Question for Homeschooling parents flat-earth style

It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that most of what I learned in school was lies. I thought that maybe geology was one of the useful parts; turns out that is also wrong. bummer. My mother already thinks I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist because I doubt the events spouted by the mainstream media (paris attacks, Sandy Hook, etc), don't vaccinate my kids, etc. But I think this flat earth theory might be a deal-breaker for her.

If you home-school your kids, how do you teach them the truth, but also enough to get them through a normal conversation without someone calling CPS? I'm only partly joking; this world is getting crazy.

Firstly I feel sorry for your kids. And secondly its people like you that endanger lives by not vaccinating your kids.

Well, I think you should teach them all the different ideas and theories. Most of all teach them to think and solve problems. Sad to say in some places, mostly big cities, the drop out rates are very high. Many of those that graduate can not even read or do simple math. For New York I read that 80% of the high school graduates can not read. With that in mind just teaching your children to read and nothing else they would have a huge advantage.

Think of the children!

The original post made me a little sad, actually ...

Please, at least vaccinate your children. That made me a bit angry. Your ignorance is not worth risking their lives.

Please, at least vaccinate your children. That made me a bit angry. Your ignorance is not worth risking their lives.

Vaccinate against what?

Nature has it's own vaccination tools for the body to act upon but guess what? we live in an age where detergents/disinfectants and clean kids are making nature take a back seat.

You see, kid's sucked their soiled (Earth) fingers and ate all kinds of things that we would cringe at.
All the stuff to aid your immune system and build antibodies, is in the Earth. All medicines are in the very things grown out of the soil.

Dogs eat grass and stuff to aid them when they're feeling unwell or to rid their bodies of unwanted bacteria, etc.

So what are these vaccinations for, because I've never seen so many people with as many ailments in my life as there is today, and this is with all those so called vaccinations.

Eat natural. Exercise modestly.
Kids get measles and such and are then immune,, like most other things.

The issue is, we have a major problem in that it's a game of playing the odd one out. The parent who refuses to have their child vaccinated and then that child gets ill from the very thing that they refused vaccination against. What do you do?

It's a difficult decision to take a chance, so either allow your child to eat Earth and bathe in natural substances, plus eat natural foods and refuse vaccines, then hope for the best...or... go with the flow and have your kid follow the line to the needle for whatever the reason is for future reference.

The only vaccination I've refused is the flu jab. Why?...because the flu is a rare occurrence and I've already had it years ago.
Anyone who thinks they've had the flu needs to understand that if you managed to walk and do even small tasks - even making yourself a cup of tea...you did not have flu. You had a bad cold.

Flu renders you immobile. Too ill to move about without superhuman effort just to piss.
If this is you then you need no flu jab.

Seems strange how they can vaccinate against the flu and yet can't seem to cure a common cold nor cure the flu when onset, except to coax you into buying pathetic syrup medicines that are about as effective as taking syrup from the tin.

Anyway, in a nutshell I have to agree with Master_evar.  "Your ignorance is not worth risking their lives."

One thing you are right... "Nature has it's own vaccination tools".
Its death.... if there is deadly bacteria/virus, nature will just let the carrier to die.

The question is, Do you like this natural selection?

In the past it was normal to have more children, because just few of them actually live long enough to care about its parents when they (maybe) become old.

So yes... if you wanna to follow the nature, you must have 8 kids, and hope that at least 2 of them will not die (if you will use antibiotics for fighting some bacteria, you may just take a risk and have 6 kids).

That is natural selection.


If you believe that immune system will build antibodies fast enough to save human before real bacteria kill him... then no problem, just ignore stats



About teaching FE model... what physics will you teach them? ... looks like newton is not the right one ...
Maybe just teach him history of science... from the very beginning to the latest FE model... he will be able to compare them and will be one of the best physics/history students:

Test question about speed of light: he will answer including the information about who and when was thinking what

Just please dont try to shrink physics just to laser - lake test

Since the beginning of the age of the Enlightenment and over the course of modernization, the mortality of children below 5 years of age has declined rapidly. Child mortality in rich countries today is much lower than 1% while it was up to 50% as late as the 18th and 19th century in the very same regions.

This is happening thanks to declining poverty and increasing knowledge and service in the health sector.

Big countries like Brazil and China reduced their child mortality rates 10-fold over the last 4 decades. Other countries – especially in Africa – still have high child mortality rates, but its not true that these countries are not making progress. In Sub-Saharan Africa, child mortality has been continuously falling for the last 50 years (1 in 4 children died in the early 60's – today it is less than 1 in 10).

Over the last decade this improvement has been happening faster than ever before. Rising prosperity, rising education and the spread of health care around the globe are the major drivers of this progress.

But maybe we can turn this trend around!

Basically eliminated in industrialized countries, Measles killed over 500,000 children in Africa in 2006, more than any other vaccine-preventable disease.

Tetanus killed an estimated 200,000 newborns and 30,000 mothers in 2001. The tetanus bacteria live in soil.

Worldwide Polio cases dropped from 350,000 in 1988 to under 1,300 in 2004 through vaccination.

Most bacteria is almost no threat at all if you have access to treatment. It is the viruses that are the challenge.They are more mechanism than living things. The vaccines they try to force on you are unproven at best. Just last week they warned that kids that were given vaccines in the late 60's were given infected shots. They think some 60% will show ill effects at old age, nice. Autism looks to be totally from vaccines. I would not trust any of them. The flu shots are the most worthless, but are a great money maker for the designer drug makers. First off it has to be targeted to the right flu. Last year the missed the target almost completely. Next it does not prevent the flu, it only lessens the effects of the flu in some people. The people that need the help most it helps the least, the young and old. It is almost of no value, The flu sucks, but no one dies from the flu. It is the side effects, lung fluids mostly. The biggest mistake is trying to reduce the fever. The fever is the bodies way to inhibit the reproduction rate of the virus. Artificially lowering the bodies protective heat can let the virus go out of control. It appears the flu at the end of ww1 that killed so many relates to the then newly wide spread use of aspirin to lower the fevers. There have been other cases where many were killed by bad vaccines. They really do not know what they are doing, just making money mostly. Go read up on what the surgeon general has to say about it, it will be close to what I have related here.
(disclaimer this is my opinion only get the facts and make up your own mind)

Most bacteria is almost no threat at all if you have access to treatment. It is the viruses that are the challenge.They are more mechanism than living things. The vaccines they try to force on you are unproven at best. Just last week they warned that kids that were given vaccines in the late 60's were given infected shots. They think some 60% will show ill effects at old age, nice. Autism looks to be totally from vaccines. I would not trust any of them. The flu shots are the most worthless, but are a great money maker for the designer drug makers. First off it has to be targeted to the right flu. Last year the missed the target almost completely. Next it does not prevent the flu, it only lessens the effects of the flu in some people. The people that need the help most it helps the least, the young and old. It is almost of no value, The flu sucks, but no one dies from the flu. It is the side effects, lung fluids mostly. The biggest mistake is trying to reduce the fever. The fever is the bodies way to inhibit the reproduction rate of the virus. Artificially lowering the bodies protective heat can let the virus go out of control. It appears the flu at the end of ww1 that killed so many relates to the then newly wide spread use of aspirin to lower the fevers. There have been other cases where many were killed by bad vaccines. They really do not know what they are doing, just making money mostly. Go read up on what the surgeon general has to say about it, it will be close to what I have related here.
(disclaimer this is my opinion only get the facts and make up your own mind)

There is no connection between autism and vaccines. It's stupid and ignorant parents who spread lies on parents forums.
Also, do you know how vaccine works even? Because too many people do not know. Vaccine is a dead pice of the germ that causes the disease. It is just like getting the disease, except it doesn't spread or do anything. It is dead, and just lies there whilst your immune system studies it and build antibodies. Once you get the actual disease the antibodies know how ot fight the disease. Not vaccinating yourself means that from the beginning you have no antibodies against it. Your immune system will have it's hands full trying to fight off the germ inefficiently as the germ wreaks havoc in your body. Analyzing the germ and creating the right antibody takes a lot of time. Vaccines help you prepare a cure against the disease before you get it. IT does not entirely prevent the disease (but it is a lot more effective than you think). It does however pretty much entirely prevent further spread of the disease (from a person), so fever people get sick in total. And because of the vaccine, the body usually defeats the flu BEFORE it can hurt any internal organs, as all vaccines do.
"The flu sucks, but no one dies from the flu. It is the side effects, lung fluids mostly." Is a statement of ignorance. In that context, no disease ever is lethal. Lethal diseases are so dangerous BECAUSE they cause these side effects, and the quicker your body defeats the disease, the smaller is the chance that any organs get damaged. Vaccines prepares ready-to-use antibodies, the quickest way to defeat a disease. Also, NO VACCINE EVER reduces fever. That is a lie.

Also, statistics is against you. A vaccined population suffers far less deaths AND incubations from diseases (both naturally caused and accidental by vaccines) than an unvaccinated population. Doctors very much DO know what they are doing with vaccines. Why else would any government fund vaccination if it doesn't work?

Yes you may decide not to vaccinate if you see it as marginal threath.
At least in our country it's forbidden to visit kindergarden or nursery with not vaccinated children. The reason is clear, no vaccination work 100% and for parents it's unimaginable that unvaccinated child will introduce possible threath to whole class or nursery, if parents decide to not vaccinate kids, it's theyr decision, but I don't wanna as a parent pay for their ignorance.

My colegue in work has disabled 12years old kid just because his wife got sick in time of pregnancy.. it's not usual, we have 98% of vaccinated population on this  and the chances are really small,  she was not vaccinated because of lazyness not because of some ideology.. just because "yeah what may happen " ... He is able to explain clearly  if the cost of lazzyness is fair.

Most bacteria is almost no threat at all if you have access to treatment. It is the viruses that are the challenge.They are more mechanism than living things. The vaccines they try to force on you are unproven at best. Just last week they warned that kids that were given vaccines in the late 60's were given infected shots. They think some 60% will show ill effects at old age, nice.

Citation needed

Autism looks to be totally from vaccines.

Completely false.  The Cr. Wakefield has been shown to have ignored lab data that went against his hypothesis, there has been no link connecting autism and vaccines time and time again.

I would not trust any of them.

That is your prerogative to ignore data and not trust science.

The flu shots are the most worthless, but are a great money maker for the designer drug makers.

That is a nice opinion that you hold.  Don't go about spouting it as fact.

First off it has to be targeted to the right flu. Last year the missed the target almost completely.

First thing that I agree with you about.  But what about years where they do get the match right?

Next it does not prevent the flu, it only lessens the effects of the flu in some people. The people that need the help most it helps the least, the young and old. It is almost of no value, The flu sucks, but no one dies from the flu.  It is the side effects, lung fluids mostly.

Honestly, what a crock of shit.  That is like saying no one dies from car accidents.  It is the profuse internal bleeding from getting crushed by a ton of steel that really killed them.

The biggest mistake is trying to reduce the fever. The fever is the bodies way to inhibit the reproduction rate of the virus. Artificially lowering the bodies protective heat can let the virus go out of control.

Yes, and high fever temperatures can cause brain damage and also kill you.  But hey, it isn't the flu virus that kills you, it is the side effects right?

It appears the flu at the end of ww1 that killed so many relates to the then newly wide spread use of aspirin to lower the fevers.

The paper I found has a hypothesis that it was the size of the dose of aspirin that actually cause the fluid on the lungs, not the flu virus.
"The hypothesis presented herein is that aspirin contributed to the incidence and severity of viral pathology, bacterial infection, and death, because physicians of the day were unaware that the regimens (8.0–31.2 g per day) produce levels associated with hyperventilation and pulmonary edema in 33% and 3% of recipients, respectively."
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/9/1405.full
So yeah, nothing about the aspirin reducing fever and letting the virus run rampant.

There have been other cases where many were killed by bad vaccines.

I am sure there have been, but then again, there are plenty of people who don't die because of vaccines. 
For example, the measles vaccine has prevented an estimated 17 million deaths.  I think I will take the chance of lesser chance of dying from measles vaccine than the greater chance of dying from measles disease.

They really do not know what they are doing, just making money mostly.

See previous comment about opinion and presenting it as fact.
 Go read up on what the surgeon general has to say about it, it will be close to what I have related here.[/quote]
I looked up what the surgeon general says, they pretty much say that vaccines are safe and you should get them to prevent debilitating disease and death from preventable illnesses.

(disclaimer this is my opinion only get the facts and make up your own mind)

Thanks for putting the disclaimer in.  Although you did one hell of a job presenting things as facts instead of as your opinion.

I suggest you don't teach flat Earth, teach them how to analyze without bias and think for themselves.  Teach them to follow evidence, not to dogmatically stick to the flat Earth model like you.  Just enter my challenge in my forum signature if you don't believe that flat Earth is no more then blind faith.

Firstly I feel sorry for your kids. And secondly its people like you that endanger lives by not vaccinating your kids.

The last time I got flu shot was in 2011 or so. Immediately after the shot, I realized the "vaccine" comprised a mercury compound, perhaps merthiolate. I was working with that stuff & know how that feels like. A few days after the "vaccination", severe problems with my joints started, which never happened before.

Fortunately, I found a book describing how to make an electronic device capable of curing diseases. This great discovery was made 25 years ago, the author (Dr. Clark) presented it as a gift to the mankind and asked the professionals not to hide this vital information from the public... No conspiracy, eh?

Anyway, I assembled the device, it works. Since then, I am not taking flu shots, cold syrups etc. etc. Perhaps the apparatus has already paid for itself many times.

The books are here:

http://3annep.prostosite.org/filemanager/download/165/

http://3annep.prostosite.org/filemanager/download/172/

Just a few quotations:

Electricity can now be used to kill bacteria, viruses and parasites in minutes, not days or weeks as antibiotics require. If you have been suffering from a chronic infection or have cancer, or AIDS, learn to build the electronic device that will stop it immediately. It is safe and without side effects and does not interfere with any treatment you are now on.

We are not accustomed to thinking about a cure for cancer. We think of remission as the only possibility. But this book is not about remission. It is about a cure. This is possible because in 1990 I discovered the true cause of cancer. The cause is a certain parasite, for which I have found evidence in every cancer case regardless of the type of cancer. So lung cancer is not caused by smoking, colon cancer is not caused by a low roughage diet, breast cancer is not caused by a fatty diet, retinal blastoma is not caused by a rare gene, and pancreatic cancer is not caused by alcohol consumption. Although these are all contributing factors, they are not THE cause. Once the true cause was found the cure became obvious. But would it work? I set a goal of 100 cases to be cured of cancer before publishing my findings. That mark was passed in December, 1992. The discovery of the cause and cure of all cancers has stood the test of time and here it is!

This book is intended as a gift to humanity. I make a plea to the public and private sector of the medical community not to suppress this information but to disperse it regardless of embarrassment or liability from the simplicity and newness of the cure, provided only that it meets your standard of truth.

And now I am even sadder ...

Aside from people like the Amish, who live very much apart from the general pop. & indeed do not vaccinate for religious reasons, anyone who refuses to vaccinate should be arrested & given 5 yrs of Corrective Labour Reform. Their children should be taken by the State, & they themselves should be sterilised to prevent them from having more children for the State to raise.

basically u're suggesting to reintroduce a debate(shape of the earth) that has already been discussed and solved hundreds of years ago. how can our society progress if according to u we must reconsider all that has been already achieved?

Truth does not have an expiration date.  What really needs to be done is to finally determine Earth shape and keep all relevant considerations open with ongoing research until that time when the truth is exposed. 

yep.... little fact truth was exposed finally in 1961

yep.... little fact truth was exposed finally in 1961

As of today, there are many that do disagree and I will look to 1961 to see what you refer to? 

nothing special, you know... just first man in space.
but that of course is not a proof cuase u all consider space travel a conspiracy.

actually i find really funny that u regard the definitve proof as a conspiracy. it's very convenient

nothing special, you know... just first man in space.
but that of course is not a proof cuase u all consider space travel a conspiracy.

actually i find really funny that u regard the definitve proof as a conspiracy. it's very convenient

"just first man in space."

There is no proof of that. Mass media reports, that is all. The famous chronicle, in which Gagarin says: "Poehali!" (= "Let's go!") - was not the original record, taken at the launch. It was made later.

The launch itself was recorded later, too, - kind of repetition. There is simply no proof of the original launch. They say there was a rocket launched, which made a turn around Earth and landed in the steppes, and you are supposed to believe that.

The circumstances of Gagarin death are very doubtful, to say the least. As they say, suddenly (?) another military jet appeared, close to Gagarin's jet, - and the flight of that mysterious jet was not sanctioned (??). Sorry, I would not buy that. Military jets, as far as I know, are not parked with their keys inside, waiting for anybody wishing to fly around for a while.

Similarly, those "Apollo" rockets - in RE terms, they simply were not moving fast enough to deliver anything not only to the Moon, but even on the orbit. So, after the first launch the Russians calculated where it should fall back on Earth. At the next launch they simply sent their navy to the ocean near Spain and got the empty Apollo capsule, with no astronauts inside, of course. In the picture I've already demonstrated, they are triumphantly giving the capsule back to Americans in the city of Murmansk in 1970:


So, while NASA was showing fake footage and fake movies, the reality looked quite different. And that is exactly the reason why in this picture the Russians are so cheerful while the Americans are not. Soon after that USSR got American wheat at a very good price etc.

The famous Soyuz-Apollo joint mission was a fake, too. Look at these pictures, they were not made at zero gravity. You see the clothes hanging etc.

You are not going to defend the (c)NASA pictures I was asking REers about, are you? They are in the same branch as the photos, here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64851.msg1729015#msg1729015 . Otherwise, could you please explain the nature of those structures in the first picture etc. etc. etc. These pictures are fake, it is clear at a glance.

Or those Mars rovers. According to RET, the minimal distance between Earth and Mars is 50,000,000 km or so. Therefore, the radio signal governing the rover would go one way 50,000,000 km / (300,000 km/s) = 167 seconds. One way and back: 167 + 167 = 334 seconds, or 5 minutes and 34 seconds. Note, this would be a minimal delay, it could easily be twice as that. None of the articles about rovers I've read mentions that. They just issue a command to circumvent the obstacle, and the "rover" takes the order. Isn't that wonderful? Try to drive your car like that, with a 5 or 10-minute delay. I do not even want to ask how could they drive the "rovers" when the Sun (in RE model, of course) was between Earth and Mars. How the radio waves governing the "rovers" were penetrating the Sun with its diameter of 1 million kilometers? Even if they were, how did they filter out the powerful radio-waves of the Sun from the signal? Why, if they have the ability to catch the radio signal after it penetrated the Sun, 300+ million kilometers away, on Mars, - here, on Earth, the radio communication has problems every time after each solar flare?

Perhaps, they just went to the nearest Radio-Shack outlet, bought a kid's car with remote control, etc. The landscape in Iceland is exactly like on "Mars", look at the picture. All they have to do is to remove an occasional Coca-Cola can from the view. Alternatively, they could call it "a Coca-Cola can-like object", the RE zombies would applause yet another space achievement anyway.
 

this is not the thread correct for this debate.

a part from the fact that the rovers do not drive like cars. they are sent instruction from earth and move by little steps and they also got stuck multiple times.

btw the shear number of people involved in space flight, and when i say involved i mean that they're dedicating their lives to it.

plus u di also imagine that u have numerous proof against iss and mir, spaceshuttle, gps system and all sorts of artificial satellites.

may i ask if u have ever talked to an aerospace engineer?

this is not the thread correct for this debate.

If so, you should not have started that talk about "proof" here.
 

Quote from: luckyfred on November 28, 2015, 01:21:04 PM

nothing special, you know... just first man in space.
but that of course is not a proof cuase u all consider space travel a conspiracy.

actually i find really funny that u regard the definitve proof as a conspiracy. it's very convenient

"just first man in space."

There is no proof of that. Mass media reports, that is all. The famous chronicle, in which Gagarin says: "Poehali!" (= "Let's go!") - was not the original record, taken at the launch. It was made later.

The launch itself was recorded later, too, - kind of repetition. There is simply no proof of the original launch. They say there was a rocket launched, which made a turn around Earth and landed in the steppes, and you are supposed to believe that.

The circumstances of Gagarin death are very doubtful, to say the least. As they say, suddenly (?) another military jet appeared, close to Gagarin's jet, - and the flight of that mysterious jet was not sanctioned (??). Sorry, I would not buy that. Military jets, as far as I know, are not parked with their keys inside, waiting for anybody wishing to fly around for a while.

Actually, military jets have no keys at all.

Similarly, those "Apollo" rockets - in RE terms, they simply were not moving fast enough to deliver anything not only to the Moon, but even on the orbit.

citation needed.

So, after the first launch the Russians calculated where it should fall back on Earth. At the next launch they simply sent their navy to the ocean near Spain and got the empty Apollo capsule, with no astronauts inside, of course. In the picture I've already demonstrated, they are triumphantly giving the capsule back to Americans in the city of Murmansk in 1970:


So, while NASA was showing fake footage and fake movies, the reality looked quite different. And that is exactly the reason why in this picture the Russians are so cheerful while the Americans are not. Soon after that USSR got American wheat at a very good price etc.

Nice fantasy but your boilerplate does not look like an operational module and it is known where it came from.  The UK lost it.  You also still can't see any expressions from the Americans but you CAN see they are military where it appears the Russians are not.  For that matter, you can't see the expressions on the Russian's faces either.

The famous Soyuz-Apollo joint mission was a fake, too. Look at these pictures, they were not made at zero gravity. You see the clothes hanging etc.

Pictures?  You forgot to attach them, didn't you?

You are not going to defend the (c)NASA pictures I was asking REers about, are you? They are in the same branch as the photos, here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64851.msg1729015#msg1729015 . Otherwise, could you please explain the nature of those structures in the first picture etc. etc. etc. These pictures are fake, it is clear at a glance.

A link to a post which is just a link to another post?  Are you new to the Internet?
Why would you think people here should know right off hand what that is on the pic?  Do you think any of us work with the Hubble?  Have you asked people who do or did you just assume right away there was no other option than fake?  Just guessing but it could be an imperfection in the lens magnified because the telescope was designed to take photos of extremely dim objects and the Earth is definitely not, it could be a lens flare, it could be a jpeg compression error.  Other versions of the same photo don't show it so the last seems more likely but again just guessing.  If you really wanted an answer (I'm betting you don't) then you should ask someone with actual Hubble experience but I'm betting you won't.

Or those Mars rovers. According to RET, the minimal distance between Earth and Mars is 50,000,000 km or so. Therefore, the radio signal governing the rover would go one way 50,000,000 km / (300,000 km/s) = 167 seconds. One way and back: 167 + 167 = 334 seconds, or 5 minutes and 34 seconds. Note, this would be a minimal delay, it could easily be twice as that. None of the articles about rovers I've read mentions that. They just issue a command to circumvent the obstacle, and the "rover" takes the order. Isn't that wonderful? Try to drive your car like that, with a 5 or 10-minute delay. I do not even want to ask how could they drive the "rovers" when the Sun (in RE model, of course) was between Earth and Mars. How the radio waves governing the "rovers" were penetrating the Sun with its diameter of 1 million kilometers? Even if they were, how did they filter out the powerful radio-waves of the Sun from the signal? Why, if they have the ability to catch the radio signal after it penetrated the Sun, 300+ million kilometers away, on Mars, - here, on Earth, the radio communication has problems every time after each solar flare?

argument from incredulity
What makes you think it is being constantly controlled?  It moves slowly.  They move a few feet, examine the images sent back, plan the next moves and send the commands to move the next few feet.  If the sun is in the way, they wait longer. 

Perhaps, they just went to the nearest Radio-Shack outlet, bought a kid's car with remote control, etc. The landscape in Iceland is exactly like on "Mars", look at the picture. All they have to do is to remove an occasional Coca-Cola can from the view. Alternatively, they could call it "a Coca-Cola can-like object", the RE zombies would applause yet another space achievement anyway.
 

argument from ridicule.  How droll.

Why would you think people here should know right off hand what that is on the pic?

So, you do not know what is in the pictures. At last...
 

Quote from: frenat on November 28, 2015, 06:02:23 PM

Why would you think people here should know right off hand what that is on the pic?

So, you do not know what is in the pictures. At last...
 

That's your response to that entire post?  Really?  Are you trying to look like a troll?

I answered honestly.  Would you prefer I make stuff up like you?

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on November 28, 2015, 07:44:49 PM

Quote from: frenat on November 28, 2015, 06:02:23 PM

Why would you think people here should know right off hand what that is on the pic?

So, you do not know what is in the pictures. At last...
 

That's your response to that entire post?  Really?  Are you trying to look like a troll?

I answered honestly.  Would you prefer I make stuff up like you?

Dear Frenat, I truly appreciate your honesty. What you have so honestly written explains everything. Perhaps, for some reason you simply do not know or are not able to understand what is in the pictures and what does it mean.

Let me explain that to you. Look what you have written:

"Why would you think people here should know right off hand what that is on the pic? Do you think any of us work with the Hubble?"

So, you apparently suppose that only people who "work with the Hubble" should know what is on the pics. Moreover, it looks like you and other REers have no experience with the Hubble. Therefore, according to you, you should not even know what is on the pictures. Thus, there is no reason to discuss them with you. That would be a total waste of time. What else I could answer to your post?
 

Let me humbly remark that your position is so typical for a REer. As I have already explained earlier, it is a logical consequence of the RE theory. Mental abilities of REers apparently succumbed to the unbearable yoke of their own theory, so they can not see and perceive simple things. For example, they do not understand that Earth is flat.
 

Or another example. What do you see in the following picture? It was recently discussed in this branch:  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64959.msg1732829#msg1732829

 

What I instantly saw were the obvious traces of a recent rain. A decent rain. Just look at those sandy spots and you see apparent traces left by recent streams of water. What I would say is:

Much like you do not have to work with the Hubble to see that those pictures are fake, -

you do not have to build a "rover" and a "spaceship" and send the "rover" to Mars to see that this (c)NASA picture is fake. It can not be Mars, in RE terms. 'Cause (if I am not mistaken) the last rain on Mars, according to RE theory, happened about a billion years ago or so.

Do you understand that or you are going to defend that (c)NASA "rover" picture, too?

 

Quote from: frenat on November 28, 2015, 07:52:25 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on November 28, 2015, 07:44:49 PM

Quote from: frenat on November 28, 2015, 06:02:23 PM

Why would you think people here should know right off hand what that is on the pic?

So, you do not know what is in the pictures. At last...
 

That's your response to that entire post?  Really?  Are you trying to look like a troll?

I answered honestly.  Would you prefer I make stuff up like you?

Dear Frenat, I truly appreciate your honesty. What you have so honestly written explains everything. Perhaps, for some reason you simply do not know or are not able to understand what is in the pictures and what does it mean.

Let me explain that to you. Look what you have written:

"Why would you think people here should know right off hand what that is on the pic? Do you think any of us work with the Hubble?"

So, you apparently suppose that only people who "work with the Hubble" should know what is on the pics.

No, I think they would be the most qualified to know.  IF you really wanted to know what it was you would ask them.  But you don't really want to know, do you?

snip irrelevance...

Or another example. What do you see in the following picture? It was recently discussed in this branch:  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64959.msg1732829#msg1732829

 

What I instantly saw were the obvious traces of a recent rain. A decent rain. Just look at those sandy spots and you see apparent traces left by recent streams of water. What I would say is:

Much like you do not have to work with the Hubble to see that those pictures are fake, -

you do not have to build a "rover" and a "spaceship" and send the "rover" to Mars to see that this NASA picture is fake. It can not be Mars, in RE terms. 'Cause (if I am not mistaken) the last rain on Mars, according to RE theory, happened about a billion years ago or so.

Do you understand that or you are going to defend that (c)NASA "rover" picture, too?

Point out the evidence of rain.  edit a pic with marks pointing to it and post it.  Can you think of anything else that can cause those marks?   Is your theory falsifiable?  Why is it YOU can easily spot it but those with years of training in Geology do not?  Perhaps we should all go to the "Humble Scientist" school of Geology because apparently you know everything!   

you see, I don't see channels where water has flowed.  I don't see the loose soil more gathered in low areas but it appears to be evenly distributed among the picture with lines of pebbles that appear to be exposed by wind.  I don't see vegetation or insects either.  But I could be wrong and am DESPERATELY waiting for your annotated picture.  Unlike some people I don't assume I'm right before I start.