lots of $$$.
What makes you think that they set out to win a Nobel prize with their experiment?

Do you think they enjoy repeating the same mind numbing experiments for predicated results over and over again? Sometimes I guess they like to spice it up a little

If the corruption is with the data itself than you can repeat the experiment with corrupted data over and over and you will get the same hogwash expanding universe result they came up with
That's why the data is checked by many different scientists to see if it's valid or corrupt.

Yes and for a time we all thought we knew the universe was going to collapse in on us. Now we all know it will expand forever. In a few decades will will all have a different theory and anyone who says the universe is expanding faster and faster will be laughed at as if they believe in a flat earth. Different or new sets of data will bring about entirely new perspectives and knowledge of the universe. It is ludicrous to put your faith in this 'expanding universe' theory because it will no doubt change later when someone else wants a Nobel prize

In truth the universe is not expanding. The only thing expanding it seems is the air in between these egg heads ears
If you can't beat 'em, belittle 'em, right?

I worked with medical researchers. They are pompous arrogant arseholes who cherry pick and change rules on the fly to keep their funding going indefinitely

Now this topic is about Moonlight and its dangers. Could we try to steer it back to that? The alleged expanding universe and corruption of scientists and their dubious ethics deserves its own thread
SHIFTER
 ANNIHILATOR OF PAPA LEGBA
 ANNIHILATOR OF RABINOZ
 ANNIHILATOR OF JACKBLACK

Quote from: rabinoz to Shifter
you are better than I am

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37363
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #446 on: June 22, 2018, 06:40:51 AM »
Its common for scientists to cherry pick data. What assurances do you have that they didn't do that? Perhaps the data they had told them the expansion was slowing...
You don't seem to understand that data showing that expansion was slowing is exactly the data that they were expecting, but they found that the data didn't support their preconception.  The accelerating expansion was completely unexpected and had to pass a lot of review before it was finally accepted.

But coming up with an 'expected' result would not net them a Nobel prize and lots of $$$.
What makes you think that they set out to win a Nobel prize with their experiment?

Do you think they enjoy repeating the same mind numbing experiments for predicated results over and over again? Sometimes I guess they like to spice it up a little
But they weren't "repeating the same mind numbing experiments for predicated results over and over again".  Although the consensus was that the rate of expansion of the universe was slowing, no one knew the rate at which the expansion was slowing, so they decided to measure it. 

If the corruption is with the data itself than you can repeat the experiment with corrupted data over and over and you will get the same hogwash expanding universe result they came up with
That's why the data is checked by many different scientists to see if it's valid or corrupt.

Yes and for a time we all thought we knew the universe was going to collapse in on us. Now we all know it will expand forever.
No, they still don't know that for certain.  They still don't know enough about how dark matter and dark energy affect the expansion of the universe to be able to determine the ultimate fate of the universe.  They can only speculate on the currently available data.

In a few decades will will all have a different theory and anyone who says the universe is expanding faster and faster will be laughed at as if they believe in a flat earth. Different or new sets of data will bring about entirely new perspectives and knowledge of the universe.
You say that like it's a bad thing.  Deepening our understanding of the universe is always a good thing.

It is ludicrous to put your faith in this 'expanding universe' theory because it will no doubt change later when someone else wants a Nobel prize
I don't think that you understand what it takes to win a Nobel prize in physics.

In truth the universe is not expanding. The only thing expanding it seems is the air in between these egg heads ears
If you can't beat 'em, belittle 'em, right?

I worked with medical researchers. They are pompous arrogant arseholes who cherry pick and change rules on the fly to keep their funding going indefinitely
Then it's a good thing that astronomers and astrophysicists have different standards for having their work accepted than medical researchers.

Now this topic is about Moonlight and its dangers. Could we try to steer it back to that? The alleged expanding universe and corruption of scientists and their dubious ethics deserves its own thread
Good point.  Have any of the medical researchers that you worked with ever cherry picked any data or changed enough rules to fund research the dangers of moonlight yet?  Maybe they should.  Sounds like a gold mine to me.
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.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #447 on: July 14, 2018, 05:45:21 PM »
For the love of all that is holy why is this pinned?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

RocketSauce

  • 1421
  • Penguins aren't people too
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #448 on: July 14, 2018, 06:51:26 PM »
Why is one of the more obvious joke threads making a comeback on my new replies post?
Quote from: Every FE'r

My model makes perfect sense
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Penguins are a natural aphrodisiac

*

rabinoz

  • 16893
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« Reply #449 on: July 14, 2018, 07:01:09 PM »
For the love of all that is holy why is this pinned?
I suggest that you ask  Lord Wilmore, Vice President, Administrator who was responsible for the OP.