In this thread there is objective proof of a flat earth and you keep asking about my subjective opinion of why a cabal would wish to do this....
Yes! Exactly! Why would a cabal wish to do this? What's the friggin' point?
If you have no clue it's OK to admit it.
You also still haven't explained why an apple in a vacuum tube would fall down. Some force must be deciding the direction the apple should fall. What is that force, and why down?
I have explained many times now with the apple, you refuse to accept the simplicity of the answer and instead look for something else.
As for the coverup I clearly don't know the specific reasons for why the conspiracy has lasted so long. The FE answers so many questions and also opens up so many more. The scariest plausible answer is that the Demiurge is real and trying its hardest to convince us it doesnt exist. Perhaps we domed ourselves and reset life. Perhaps an ancient or different species uses us as fuel. Knowledge is power and clearly those with power want to keep people ignorant in all aspects of their life.
82_28 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:11 pm wrote:I'm watching the Broncos game live right now. Why is it dark one time zone over? It's still light here on on the west coast. Why?
wewlad you seem to be having a real challenging time understanding directions. If the sun is west of you and you are west of denver, and there is 800+ miles between you and denver. Herp derp, why is denver dark....??
dada » Thu Sep 08, 2016 4:51 pm wrote:The difference between science, and something like this flat earth stuff, is that someone decides that the earth is flat, and works from the conclusion, bending over backwards looking for proof. If you assume nothing, you arrive at the conclusion that the earth is not flat. So calling the search for proof of a flat earth 'science' is not accurate.
That's a bit of a sweeping generalization. Not all who subscribe to these 'Flat Earth' theories -- either in whole or in part -- arrived at such conclusions the same way. Sure, some are jumping on the 'bandwagon' without much 'rigour' or thought, while others dedicated time towards performing their own 'field tests' or research into these theories.
The same can be said of many who subscribe to established concepts of the world, no? The manner in which you personally arrive at understandings of the world need not -- and likely, does not -- represent the mean, or average, relative to the rest of the population.
Also: not all 'scientific discoveries' are established in the same fashion. Some are born out of observation: one is not satisfied with a current 'model' and applies certain tests/methods/calculations based on initially presumed, and then -- if repeatable -- "proven" concepts. Other discoveries occur by happenstance via unrelated exercises. And of course, there are scenarios where certain theories are worked 'backwards' as you propose above.
In short, not all who subscribe to some or all of these theories arrive at them in the same way. There IS thought, testing, research, field testing taking place. Others may disagree with certain premises or conclusions, of course, but it wouldn't be fair to say all of it is merely 'lazy' thinking.
one example of this can be found here, posted a few pages ago:
Time and effort was dedicated to reach the conclusions drawn in the above video.
Let's try, for a moment, to forget about all the other "FE" theories. Forget about the words "Flat Earth" altogether. How would one explain the findings in this video? "Refractions" alone won't do it. There are other similar examples of this to be found as well. I've been to the top of Bear Mountain, NY numerous times, and distinctly recall seeing the NYC skyline from the top of the mountain. I'll make it a point to take a snapshot next time I'm up there -- assuming it's a clear day -- and will post the resultant photos of it, along with some calculations Re: summit height, distance to the skyline, and expected curvature.
There may be a straightforward explanation for this, and even if there isn't, it doesn't, by itself, "prove" a FLAT earth, but I remain interested in a workable explanation for this phenomenon beyond 'anecdotal' observations.
And that article calling it 'art,' and making the case from there that everyone can make art, is a subjective thing. 'Art' is a value judgement. I mean if someone wants to call rothko's squares, or pollock's drizzles, or schwitters' trash collage 'art,' that's up to them. I like schwitters trash collage, myself.
Indeed. "Art" is subjective. The author of that article is therefore entitled to refer to it as "art" then, no? There is art in science, arguably. Some theories are described as elegant ; some require a creative mind to find patterns where others found none. The VISION required for certain discoveries can very much be considered a form of art. Is Flat Earth an "art"? -- quite a subjective topic. Some may call it a performance art, perhaps. Or refer to the proponents as BS artists...
To be clear, I pasted the Atlantic article as a talking point given some of the visceral reactions to these 'FE' theories within this board -- I don't necessarily share the author's viewpoint or conclusions.
It'll all be moot in a few years time, in any event: once Musk or Branson successfully transport a group of "everyday" humans (with disposable income) off into space -- or setting up colonies in Mars! -- we'll finally have "proof" from the laypersons of what's OUT THERE, no? They'll settle it once and for all. (woe to us if such ventures never make it to the fully operational launch phase, however. Similar to the "no man has been on the moon in 40 years" lament, it will only provide more fuel for the fringes to extend their inchoate ramblings...)
(side note: consider me one of the 'fringe' types, as I do not subscribe to the NASA narratives Re: moon landings)
I'm not here because I'm inspired by rigorous intuition. Personally, I see nothing rigorous in my intuition. I like some of the people here, though. Some smart people with a good sense of humor (some, I say). I get a genuine laugh out of some people's writing. That's pretty much why I'm here. I appreciate the sharp thinking, and the creativity that happens sometimes, too.
That's your personal experience, which may in fact mirror mine. But others may feel otherwise to some degree or another. My wording was a generalization based on the presumed mindset of the demographic here.
I'm not moved by that mystic symbolism, either. Just as well show a picture of an eagle and the word 'freedom,' as a picture of a sun and moon with a ladder. These symbols only have meaning that we put in them. The eagle with the word freedom can make a person swell up with pride, tears in their eyes, ready to die for god and country. But they invested that symbol with that power. These images are fetish objects, tribal, superstitious.
Yes. What you are I may think about such mystic symbolism doesn't change the fact that there is a substantial portion of the population that feel otherwise. Historically, scientists and 'founding fathers' subscribed to such symbolism in some form or another. Such symbolism is a part of our history, regardless of our own personal views on them. Value is placed in these symbols. The Freemason image (in my prior posting) was placed there simply as a representation of a viewpoint that influences how others interpret information. Symbols have meaning to many, whether some of us agree or not. And apparently, such symbolism plays a key role in many of the institutions "managing" our collective realities. It's in their official branding. Etched into 'official' structures and logos. Are they merely appropriating 'traditions', trolling the plebes... or is there more meaning behind these symbols? Dismissing them outright may be missing part of a larger story/puzzle.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
In this thread there is objective proof of a flat earth and you keep asking about my subjective opinion of why a cabal would wish to do this....
Yes! Exactly! Why would a cabal wish to do this? What's the friggin' point?
If you have no clue it's OK to admit it.
You also still haven't explained why an apple in a vacuum tube would fall down. Some force must be deciding the direction the apple should fall. What is that force, and why down?
I have explained many times now with the apple, you refuse to accept the simplicity of the answer and instead look for something else.
I refuse to accept the simplicity of your argument because it's too simplistic and doesn't explain why the apple falls down instead of up or sideways. What determines that objects should fall in one particular direction instead of another?
As for the coverup I clearly don't know the specific reasons for why the conspiracy has lasted so long. The FE answers so many questions and also opens up so many more. The scariest plausible answer is that the Demiurge is real and trying its hardest to convince us it doesnt exist. Perhaps we domed ourselves and reset life. Perhaps an ancient or different species uses us as fuel. Knowledge is power and clearly those with power want to keep people ignorant in all aspects of their life.
Or maybe we're just drawings in a really stupid child's coloring book. Anything is possible!
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
Let's face it. If someone is committed to the spinning globe model, producing evidence, no matter how compelling, for anything but that spinning globe is futile. "Science", or what passes for science, is the new belief system and you don't dare question anything sanctioned by the science gods.
'I see clearly that man in this world deceives himself by admiring and esteeming things which are not, and neither sees nor esteems the things which are.' — St. Catherine of Genoa
I've said my piece. What you call art is up to you. What you think are sweeping generalizations is up to you. What you think general opinion may be, up to you. If you want to believe science is a religion - guess what? up to you.
I don't see what the problem is. Don't feel I need to explain anything beyond my last post. What I say stands as a summary of my opinions on these matters. Would you say we can agree to disagree?
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
. I wouldn't say I'm 'disagreeing' with you, at least not in some respects. My overall point is to look beyond whatever 'personal' beliefs/views we may have, attempt to understand the larger impetus/cause for this apparent mindset that appears to be gaining traction, and also: attempt to re-examine certain orthodoxies. If there's anything most of us here have learned, it's that the status quo is generally NOT to be trusted. (Of course, that's not to say any/all alternative 'theories' are to be considered equally. Scrutiny and due-diligence should be applied at all times. Some would say "FE" has earned no such consideration, but there remain a few questions, particularly related to distance, claimed curvatures and perspective, that haven't been adequately answered to this point).
This topic hits a nerve, clearly. If it's solely because it's so DUMB, then simply ignore it. But it's not merely that, is it? Fundamental belief systems are being challenged. Some may scoff at the comparison of contemporary 'secularists' to Religious dogmatists... but the reactions when challenged are quite similar, wouldn't you say? (the above is not directed at dada -- it's rhetorical)
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Well this is the "general discussion" forum, so this is being discussed atm. I took to "task" on it. While I am all about "out there" ideas, I don't care what one thinks. But when it comes to FE, it's one of the easiest "out there" ideas to debunk. Science starts with observation. I do not begrudge one thinking what they think, but FE "theory" does not jibe with my own observations. Like when I said to myself as a young kid, holy shit you totally can see the evidence of a curved earth simply by spending five gruelling hours on westbound I-70.
Maco has been treated with very gentle hands here. People with resolute certainty are impossible to convince that they may be wrong. I know the sword cuts both ways, however the Earth being round can be observed for your very own self. You don't even need to read about it. Again, as a kid, my family would take the family vacation via car from Denver to Pennsylvania and back and I was always amazed at the proof of what would seem a "childish" idea of the Earth being flat. I myself deduced through observation the Earth is indeed not flat. Sure, certain portions appear to be. Yet perspective is what is in play, as maco says. He is exactly right. Perspective.
For instance, I remember as a kid and as kids do would get dizzy by spinning round and round until I couldn't see straight. I went up to my parents and said I know how the world spins now! They said no, you're just dizzy. It was my inner ear of course catching up with what I had put it through.
The reason, as stated, I semi-asked maco, how he got to his (or hers) belief was because of what was the trigger to believe nonsense. I am still curious as to how he arrived at certainty.
Maco, this is a "teaching moment" for you. Go for it. Even the lamest fundamentalist evangelical preacher divulges how they came to know the truth. I know you can do it too.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
Mathematicians can devise "workable" models of the Earth and cosmos where the Earth is flat or the universe is geocentric or heliocentric.
By "workable" I imply that there is human utility. Maps are flat earth models.
Such models can be two (map), three (globe), four (add time) and up to an infinite number of dimensions subtle to human perception.
The Flat Earth model as described in this thread and the selection of videos I watched stretches the bounds of utility by assumptions in order to justify the Flat Earth as most "real".
Good play but mostly silliness. RI is being trolled here.
. I don't think this is a trolling exercise, PuffPuff, though I can't speak for everyone. A couple of those videos depict 'amateur researchers' hiking up several mountains, calculating distances, summits, and expected curvatures, and then presenting findings. In other words, beyond mere manipulation/interpretations of various 'models'. Did you catch that one? What are your thoughts there?
That said, perhaps it truly is all governed by the 'observer'. Any model only exists when observed. But of course that only applies at the quantum level.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
