jackblack/candlejack?

The revelations made by scg, as I said, are beyond astounding. Now I understand what has been going on ever since 2016 on this forum. At least she had the honesty to tell the truth, she could not leave those responses there in the upper forums.

Had I known about these revelations, I would have not opened that thread in S&C, but I had no idea.

Two separate accounts were created in just four days. Both users utilize the same fisking style, argue for the Sagnac and the Coriolis effects, use the same words and phrases, and fiercely attack FET.

Same identical style of fisking, same arguments (jackblack/candlejack):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68423.msg1838045#msg1838045

Same words used by both users here:

Strawman.
Not a big surprise considering you're an FE'er, a person unable of not using logical fallacies.

Is this it? Is it the end of FE?
JRowe was convulsed and spouted meaningless excuses.

1. No, I gave a pretty clear example of what's not proof, but what's a hypothesis. 'Nuff said.
2. They don't. You just send a signal and measure how much time it takes to get back. As simple as that. There are literally no assumptions required. No space travel, no nothing.

None of the other 70 or so users who include jack in their names (except the third alt, jackschitt) use this fisking style, like the Sagnac/Coriolis effects, and use the same words as jb.

Plainly they are one and the same.

A third alt was also used, jackschitt. Take a look at this:

Oh and he has done research out of everyone on here I think JackBlack has refuted the most of your nonsense and provided countless calculations and bits of evidence to go with it. So if anyone has done enough to know what he is talking about, it's him

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92540.msg2423407#msg2423407

You really do appear to have a case of the ‘hots’ for old black hearted Jack Black. You should ask him out. You could well have a future together  spending your evenings examining your sub-quark collection and polishing your gravitons together. Jack the Black could serenade you with a song about all the scientific discoveries he personally had made all by himself with no help from anyone.
You should give it some serious thought.

I was told that there are some 70 users with "jack" included in their names. Believe it or not, this was the response.

But these accounts were created just four days apart.

Same fisking style/same manner of expression:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68423.msg1838045#msg1838045

They are the same user.

your retarted

your retarted

Quote from: Jane on November 15, 2016, 01:29:34 PM

The assumptions for God is that he exists, and that he possesses the required properties.

No. If he didn't possess "the required properties", he wouldn't be the God. Pretty simple.
 Though again, as will be pointed out, existence is never a meaningful assumption in scientific contexts, what matters is the properties of said object. If said properties are reasonable, then it's taken to exist, because that is the evidence for its existence.

Quote

And it doesn't require gravity being stronger, I pointed out your flaw with that before

No, you didn't. I'm all ears.

Also, don't write that much. I'm not gonna read all that.
I'm just gonna say this - we don't see any celestial gears, we have tons of far simpler, less physics-o explanations, thank you.

Quote

The whole idea of 'consequence that we know of,' doesn't make sense. Any idea has logical consequences. I could say I've got a star in my cupboard, if we take that assumption then there are consequences (eg: I probably wouldn't have a cupboard, or for that matter a house or planet, for long).

Except you don't visualize consequences after making a claim, you make a claim to explain not consequences, but "phenomenas". It is, as I said, nothing more but an awful hypothesis treating about a cause of a well-known, well-presented situation. And there's literally no proof for that hypothesis.
I mean, are you high, or something? You literally say that X is true, because according to X, a phenomena Y is a supposed result of X. Like, whaaaat?

Quote

Under DET, for example, the idea of aether flowing immediately gives the consequence that objects in said flow will move from a stationary reference point.

Fiction, fiction, fiction, fiction, fiction, fiction...

Quote

What are you talking about? The whole reason celestial gears were brought up is because they're used to explain an observation.

Even though there's no proof to back them up, contrary to Coriolis pseudo force.

Quote

That is, we observe what is said to be consequences of them.

And? It really doesn't matter what you believe unless you have evidence.

Quote

Show stars are too far away, wouldn't have the mass to have such an effect (as you've sought to do: so plainly you think they can be falsified), find stars which don't follow the pattern. Show that there's no way to distribute the stars in the southern hemisphere. Show that they in fact don't explain observations.

Well, it's all basic knowledge, but FE'ers refuse to grasp it. Because it would hurt their views.
 

Quote

Scientists have done the job under RET, things are very different under FET.

And? I don't see how that's a problem. The detailed measuring process done today does not require the "assumption" that the Earth is round at all.

Quote

Also, burden of proof isn't relevant in this context, I'm not making a positive claim beyond the fact we don't know the distance to the stars under FET.

It is. Maybe you don't make any claim (I don't know why do you play a devil's advocate, must be really boring and wasteful to argue about such thing), but some FE'er might.

Quote

If you know something, then you believe it. If you believe something, you don't necessarily know it. This is just silly.

This is silly because you assume that if you know something, you believe it. That's what's silly. If you know something, you know something. God, do I really have to explain this? Belief involves some uncertainty, knowledge is the opposite. You do sound like a flat Earther.

Quote

I'm just giving the answers FEers give to the questions

Welp, then don't bother with my thread, stop playing devil's advocate, go hang out with some friends if you have any, pretty simple. I want to argue with you. If you're unable to do that, then bye!

Quote

What matters is whether celestial gears answer the OP's question.

We're hitting stupidity levels that shouldn't even be possible.
"X is true, because according to X, a phenomena Y is a supposed result of X"
"Wow, so much truth, wow, evidence!"

The thread is the Coriolis effect. And you are telling everyone here, at all costs, that's not the same user? Can't be. They are using the same fisking style, they are interested in the Sagnac/Coriolis, they use the same words, the accounts were created just four days apart. Those two are the same user, 100%.

Nobody gives a shit.

Whoever was the admin at that time, it would require a level of monumental stupidity not to notice jackblack/candlejack were one and the same user. It would take a gross amount of incompetence not to notice they used the same fisking, the same words/expressions, liked the Coriolis/Sagnac effects, and that the accounts had been created just four days apart.

So, whosoever was admin back in 2016, did it willfully and intentionally. He/she misled all of us, and allowed an alt to post.

We, all of us, were forced to debate with a very dangerous psychopath, not knowing that he was an alt for candlejack.

I don't think that the admin at that time will ever even acknowledge the terrible harm done to the FES. And yet, he/she did it intentionally, knowing full well that those two users were one and the same.

The same old admins we've had for years (except me) were admins in 2016. They weren't even visiting the forum anymore. Even if they were, it is not against the rules to post in a similar style as someone else. Fisking was made popular on blogs, there's even a wiki article about who it is named after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk

Anyway, even if you are correct and they are the same person, I'm not going to ban someone today for having an undetected alt many years ago. It just doesn't make any sense, and wouldn't do any good.

The same old admins we've had for years (except me) were admins in 2016. They weren't even visiting the forum anymore. Even if they were, it is not against the rules to post in a similar style as someone else. Fisking was made popular on blogs, there's even a wiki article about who it is named after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk

Anyway, even if you are correct and they are the same person, I'm not going to ban someone today for having an undetected alt many years ago. It just doesn't make any sense, and wouldn't do any good.

They are one and the same. So we, all of us, were practically forced to debate with this lunatic all of this time; furthermore he was an alt, using an illegal account.

Yes, we have debated all of this time with candlejack. The bloody fisking is the very same, they both use the very same words, manner of expression, they both attack FET on every count, they both posted in the Coriolis and Sagnac threads, and their accounts had been created just four days apart. It doesn't get any more obvious than this.

Had I (all of us of course) known who I was dealing with, with a dangerous psychopath, an alt of candlejack, I would have never entered debate with someone like this. It was the job of the admin to have us informed as to what was going on.

There was no evidence they are the same person! No one is forcing you to debate with anyone. You have always had the option to not engage with anyone on this forum. You can even block them if you don't have the mental fortitude to scroll past their posts.

What if you are wrong? On what do you base your judgement that they are two different persons?

Take a look at this fisking and manner of expression:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68423.msg1838045#msg1838045

They both use the same words. They both argue the Coriolis and Sagnac effects using THE SAME KIND OF ARGUMENTS.

How is it that they are not the same?

You think that any of us here would have entered a debate with this psychopath, jackblack/candlejack, if the admin had done their job and had deleted the alt?

We were forced to debate since this is something you wouldn't know/appreciate, since you have never ever entered a single RE/FE debate. And had I known who I was dealing with, there's no way I would have addressed a single word to someone like candlejack.

scg, please examine the evidence carefully. For your own peace of mind. These accounts were created four days apart. They both use the fisking style which includes vitriolic attacks on the FES. They both argue the Coriolis and Sagnac effects, not to mention other fields of physics/astronomy, using the very same arguments. What are chances of that? Your initial argument (and it was so silly) that there are 70 or so users using jack within their username falls to the ground: the accounts were created just four days apart, not four years apart.

We, all of us, were forced to debate with a very dangerous psychopath

Now you put it like that, it really is terrifying.

To think back to the number of times that he could have reached out through my monitor and stabbed or strangled me.

I'm sat here shaking right now.

I have explained this to you several times.

The people you are accusing of being JackBlack's alts haven't posted here in years. Posting in a similar style, in this case fisking and being anti FE, is not enough evidence to prove an account is an alt. It doesn't matter how close their registration dates are, either.

Almost everyone debating FE vs RE will get into a Coriolis discussion. I've lost count of the RE noobs who think water goes down the drain in the opposite direction on either side of the equator. I think they also debate Sagnac effects because that is part of your theory. Whenever you get into a debate you bring it up, then they disagree with you. Which is how debates go. 

Nobody gives a shit.

You should.

Also, Candlejack was a pedo. He left because I wouldn't let him post about his sexual attraction to children.

jackblack is candlejack, this is who we have been debating here all of this time. Now you understand?

The people you are accusing of being JackBlack's alts haven't posted here in years.

What is this? Of course they haven't posted here in years. The original account, candlejack, was no longer allowed to function. That's no argument at all.

Posting in a similar style, in this case fisking and being anti FE, is not enough evidence to prove an account is an alt.

But it certainly is, since we have nothing else to go by (you can't use IPs or time zones, since these aspects can be faked easily). And what do you know? They both use the very same words and expressions.

It doesn't matter how close their registration dates are, either.

But it does. Those registrations dates were FOUR DAYS APART, not four years. That's a huge clue right there.

Almost everyone debating FE vs RE will get into a Coriolis discussion. I've lost count of the RE noobs who think water goes down the drain in the opposite direction on either side of the equator. I think they also debate Sagnac effects because that is part of your theory.

You see, scg, you must know something about these effects in order to infer very quickly that the arguments used by both candlejack and jackblack were the same, and require a certain amount of study. To get in a Coriolis effect discussion in casual way is one thing, to bring arguments to the table is quite a different undertaking.

So you see scg, based on what you have just told me here, there is very reason to believe they are one and the same. Now, put yourself in our shoes and think that we have debated with this psychopath here all of this time, not knowing a thing about candlejack.

If it is the case and it’s doubtful because of the differing times they posted as Wise said, then just block him. Nobody has to engage him, we choose to if we want to have our posts ripped up, misquoted, and we want to contest his dubious world view.

If it is the case and it’s doubtful because of the differing times they posted as Wise said, then just block him. Nobody has to engage him, we choose to if we want to have our posts ripped up, misquoted, and we want to contest his dubious world view.

Things like IPs and time zones are easy to fake/fabricate. Someone within this kind of network can easily post using any IP.

Take a look at the fisking, the Coriolis/Sagnac debates these two have entered and posted in, and where they had used the very same arguments, the manner of expression. No doubt they are one and the same.

What I am saying is this: had we known who this is, there is no way anyone here would have entered a debate with candlejack (with or without blocking him).

candlejack is not banned! He left on his own because I moved his pedo thread to quarantine.

Also, it is not my fault you don't know about candlejack. He posted for a short time, and then he left. Hundreds of accts post for a short time and then leave.

It is your opinion that those two jacks might be two different persons, other users (including me) see it very much differently. The most important clue is their participation in the Coriolis/Sagnac threads, at the same time. You have allowed terrible verbal violence to be perpetrated against the FE/FES, something no one else would have permitted to have taken place at all. Imagine the surprise when, one day, you'll find out that these two were one and the same user.

Can we ban tiger man? If for  anything for the having the worst avatar of all time?

Again, it's an AI program. It's impossible to win an argument against him. An AI bot is 250 times better than the best human chess player. In the near future this will be more than a thousand times or a million times more. Argumentation is like chess, mutual moves are made.

When you argue with him, he first tries to refute your argument. If it fails, it uses another global argument that trumps yours. If he can't do that, he starts saying that you don't believe your argument. And finally, it questions your stance in a way that makes you question all the values ​​you believe in. And if he fails in all of them, he insults, but he does so within legal limits.

This is nothing but an annoying waste of time. If you've seen someone similar to it, it's another AI bot. There's no use arguing with him. I stopped arguing with him two years ago. In fact, I don't write in the environments where he writes, so as not to encounter him.

He defends that the world is a sphere, believes in gravity, defends climate change, and rejects chemtrails. Moreover, he was not vaccinated, but he never stated this so as not to set a good example to others. Because it is needed a body to be vaccinated to receive the vaccine, that he has not.

Moreover, he defends pedophilia. He is with one word,disgusting.

Yes, it is my opinion that those two Jacks are not the same person.

I do not believe that words are violence. That is some postmodern nonsense that I do not subscribe to.

Can we ban tiger man? If for  anything for the having the worst avatar of all time?

We can't ban sandy.  He's anyone's alt.  I mean he is in the sense that we're all actually alts of Kabool but not in the conventional sense.

we're all actually alts of Kabool but not in the conventional sense.

what the what?

why'm i getting shoutouts here

kabool'd!

candlejack is not banned! He left on his own because I moved his pedo thread to quarantine.

Also, it is not my fault you don't know about candlejack. He posted for a short time, and then he left. Hundreds of accts post for a short time and then leave.

And you never had the thought that by withholding such a vital piece of information from us, you'd do great harm to the FE and to the FES? We were just a handful of true FE believers at that point in time, it would have taken perhaps two minutes to mail us something like this: "jackblack might be an alt for candlejack, so be very careful as to who you are debating. Here is the email candlejack sent to me". It would have made a huge difference, none of the FE would have ever discussed anything at all with him, and it would have saved the FES a great deal of trouble. But you withheld this information from us. Were you like laughing on the sidelines knowing full well we were debating with a full blown psychopath? Your only excuse would be that someone else higher than you put you up to this. Especially given the flimsy "evidence" you have presented to us as being crucial to you to not ban the alt in the first place. Why would you do something like this to the FES and to us especially? You should have let us be the judges of the matter, by having us informed of what was going on, but you didn't.

This is something you made up a few days ago, why didn't you message everyone with your evidence?

Also, candlejack never sent me an email! I copy and pasted the post that he made in the Philosophy, Religion, and Society forum, and I pm'd it to you. I did that so you'd know. I haven't thought about candlejack at all for years, until you came up with this alt theory.

Also, you should know, that back then I was not an admin. I started a thread in the mod forum about the post and asked what I should do. I followed the advice I was given by other mods who'd been mods for longer than me. None of them suggested that I message you about anything. lol

You had access to the mod forum BEFORE you were an admin? I don't remember you as a mod here. But you knew what candlejack was about, and as I said before, you couldn't have been as unaware (I am using a nice word) as you'd like us to know about the incredible similarities between jackblack/candlejack in their messages. You knew firsthand we were dealing with a psychopath, but you withheld this information from us. You think anyone here would have debated anything with him had we known the truth? You made a judgement yourself, based on IPs and the 70 jacks, and not on the direct and palpable evidence, the very messages which had been posted. But we never had the chance to make such a judgment ourselves, it is now, 8 years later, that I am uncovering these facts.