# GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

• 1592 Replies
• 259815 Views
?

#### earth is a stage

• 150
• etheric
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1530 on: April 08, 2015, 04:25:01 PM »
Ladies and Gentleman, I have in my possession now, a chart that provides the maximum distance of the visibility of objects. It begins with these confident words:

"As a result of the curvature of the earth, there is a maximum distance at which an object of a given height can be seen before it disappears beneath the horizon. The chart below shows these distances for structures of heights from 5 feet through 1,000 feet.

This distance is increased when the observer is located at a point above the surface of the earth, and since most aids to navigation are viewed from the deck of a vessel, the maximum distance of visibility is increased. This is represented in the "Plus  15 foot observer" column."

Now, based upon the information provided by Eric Dubey, we can ascertain if the "maximum distance" is ever contravened. His article begins:

"A copy of the book “The Lighthouses of the World” and a calculator are enough to prove that the Earth is not a globe, but an extended flat plane.  The distance from which various lighthouse lights around the world are visible at sea far exceeds what could be found on a globe Earth 25,000 miles in circumference."

Here are some of his examples:

"The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight.  The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles.  If the world was a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer’s line of sight!  The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away.  If the Earth was a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon!  The lighthouse at Port Said, Egypt, at an elevation of only 60 feet has been seen an astonishing 58 miles away, where, according to modern astronomy it should be 2,182 feet below the line of sight!"

When I compare these examples with the chart provided by Googleotomy,  there seems a discepancy!

For example the Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse would need to be around 1000 ft above sea level, and the lighthouse in Egypt,  is well out of range of the chart.   Are there any credible answers from the round earth theory perspective?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 04:32:09 PM by earth is a stage »

#### Mikey T.

• 2561
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1531 on: April 08, 2015, 06:34:20 PM »
Fun facts.  Mixing up meters with feet and km with miles makes calculations look ridiculous.  Also misstating the range that it can be seen from is also rather insidious.

Needles Lighthouse (Isle of Wight, the new one)
Height   31 m (102 ft)
Focal height   24 m (79 ft)
Range   Red (intensified) and White - 17 nmi (31 km; 20 mi); Red and Green - 14 nmi (26 km; 16 mi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needles_Lighthouse

Lighthouse of Port Said
Height   56 m (184 ft)
Range   40 km (25 mi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_of_Port_Said

Cape Agulhas Lighthouse
Height   27 m (89 ft)
Focal height   31 m (102 ft)
Range   30 nmi (56 km; 35 mi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Agulhas_Lighthouse

Statue of Liberty I couldn't find range data on it but
Height
Base to torch: 151 feet 1 inch (46 meters)
Ground to torch: 305 feet 1 inch (93 meters)
edit ***  I did find some data on the statue being used as a lighthouse in the past and its range was 24 miles, but I'm pretty sure the torch was no where near as bright as a lighthouse beam *** edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty

I have researched much of Eric Dubay's work and I do not trust his claims, there has been obvious deception such as this misstating of facts to make things look like what he wants it to.
Now I haven't looked these up on the charts that earth is a stage has right now, but I think i know which one is being referred to and will check into it later if need be.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 06:53:00 PM by Mikey T Lovzballs »

#### mikeman7918

• 5431
• Round Earther
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1532 on: April 08, 2015, 06:47:58 PM »
Earth is a stage, in the calculation you did about how far away lighthouses should be visable from did you take into account the height of the observer?  In larger boats you might be alas much as 25 feet of the surface of the water which compared to the 15 foot value you asumed for the observer height would make the horizon almost 2 miles further.  Refraction is also a factor and it's explained (among other things) in this video:

I am having a video war with Jeranism.

?

#### earth is a stage

• 150
• etheric
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1533 on: April 08, 2015, 06:57:35 PM »
I think the chart is including the refraction. I used the 15 feet, because that is the figure given on the chart. I am saddened, if Eric purposely fudged the numbers.  I was wondering about tides and waves, and if a ship can be temporarily raised higher in the sea.... (etc)   I am wondering if I am going to need to travel to these locations, and actually go on the ships.  lol
thanks guys.  Get back with more details. I will do my own further research!

#### Mikey T.

• 2561
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1534 on: April 08, 2015, 07:05:38 PM »
It's a common mistake to mix up meters and feet, but I have seen and heard Eric intentionally make up crap before.  He relies on people to just take his claims at face value and not fact check.  Now have i been to these places and measured them myself, no, but neither has he and I searched around for a few sources other than wiki before posting.  wiki is just easier to see.
Here is a nice one to look at that may show you some closer lighthouses to you if you want to go and measure for yourself.  I encourage you to do so, as long as you can afford the time and financial portions of said trip.  It's always good to get out and see the world for yourself.
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/lighthouse/  This is a directory of about 8300 lighthouses

#### 29silhouette

• 3304
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1535 on: April 08, 2015, 07:26:12 PM »
Ladies and Gentleman, I have in my possession now, a chart that provides the maximum distance of the visibility of objects.
Can you post it up?

Quote
This is represented in the "Plus  15 foot observer" column."
I'm curious in what way this is calculated.

A viewing height of 72 inches would result in a slightly downward line of sight intersecting the horizon 3 miles away, which means from that point, the drop is only 8 inches at mile 4.

Now about "refraction" or 'superior mirage', which is the result of a layer of cold air under warmer air, causes light to curve with the surface curvature more or less.

Dropping in viewing elevation should result in distant objects 'sinking' below the horizon, correct?

Here are two pictures I took of a distant hillside and buildings sinking below the horizon.  A layer of cooler air against the water resulted in a type of superior mirage in which the light was refracted downward, thus the buildings appear higher than they were, even though both the buildings and the hill were sinking beyond the horizon as I lowered my observation point.

?

#### earth is a stage

• 150
• etheric
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1536 on: April 08, 2015, 07:51:44 PM »

?

#### simplyfascinated

• 104
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1537 on: April 08, 2015, 08:44:44 PM »
earth is a stage, I wish all FE's were as nice as you. =) Thanks for keeping things pleasant, from what I've seen from you.

#### Mikey T.

• 2561
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1538 on: April 08, 2015, 08:56:39 PM »
earth is a stage, is curious.  He asks questions and does not get upset if the answers do not end up being what he expected.  He doesn't believe in spherical Earth theories, but at least shows what an open mind really is.  It isn't taking anyone's word for what is, but it also isn't dismissing it either.
For that i will also add my thank you.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 10:23:12 PM by Mikey T Lovzballs »

?

#### simplyfascinated

• 104
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1539 on: April 08, 2015, 10:05:22 PM »
earth is a stage, is curious.  He ask questions and do not get upset if the answers do not end up being what he expected.  He doesn't believe in spherical Earth theories, but at least shows what an open mind really is.  It isn't taking anyone's word for what is, but it also isn't dismissing it either.
For that i will also add my thank you.

You make a good point. If you are truly one with an "open mind," you shouldn't be offended at other views or information that might not line up with what you thought you knew. Of course it could be that not everyone here is claiming to have an open mind. I think the greatest joy (well, one of them) is learning. I'm always learning stuff when I can, and doing so has changed my mind about things in my adulthood that I always thought I knew. It's fun to grow.

?

#### tappet

• 2162
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1540 on: April 09, 2015, 01:54:35 AM »
earth is a stage, is curious.  He ask questions and do not get upset if the answers do not end up being what he expected.  He doesn't believe in spherical Earth theories, but at least shows what an open mind really is.  It isn't taking anyone's word for what is, but it also isn't dismissing it either.
For that i will also add my thank you.

You make a good point. If you are truly one with an "open mind," you shouldn't be offended at other views or information that might not line up with what you thought you knew. Of course it could be that not everyone here is claiming to have an open mind. I think the greatest joy (well, one of them) is learning. I'm always learning stuff when I can, and doing so has changed my mind about things in my adulthood that I always thought I knew. It's fun to grow.
Aw, you guys, you just made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
Cheers, from tappet.

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1541 on: April 09, 2015, 04:56:02 AM »
earth is a stage, is curious.  He ask questions and do not get upset if the answers do not end up being what he expected.  He doesn't believe in spherical Earth theories, but at least shows what an open mind really is.  It isn't taking anyone's word for what is, but it also isn't dismissing it either.
For that i will also add my thank you.

You make a good point. If you are truly one with an "open mind," you shouldn't be offended at other views or information that might not line up with what you thought you knew. Of course it could be that not everyone here is claiming to have an open mind. I think the greatest joy (well, one of them) is learning. I'm always learning stuff when I can, and doing so has changed my mind about things in my adulthood that I always thought I knew. It's fun to grow.
Aw, you guys, you just made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
Cheers, from tappet.

I "lose" sleep over it...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1542 on: April 09, 2015, 05:06:32 AM »
Quote
2. Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067

PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?

If the Earth is immovable, a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with FET, if the Earth is movable a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with RET.

Everything depends on whether the Earth is immovable or not!!!

My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224

Quote
All major encyclopedias and histrorical references recognize the ineffably great impact the Copernican Revolution had on the course of history, the status of the Bible, and the direction of science.

That revolution against Copernicanism will turn all knowledge "up-side down" again, back right-side up! The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproven the Bible.

And, if the Bible could be wrong about the Earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the virgin birth, Heaven...anything!

Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art, indeed everything, had to get a new philosophical basis as "science" dethroned the Bible with Copernican heliocentrism.

This new mindset was indisputably foundational for the success of the Bible-denying evolutionism which was the next thing the Devil was to send down the road, attired fetchingly as "science". First infiltrate the physical "sciences," then the life "sciences."

Once understood, denial of the symbiotic relationship between Copernicanism and Darwinism can only exist through willful blindness of historical and spiritual facts. The blindness is often coupled with pleas that the focus has to be kept on evolution, ignoring the fact that the two are fundamentally inseparable.

This is a blindness that can no longer be dismissed with a shrug amongst undeviating Bible Creationists today. It is a blindness that is the root of all modern Bible-bashing. Christians cannot continue to disregard and minimize this fact and be indifferent toward it. Satan seemingly has been allowed to trick even the very elect on this one; and now God is calling His own to take back that which was stolen.

LIGHTHOUSES : http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html
PLANE SAILING : http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html
SEE LEVEL AND RIVERS : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648329#msg1648329
GOCE GEOID : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651185#msg1651185
THE GREAT FLOOD : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638435#msg1638435

Once Satan's counterfeit of God's Truth of an Earth-centered geocentric universe gained control of "higher" education, the way was clear to foist his evolutionary counterfeit into the corridors of academia with very little opposition! The real spade work had already been done! Copernicans Voltaire and Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) were developing "ape-man" theories in the 1700's. By the time lawyer Sir Charles Lyell came along with his uniformitarian geology in 1830, evolutionary ideas were fermenting and fomenting in many universities, awaiting only Darwin's "natural selection" mechanism to uncork the bottle.

Does it surprise anyone that the earliest proselytizers of evolutionism were avowed Copernicans, having just received that great quantum leap in "wisdom" from their grandfathers? I can find none.

What i do find, is that philosophers and other intellectuals, all Copernicans from Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, had established the heliocentric cosmology so solidly over a 300 year period in the universities and publication circles that even the famous scientist von Humboldt was cowed into silence. Just before Darwin's book came out in 1859, Humboldt said: "I have known too far a long time, that we have no arguments for the Copernican system..." Still, fear of "scorn of a thoughtless multitude" prevented him from saying anything. (C. Schoeppfer, The Earth Stands Fast. (Charles Ludwig, Printer, N.Y., 1900), p. 59.)

Thus, secure from any "credible" attack on their Copernican "science" front, the new Darwinian "science" offensive could then link hands with that "established scientific truth" and forge boldly ahead toward the goal of pushing the Bible completely off stage as a repository of Truth.

In all this, as many of you know, Ernst Haeckel was a powerful force early in the establishment of Darwinism. This biographical note about Herr Haeckel succinctly tells what happened and why it happened: "Ernst Haeckel wedded the idea of clasical physics (Copernicanism) with the new Darwinian history of nature to form a comprehensive materialist cosmology, or anti-theology" (C. Schoeppfer, The Earth Stands Fast. (Charles Ludwig, Printer, N.Y., 1900), p. 59.)

This "comprehensive materialist cosmology" is what Creationists today are up against and, excepting a handful, they do not know it! Evolutionism does not stand alone as a Bible-wrecking, contra-scientific deception, Satanically conceived. Evolutionism is historically, phiosophically, scientifically, and spiritually wedded to a previously conceived Bible-wrecking, anti-scientific deception called Copernicanism!

The Creation "movement" today denies or ignores this wedded union and thus is not 1/50th the threat to Satan's kingdoms in this world that it can and should be.
Fellow Creationists: It's wake-up time!!! Fellow Geocentrists (who are not Flat Earthers): It's wake-up time!!!

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1543 on: April 09, 2015, 06:39:41 AM »
There was another "-ism" that was born out of the Copernican mindset but was floundering until evolutionism began to take hold. That was Communism. As evolutionism sand securely into university curicula (and was soon augmented by evolution-based Freudianism in behavioral "sciences"), Marxist Communism took on new life and in a mere generation and a half had conquered Russia. So an officially atheistic state was established which was referred to in the early days as the application of "Scientific Socialism" to government and economics. What was this "scientific" base anyway?

Well, most Creationists know by now that biological evolutionism is an indispensable foundational principle of "scientific socialism" (which includes not only communism, but the infinitely more slinky idea of "humanism"). Most have heard that, after reading Darwin, Marx said:

"This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view."
(J.D. Bernal, Marx and Science, (New York; International Publishers, 1952), p.17.)

When Marx finished his first volume of Das Kapital, he offered to dedicate it to Darwin.

Darwin's book had given God "the death blow," he exulted to LaSalle. What he and Engles et. al. had created out of the anti-Bible secular philosophy made possible by the triumph of Copernicanism in the physical sciences, was now certified by Darwin in the natural sciences!

Atheistic Communism was now fully equipped by both the physical and natural sciences to conquer the world with a political and economic system which openly stated that Bible Christianity was moribund at last and would soon be put out of its misery by an enlightened "science"-based movement. The philosopher Nietzsche boasted in the 1880's: "God is dead; we have killed him with our science!"

While knowledgeable Creationists have known about the Communist-Socialist-Humanist dependency upon evolutionism, they have not generally known or thought about the Copernican connection to the same "-isms". IT IS NOW TIME TO UNDERSTAND THIS CONNECTION!

It is now time to recognize how Darwinism, in turn supplied the basis for conquest of the social and behavioral "sciences," the Arts, Mathematics, and Religion. It is time to understand that Communism and Humanism are equally dependent upon that other foundational "scientific" principle that goes hand in glove with evolutionism. That pre-evolutionary principle was and is Bible-bashing Copernicanism.

Does someone say they aren't convinced that the very heartbeat of Communist and Humanist ideology is the anti-Bible moving Earth concept we call Copernicanism? Let such a one lend an ear to what a gathering of Communist scientists in London in 1931 were saying.

They knew that they system absolutely depended on a conviction that nothing in the universe can be motionless. If anything could be motionless, then the Earth could be as the Bible says, and the game would be over! Note these quotes from that formal gathering of Communist "scientists":

*
"Modern physics rejects absolute inertia." (Dr. Joseph Needham, Fwd., "Marx's Theory on the Historical Process", Science At The Crossroads. (London: Frank Cass and Co., Ltd., 1971),p.189.)

*
"Teaching the self-movement of matter received its full development in the dialectical materialism of Marx, Engles, and Lenin."

*
F. Engles established "one of the basic theses of dialectical materialism, i.e., the inseparability of movement from matter..."

* Notice the specialized role of Mathematics in all this: "This special mathematics -- the tensor analysis, the matrix calculus...has for the greater part been created by the physicist themselves."

* "For Mathematics there is only one way out: conscious, planned reconstruction on the basis of materialist dialectics" (i.e., atheist philosophy resting on Copernicanism and Darwinism)

* "Proceeding from the Leninist theory...we in the Soviet Union shall reconstruct the Mathematical sciences..."

The fact that the Copernican cosmology underpinning communism and humanism is erected totally on the phony authority of "reconstructed mathematics" is a fact that must be grasped without further delay. All who are really interested in exposing and bringing down the evolution myth must begin:

A) To depend on the God behind the geocentric-Flat (or flattish) Earth Word;
B) Eschew their fears of "science falsely so-called" and
C) Get informed and begin to attack the Copernican taproot of these deceptions masquearading as "science".

It's God's Word, after all, and He will not have it return to Him void on this Creation matter indefinitely (Isaiah 55:11).

But Soviet communism is finished, someone objects, "so what's the big deal about what their scientists said?"

The problem, Creationist friend, (not to ignore the little matter of the rise of Communist China to superstate status...) is that humanism is in place all over the world today and Humanism has exactly the same roots in Copernicanism and Darwinism as Soviet Marxism had!

It's the same Bible destroyer as before, only now wearing a different hat. The whole world is ready to unite under a humanist new world order and usher in a humanist new age. The cards are dealt. It's a done deal. And the real purpose, the hidden agenda, of this incipient and insidious cardboard utopia about to descend on all of us is simply this, a one-world religion where all beliefs except Bible Christianity will be allowed.

"Hate crime" laws now on the books are steadily broadening their scope to the end that they will be the instrument used to criminalize New Testament Christianity in the pagan new world order.

The 1959. Centennial Celebration in Chicago was Darwinism's finest hour. One of the most honored speakers on this occasion was Sir Julian Huxley, grandson of Darwin's "bulldog" T.H. Huxley.[/b] Julian Huxley's speech was a glittering oration on the majestic grandeur of Darwin's achievement, coupled with a vision of its totalizing implications for the future. Here is excerpt from his speech:

"Future historians will perhaps take this Centennial Week as epitomizing an important critical period in the history of this Earth of ours - the period when the process of evolution, in the person of inquiring man, began to be truly conscious of itself. This is one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values - indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution. . . .

In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. . . Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era."
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 06:42:39 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

#### mikeman7918

• 5431
• Round Earther
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1544 on: April 09, 2015, 07:34:49 AM »
Cikljamas, have you ever eaten corn?  Of course you have.  It's a very useful crop that's also quite tasty, but it wasn't always that way.  Corn used to be really small and it wasn't a very useful crop, but farmers over hundreds of years only re planted the seeds from their best plants and are the rest which basically controled evolution which eventually made corn so much bigger and more useful.  This is evolution.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1545 on: April 09, 2015, 10:38:30 AM »
"MICHELSON AND MORLEY" EXPERIMENT :

Michelson  and Morley8 planned  to turn  their apparatus  until they  found  the maximum fringe shift produced  by light travelling  in two perpendicular  directions.  The position  of maximum fringe shift would show  the  direction  in which  the  earth  was  moving,  the  size  of the  fringe  shift  would be  a measure  of the  speed  of the  earth  through  the  aether.

But they  found that no matter  how they turned  their apparatus,  there was no significant  fringe shift. They had once  again  established  that  the earth  does not move.  They  reasoned  that  the  movements  of  the  earth  around  the  sun,  and the sun  around  the  universe  must have  exactly  cancelled  out, so  that  just at that moment  the  earth  happened to  be  stationary.  The  obvious  thing  to do was to repeat  the experiment  six months  later,  when  the earth  would be going  in the  opposite  direction,  on  the  "other side"  of its orbit around  the  sun,  and  the motions  would no  longer  cancel.

So  they  repeated  the  experiment  six months  later,  but  still  there  were  no  significant  fringe  shifts.  The earth  was  still standing  still! They  repeated  the experiment  at  all seasons  of  the  year.  They  repeated  it at  all  times  of  the  day and  night.  They  repeated  it  in Berlin,  in  Chicago,  on  the  tops  of mountains  ...and  everywhere  ..  . no  fringe  shift.

In other  words,  the  earth  was  not moving.

It is  interesting  to  see  what  various  scientists  have  said  about  this:

Adolf Baker  said  "Thus  failure  to  observe  different  speeds  of  light  at  different  times  of  the  year  suggested  that  the  earth  must  be at rest'  ...  it was  therefore  the 'preferred' frame  for measuring  absolute  motion  in space".

Bernard  Jaffe  said  "The data  were  almost  unbelievable.  There  was  only  one other  possible  conclusion  to  draw,  that  the  earth  was  at  rest.  This,  of course, was  preposterous".

But we  might  ask  "Why preposterous?"  After  all,  has  anybody  ever  actually proved  that  the  earth  is moving?

Giancoli put it this  way:-  "But  this  implies  that  the  earth  is somehow  a preferred  object;  only  with  respect  to  the  earth  would  the  speed  of  light  be  c as  predicted  by Maxwell's  equations.  This  is  tantamount  to  assuming  that  the earth  is  the  central  body  of  the  universe".

That  of course  is  unacceptable  to anyone  who  has  decided  that  the  earth  is  a very  ordinary  second  class  planet  speeding through  some  insignificant  backwater  of the  universe.  Another  ad  hoc  was  required  to save  the  theory  from the  evidence.

The man who came up with the ger  of the  dea for the required  ad  hoc  was an lrish physicist called George  Francis  Fitzgerald.  His suggestion was developed into the idea that  if Michelson  and  Morley's  apparatus contracted in the direction of the earth's motion, then, provided that the contraction was just  the right amount, no fringe shift would be observed. This contraction must occur with any moving body, which means that when one drives one's car (or one's  spaceship) at high speed  it becomes slightly  shorter than when it was stationary.  An  interesting  idea.  To accept  such  an  idea  as  scientific  one should,  of course,  take measurements  and check  that  it  is so. Our intrepid motorist  (or  space  traveller)  takes  his  ruler with him and  measures  his  vehicle to see  if it really  does  become  shorter.  Unfortunately  the  ruler must  get  shorter by exactly  the  right amount  to make  the measurement  identical  to that when it is stationary.

Measurement  says  it does  not  get  shorter.

Then  how do we know it really  does  get  shorter?

Obviously  it must  get  shorter.

Otherwise  Michelson and Morley's experiment  shows  that  the earth  stands still.

But  there  is  a  way  to  test  for  "Fitzgerald  contraction".  An  interferometer  would get  shorter  by exactly  the  right  amount  only  if  the  lengths  of the  two arms were  exactly  equal.  But  if an  interferometer  were  made  with, say,  one  arm only  half  the  length  of  the  other,  the  contraction  would  no  longer  be  just  right, and  a  fringe  shift  would  be  observed.  Such  an  interferometer  was  built.

It is interesting  to  see  Arthur  Beiser's  comment  on  this  experiment:-  "We might be  tempted  to consider  the  Michelson-Morley  result  solely  as  evidence  for the  contraction  of  the  length  of  their  apparatus  in  the  direction  of  the  earth's motion.

This  interpretation  was  tested  by Kennedy  and  Thorndike  using  an interferometer  with  arms  of unequal  length.  They  also  found  no  fringe  shift which  means  that  these  experiments  must  be  considered  evidence  for  the  absence  of an  aether."

But  why  "MUST be  considered  evidence  for  the  absence  of an  aether"?  Why not  taken  as  evidence  that  the  earth  stands  still?  All the  observations  would  fit that  idea!  And  if this  experiment  proves  that  there  is  no  aether,  then  it  raises  a very  interesting  philosophical  question.  Is  it possible  for  scientists  to measure  properties  of something  that  does  not  exist?  Fresnel  had measured  properties  of  the  aether.  If it is  possible  for scientists  to measure  the  properties  of something  that  does  not exist,  then  what  value  can  we assign  to science?

Anything  the  scientists  measure  might  be  a measurement  of something  that does  not  exist  at  all! But  if it is  not  possible  to measure  properties  of something  that  does  not  exist,  then  what  about  Fresnel's  (and  several  other  scientists')  measurements  of properties  of the  aether?  And  if  there  is no aether, how  do we  explain  away  the  failure  of Airy to  find  the  result  he  expected  in Boscovich's  experiment?  And how do we make  sense  of Maxwell's  equations,  which  come  directly  from  consideration  of  the  aether?

It is intriguing  to note  that  all the  experiments  fit  in with the  idea  that  the earth  does  not  move  ... without  the  need  for  any  ad  hocs  at  all.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 10:44:36 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

#### sokarul

• 18473
• Discount Chemist
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1546 on: April 09, 2015, 10:44:54 AM »
The experiment showed no aether. It had nothing to do with earth's movement.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1547 on: April 09, 2015, 11:06:29 AM »
The experiment showed no aether. It had nothing to do with earth's movement.

How come that some people have to speek up so often, when it is obvious that it would be much better for them if they would just keep their mouth shut? What do you think?

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

#### Alpha2Omega

• 3979
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1548 on: April 09, 2015, 12:55:06 PM »
The experiment showed no aether. It had nothing to do with earth's movement.

How come that some people have to speek up so often, when it is obvious that it would be much better for them if they would just keep their mouth shut? What do you think?

Quote

"Northern arc of rotation", "southern arc of rotation"?? Since they represent rotation of the Earth, those arrows must be along the same parallel of latitude (in fact, it's labeled "Arctic Circle" which is a parallel of latitude) so they go neither north nor south. Shouldn't those be labeled "sunward" (pink) and "anti-sunward" (blue) instead? Apparent motion of the Sun would be in the opposite direction as earth's rotation, so WTH are those two figures supposed to represent?

Since they're both pointing in the same circumferential direction (counterclockwise) why do you say the blue CCW arrow is W-E and the pink CCW arrow is E-W in the top bottom figure?

 oopsies...
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 02:22:10 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

#### Mikey T.

• 2561
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1549 on: April 09, 2015, 02:41:17 PM »
29silhouette,

How many times do i have to stress this elementary fact to you?

If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth, but we wouldn't notice a huge (180 degree) displacement of the Sun (from East to West) in the way it happens in our reality, also!!!

If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were somewhere between a few thousands and 100 000 km away from the Earth we would notice ZIGZAG phenomena from anywhere on the Earth, except if we were standing at the poles. At the poles the Sun would look as if it's an immovable spot in the sky!

He almost had it with the no zigzag if the sun was 93 million miles away bit, then he lost it again when he thought of some 180 degree displacement thing.  I honestly think he believes that for the Earth to be spherical it must be very small and we in turn must be large comparably.  From the vantage point of a human which is so small compared to the Earth that we can't even clearly make out the largest structures we have ever built when viewing the Earth as a whole.  So as the Earth rotates, the horizon in the viewing line from us to the sun rotates.  This mean, since  the Earth is what we are standing on, we rotate with it and if we were in the Arctic or Antarctic circle during their respective summer and we keep our sight line on the sun it would appear to follow just above the horizon all the way around to where it started from.  An if we are tilted the sun would look to wobble higher and lower during that transit.  We are very small compared to the Earth.  Because the Earth is spherical our horizon is approx 3 or 4 miles away from us so that 6 mile circle that you can see from your position on Earth moves with the Earth (it is part of it actually) and in turn the vantage point of that horizon between you and the sun constantly changes in just the way we see in reality.

So if this explains the movement of the sun from our perspective, then tell me how the sun wobbles up and down and travels around the sky from very close to the North Pole in the flat Earth model.  Fro that vantage point it would seem that the sun does not travel in a circular path like the flat Earth model shows.  But at the same time if you have to change the path of the flat Earth sun to match what is seen at the North pole, then it would break what we see away from the North pole.

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1550 on: April 09, 2015, 03:27:19 PM »
Hadn't you been a Satanists, you would have admitted long time ago that there must be two completely different geometrical situations (how our hypothetical observer perceives the motion of the Sun) in these two completely (geometrically) different scenarios:

1. Our hypothetical observer is on merry go round and the Sun is ahead of him.
2. Our hypothetical observer stands at the fixed place and the Sun circles above and around him.

Only a complete idiot can claim that these two scenarios make no difference regarding apparent vs real motion of the Sun as it would be perceived by our hypothetical observer at the edge of the Arctic circle.

ONLY A COMPLETE IDIOT!!!

Satanists go to Hell!

If i were you i would repent and convert!

But even if there were no hell and no punishment, how can you pretend to be stupid to the extent that you embarrass yourself so inexpressibly?

Some of you aren't stupid, that is for sure, but it makes things even much worse for such despicable liars, since those of you who pretend to be SO stupid are hideous immoral perverts.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

#### Mikey T.

• 2561
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1551 on: April 09, 2015, 04:19:32 PM »
I see you like to call yourself a Christian.  You however have no right, nor enough knowledge to pass judgement on me.  I will one day be with my maker, who gave me eyes, intelligence, the free will to question things, and a universe of things to wonder about.  He does not require blind faith.  If all the evidence shows that he is not there, and reality matches the evidence, yet I still believe in him, wouldn't that be the actual faith and belief that he asks of me?  Also you like to quote the bible quite a lot, but do you know its history and how it came into being?  Even Galileo, whom you also claim is a satanist, was a devout Catholic.  He said "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".

But I guess you are anointed by God to pass judgement on everyone else.  Must be nice to be so special.

?

#### Alpha2Omega

• 3979
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1552 on: April 09, 2015, 04:56:31 PM »
Hadn't you been a Satanists, you would have admitted long time ago that there must be two completely different geometrical situations (how our hypothetical observer perceives the motion of the Sun) in these two completely (geometrically) different scenarios:

1. Our hypothetical observer is on merry go round and the Sun is ahead of him.
2. Our hypothetical observer stands at the fixed place and the Sun circles above and around him.

Only a complete idiot can claim that these two scenarios make no difference regarding apparent vs real motion of the Sun as it would be perceived by our hypothetical observer at the edge of the Arctic circle.

ONLY A COMPLETE IDIOT!!!

By that definition I must be a complete idiot. Fortunately for my sake (not to mention all of productive humanity), cikljamas' opinion about who is a complete idiot means nothing.

Those two situations are equivalent, unless cikljamas is egotistical enough to presume that the Sun and entire universe is circling around him, and him alone, wherever he happens to be standing.

Say you're on a merry-go-round some 5 m from its center and the Sun is fixed some distance away. For the purpose of the argument, let's say the Sun is a relatively close 300 m away from the center. As you circle along with the merry-go-round, the sun will appear to shift left and right by about one degree each way compared to an object behind it that's much more distant, due to parallax. Fine, there's your zig-zag if the Sun were really that close.

If, instead, you are at the same place on the merry-go-round, but it's stopped. Instead, the Sun and everything else in the universe is rotating around the center of the merry-go-round. Guess what? You wouldn't be able to tell the difference just by looking at the behavior of the Sun relative to more-distant objects!

In reality, of course, the Sun is much further in terms of the radius of the Earth than the illustration here. To make the model fit the actual scale, the Sun would have to be more than 10000 times as far as our scaled earth radius. Since the Arctic Circle is only about 40% the radius of the Earth, our scaled Earth radius would be 12.5 meters, so the Sun needs to be more than 125 km away to be realistic. Do you really think you're going to detect your "zig-zag" watching for parallax on an object 125 km away if you're moving left or right by 5 m? It's there, but it's too tiny to be measured!

Quote
... hideous immoral perverts.

Love it! This is the entertaining stuff that keeps us coming back.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

#### tappet

• 2162
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1553 on: April 10, 2015, 12:28:20 AM »
Cikljamas, have you ever eaten corn?  Of course you have.  It's a very useful crop that's also quite tasty, but it wasn't always that way.  Corn used to be really small and it wasn't a very useful crop, but farmers over hundreds of years only re planted the seeds from their best plants and are the rest which basically controled evolution which eventually made corn so much bigger and more useful.  This is evolution.
Cute story,
By the way, look inside a balance tank of a sewage treatment plant one day check out ya corn,
Bon appetite.

?

#### neimoka

• 738
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1554 on: April 10, 2015, 01:43:52 AM »
Plant cultivation is a lie of the re nasa satanists?

#### FalseProphet

• 3696
• Life is just a tale
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1555 on: April 10, 2015, 02:35:55 AM »
The experiment showed no aether. It had nothing to do with earth's movement.

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1556 on: April 10, 2015, 07:17:09 AM »
I see you like to call yourself a Christian.  You however have no right, nor enough knowledge to pass judgement on me.  I will one day be with my maker, who gave me eyes, intelligence, the free will to question things, and a universe of things to wonder about.  He does not require blind faith.  If all the evidence shows that he is not there, and reality matches the evidence, yet I still believe in him, wouldn't that be the actual faith and belief that he asks of me?  Also you like to quote the bible quite a lot, but do you know its history and how it came into being?  Even Galileo, whom you also claim is a satanist, was a devout Catholic.  He said "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".

I don't know what to think about Galileo (whether he was a Satanist or not), but i am sure that my countryman Ruđer Bošković (whom i consider the greatest theoretical physicist of all time, and according to whoes instructions Airy performed famous "Airy's failure" experiment) was not a Satanist, nevertheless he had inclined to Copernicanism. How and why that happened is impenetrable mystery to me.

And that is not all, his role in putting and pushing Copernicanism forward was of the greatest importance at that time:

At the instance of Ruđer Bošković, the Catholic Church's 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism,[95] but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index.

However, he gave us precise instructions according which we can determine which theory is right, and which theory is wrong.

In short, the convinced Copernican Bošković proposed the right thing for the wrong reason. He supposed that a water-filled telescope would conclusively prove the heliocentric theory. But to translate a Dutch expression: “with that crooked stick, Airy made a straight hit.”

He said "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".

Quote
The most important ancient document describing Hebrew cosmology is 1 Enoch (sometimes called the Ethiopic Book of Enoch), one of those long, disjointed, scissors and paste jobs beloved by ancient scribes. For a dozen or so centuries, European scholars knew 1 Enoch only from numerous passages preserved in the patristic literature. In 1773, the Scottish adventurer James Bruce found complete copies in Ethiopia.

Numerous manuscripts of 1 Enoch have since been found in Ethiopian monasteries. Turn of the century scholars concluded that parts of the book are pre-Maccabean, and most (perhaps all) of it was composed by 100 B.C. [Charles, 1913]. These conclusions were largely vindicated when numerous fragments of 1 Enoch were found among the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. There have been two major English translations of 1 Enoch, the 1913 translation of R. H. Charles and the 1983 translation by E. Isaac. All of the quotations that follow come from the newer translation.

The importance of 1 Enoch is poorly appreciated outside the scholarly community. Comparison of its text with New Testament books reveals that many Enochian doctrines were taken over by early Christians. E. Isaac writes:

There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was influential in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism. No wonder, therefore, that the book was highly regarded by many of the apostolic and Church Fathers [1986, 10].

First Enoch influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, and several other New Testament books. The punishment of the fallen angels described in 2 Peter seems to come directly from 1 Enoch, as does much of the imagery (or even wording) in Revelation. The Epistle of Jude contains the most dramatic evidence of its influence when it castigates “enemies of religion” as follows:

It was to them that Enoch, the seventh in descent from Adam, directed his prophecy when he said: “I saw the Lord come with his myriads of angels, to bring all men to judgment and to convict all the godless of all the godless deeds they had committed, and of all the defiant words which godless sinners had spoken against him (Jude 14- 15).”

The inner quote, 1 Enoch 1:9, is found in the original Hebrew on a recently-published Qumran fragment [Shanks, 1987, 18]. By attributing prophecy to Enoch, Jude confers inspired status upon the book.

First Enoch is important for another reason. Unlike the canonical books of the Bible, which (in my view) were never meant to teach science, sections of 1 Enoch were intended to describe the natural world. The narrator sometimes sounds like a 2nd century B.C. Carl Sagan explaining the heavens and earth to the admiring masses. The Enochian cosmology is precisely the flat-earth cosmology previously derived from the canonical books.

The Ends of the Earth

The angel Uriel guided Enoch in most of his travels. They made several trips to the ends of the earth, where the dome of heaven came down to the surface. For instance, Enoch says:

I went to the extreme ends of the earth and saw there huge beasts, each different from the other and different birds (also) differing from one another in appearance, beauty, and voice. And to the east of those beasts, I saw the ultimate ends of the earth which rests on the heaven. And the gates of heaven were open, and I saw how the stars of heaven come out...(1 Enoch 33:1-2).

(The sharp-eyed reader will note what I suspect is an editing error in the Isaac translation. The earth resting on the heaven makes no sense. R. H. Charles has “whereon the heaven rests.”)

Again, Enoch says, “I went in the direction of the north, to the extreme ends of the earth, and there at the extreme end of the whole world I saw a great and glorious seat. There (also) I saw three open gates of heaven; when it blows cold, hail, frost, snow, dew, and rain, through each one of the (gates) the winds proceed in the northwesterly direction (1 Enoch 34:1-2).” This accords well with Jeremiah 51:16 which says, “he brings up the mist from the ends of the earth, he opens rifts for the rain and brings the wind out of his storehouses.” In subsequent chapters, Enoch journeys “to the extreme ends of the earth” in the west, south, and east. In each place he saw three more “open gates of heaven.”

There were other things to be seen at the ends of the earth. Earlier, we deferred discussion of the King James version of Job 26:7, “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” On several occasions when Enoch and the angel are out beyond the dome of heaven, Enoch comments that there is nothing above or below. For instance, “And I came to an empty place. And I saw (there) neither a heaven above nor an earth below, but a chaotic and terrible place (1 Enoch 21:1-2).” Could this be the kind of nothingness referred to in Job?

An angel also showed Enoch the storerooms of the winds (18:1) and the cornerstone of the earth (18:2).

The Sun and Moon

And what of the sun and moon? Psalm 19:4-6 (quoted earlier) suggest that the sun holes up at the ends of the earth until it is time to rise. Enoch expands upon this idea. In 1 Enoch 41:5, he “saw the storerooms of the sun and the moon, from what place they go out and to which place they return...” Further, “they keep faith one with another: in accordance with an oath they set and they rise.”

Enoch discusses the solar and lunar motions at length, explaining why the apparent azimuths of their rising and setting varies with the season. The explanation, found in the section called “The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries,” begins thus:

This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, (located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the east; it is guided so that it shall reach the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky (1 Enoch 72:2-5).

From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century. Liberal scriptural scholars later derived the same view. Thus, students with remarkably disparate points of view independently concluded that the ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone. Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch.

Now, figure this out: Ptolomaic system comes to the scene in 2nd century A.C., and 200 years after that (in 4th century A.C.) The book of Enoh was expelled from the list of cannonical books of the Old Testament.

Ptolomy was geocentrists but he was also wrong. Why?

Different assumptions about how the stars move and how the aether behaves would lead to different distances. . .giving a greate  - or perhaps, even, a smaller size of the universe.

This is very significant because the distances affect all our ideas about what the astronomical bodie actually are. An astronomer sees a smudge of light on his photograph. He interprets this as the image of a galaxy, and assigns a distance to it. He assumes that this galaxy is a group of stars. He assumes that the stars are  very similar to our sun. He then reasons that the galaxy must consist of thousands of millions of stars in order to appear so bright at such a huge distance. If the  distances are wrong then his conclusion will be wrong - in  fact, the  generally accepted ideas about most astronomical objects will be wrong. Scientifically it makes  a huge difference. Clearly this question is of major significance.

What happened in 4th century A.C., happened AGAIN (but this time, in a much worse way) with gradual acceptance of Copernicanism during 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century!!!
« Last Edit: April 11, 2015, 05:20:03 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

#### FalseProphet

• 3696
• Life is just a tale
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1557 on: April 10, 2015, 08:55:58 AM »
Great finding, cikljamas, very interesting book.

How does Enochian Astronomy, asserting storehouses of the sun during night, explain that there is always day somewhere on earth? Shouldn't be night everywhere when the sun is in the storehouse?

?

#### simplyfascinated

• 104
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1558 on: April 10, 2015, 04:15:45 PM »
I have read the Book of Enoch, and was fascinated and wondered about its authenticity, especially since it is supposedly quoted by Jude. (Same with The Assumption of Moses.) So, I delved in deeper, and this is what I found:

With Enoch, there is some question as to whether Jude is even quoting that book. The dating of 1 Enoch, where this quote used by Jude appears, is uncertain, and the book is thought to have been reworked over time by both Jewish and Christian editors into successive editions. It may be that Enoch is actually quoting Jude! Or else, it may be that both are quoting some other work now lost, or some floating prophetic tradition. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Jude is quoting Enoch and ask whether there is any indication that Enoch was generally regarded as a historical book.

Enoch does seem to cover certain historical events from the time of Genesis, and that would seem to suggest it was intended to be seen as history. On the other hand, ‘historical fiction’ was not entirely unheard of at this time (think of the apocryphal gospels of Jesus!) so the mere reporting of events in this manner is not enough to build a case.

With Enoch, there is some question as to whether Jude is even quoting that book. The dating of 1 Enoch, where this quote used by Jude appears, is uncertain, and the book is thought to have been reworked over time by both Jewish and Christian editors into successive editions. It may be that Enoch is actually quoting Jude!

Are there any external sources, like Josephus, that say Enoch was historical? Many church fathers apparently approved of the book in some way, but this was because of the quote in Jude, and so their views have little bearing on whether the author of Enoch and his contemporaries intended it to be understood as historical. Do we have any indications in that regard? The answer, unfortunately, seems to be no. Though it was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, we do not know why it was used by the Essenes and how they regarded it. In addition, what the Essenes thought of it may not reflect what most other Jews thought of it.

In the same vein, we can find nothing to suggest that the Assumption of Moses was regarded by others as a historical work. Indeed, since both of these works were composed thousands of years after their title’s characters, I would suggest that it is far more likely that they were simply regarded as edifying fiction–like Lord of the Rings!

Some point to vs. 9 and 14 and ask if the documents these are taken from are meant to be seen as inspired Scripture. Not at all: Paul quotes Menander, Epimenides, and other Greek authors. This doesn’t mean that he considered their works Scripture; it does mean that he thought something they said was sufficiently accurate to be an excellent way to get a point across to his readers, and the same may be said of the other quotes. Paul also apparently uses Wisdom 14:22-31 as a source for his arguments in Romans 1:24-32, and Wisdom 2:23-4 for Romans 5:12-21. Does this reflect a belief that Wisdom was canonical, or worthy of being called Scripture? No: ‘Wisdom of Solomon’s canonicity does not appear to concern Paul, but only the theological arguments in it.’ Paul was out to make a point, as, most likely, were Jude and the others who quote or allude to apocryphal works.

#### FalseProphet

• 3696
• Life is just a tale
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1559 on: April 11, 2015, 12:30:19 AM »
Though it was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, we do not know why it was used by the Essenes and how they regarded it. In addition, what the Essenes thought of it may not reflect what most other Jews thought of it.

At least the Astronomical section of the book was of high importance for the Qumran people, for they based their ritual calendar on it. so obviously it was not regarded as a book of fiction by them.

It is unknown by the way, if they were what Josephus calls "Essenes".

Also, prophetic books like that never were read as fiction. They were either regarded as authentic or as fraud.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2015, 01:21:59 AM by FalseProphet »