Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - TheTruthIsOnHere

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 46  Next >
1
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA is not fake.
« on: May 24, 2017, 05:05:55 PM »

Personally, I think that if God can create one planet with intelligent life, then why would He stop there?  Why not create a whole universe teeming with intelligent life?

I think there is just a fundamental misunderstanding to what our existence is, and what the stars and planets represent. Intelligent life may exist congruent and or parallel to our own existence. It may not be a physical existence. We know that what we perceive is only a small fraction of a much larger existence. Hoping to find some sort of bacteria on what we think is a rock hundreds of millions of miles away seems, to me, as if we are looking in the wrong places for life that would be considered alien.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: motive to say globe
« on: May 24, 2017, 04:49:27 PM »
Because the globe theory is the best there is. Namely:
1) it is not proven false
2) it explains pretty well what it is supposed to
3) it is relatively simple.

None of that screams unequivocal certainty to me.

My opinion is that the goal of any small powerful group aiming to take advantage of a much larger, but disadvantaged group is to make them feel small, or insignificant. You see it a lot in Soviet and Chinese architecture. To convince everyone that we are a happy little accident on a speck of dust in a Universe too vast to comprehend is really the ultimate realization of that. In the very least, it seeks to remove any empowerment one may gain in the knowing that he is a creature of divine origin, that is very literally a part of The Creator himself... whether or not you share this belief,  you must admit it still must have an effect on the Psyche. If there is a power to be had with the true knowledge of our lower selves and our higher selves, then it would be advantageous to attempt to horde that knowledge, don't you agree?

3
Long-time UFO believer, new to the Flat Earth theory; but intrigued.

 Are these two theories diometrically opposed? The existence of God does not neccesarily contradict the existence of life on other planets, but the certain parts of the Flat Earth model have me conflicted. After many night's consideration I have come up with the following questions;

1. How would vessels from outer space enter the earth's atmosphere through the firmament?

2. If there are other planets apart from Earth that are round, what would lifeforms look like from a round planet? (e.g animals from the deep ocean form differently due to the pressure from the water. Would creatures on ball planets form differently?)

3. Is it possible that another planet like Earth (flat) exists somewhere out there?


Any opinions appreciated,

Howard
I do not believe the "space ships" are "space ships."

I believe they are inter-dimensional devices.

I do not believe "space aliens," are "space aliens."

I believe they are inter-dimensional beings.

My thoughts exactly. In my opinion, an advanced form of life wouldn't be using a physical vessel, to fly from a planet somewhere to Earth from millions of light years away. That would require a tremendous and absurd amount of energy. I am more apt to believe in "inner space" than I am "outer space." We do know that we exist, and we do know that there is still a lot we don't know about the how or why. Looking into the clouds and longing for existence in the unknown doesn't make sense to me.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA is not fake.
« on: May 19, 2017, 03:21:27 PM »
A simple argument can dispel all conspiracies about NASA: Why didn't the Soviets disprove it? And why wouldn't America disprove soviet successes such as Sputnik to give themselves a more prominent position? A rebuttal of an entire space program that is a main source of national pride would be a HUGE propaganda coup, and why wouldn't the Americans disprove the Soviet's missions or the Soviets disprove NASA's missions? You could say that they wanted to preserve themselves, but what about North Korea? They have no space program, the technology to show that there is nothing in space, and the hatred of America as a motive!
(Before Tom Bishop says something about the "Domination of space" and "ICBMs in orbit", let me tell him that ICBMs are stored in silos firmly rooted in the ground. If they have launched and are in orbit, that means that someone has started a nuclear war. There are no nukes in orbit.)

So if the earth is actually flat there is a very plausible reason why every government would lie and go with the idea that America and the rest of the world could and have made it to outer space. The obvious answer is that for 500 years we have been told that the earth is round, 93 millions miles away from the sun, spinning 1,000 mph as we circle the sun all while hurling through space at 56,000 mph. Then we sink billions of dollars into a space program to show us this ball. What happens if we find the earth to be flat and that we can't get out of our atmosphere? All of science becomes a joke! Every "intellectual" that droned on and on about how people who think the earth is flat are stuck in the dark ages now becomes an imbecile. Everything we've been told and believed would be proven a lie. If they fooled us about this, what else are they attempting to fool us about? What is to be believed?

That's a lot of egg on the face of science.

Why start with the lie in the first place?
What's the reason of all this?
What's so important that apparently the whole world is working togheter to cover it up instead of working for world peace?

Money
Power
Money

5
Because once you pass the moon that is overhead, don't you think it would appear differently?

6
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

Is easy, we accept he ones that hold to scrutiny

You accept the ones that are shielded from scrutiny. In fact the entire Flat Earth Theory is literally scrutiny of the currently accepted model, if there wasn't more than enough chinks in the armor of said model, the FES wouldn't exist.

The way people react so violently and incredulously to FET actually shows they aren't open to scrutiny or honest debate.

7
Has anyone ever observed, experimented on, or proven the existence of curved water, anywhere, ever?



So the roundness of the ocean, and the Earth in general is caused by surface tension?

8
I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.
Why use a laser with a beam that gets wider at farther distances?  There is a thing that has been used to do this for nearly 100 years.  It's call a theodolite.  A used digital one can be acquired for under $500.

im just saying, even if the beam gets wider, it should be noted the change in height it still shows on the measurement object on would be using. And lasers are very potent, there are some that can reach to cockpits in comercial planes.
Yes, but to to take accurate measurements  one needs a screen that is larger than the beam so the center can be detected.  Many flat earth experiments have failed for this reason.  They assume that if they can see the laser that the center of the beam is at eye level.

Has anyone ever observed, experimented on, or proven the existence of curved water, anywhere, ever?

9
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Feeling the rotation of the moon?
« on: May 08, 2017, 06:29:42 PM »
Forget feeling the rotation, it would be awesome if we could ever actually see the rotation of the moon.

Alas, we just have to accept that it is rotating just ever so perfectly as to not appear to rotate at all from the perspective of a person on any point on earth at any given time.
Moon libration, easily found on google.  I'm more curious how it appears not to rotate from the perspective of a person on a flat Earth.



Yes, that CGI image explains it all

11
And besides, how utterly convenient that this new heretofore undiscovered and unproven property of the atmosphere has the exact effect of magnifying the receding sun just enough throughout every moment of the day that it appears exactly the same size in the sky all day long as the sunlight travels through ever changing amounts of atmosphere.

About as much as RE proposition that the Sun and the Moon only appear to be the same size because they just happen to be the exact size and distance from Earth to do so. Also pretty much every other happy convenience used to rectify the improbability of a big bang origin of life and common sense and logic.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 08, 2017, 05:37:14 PM »
I don't know what is going to happen. I doubt the Democratic Party will die because it does have the support of the cities, and I don't think anything that happens now will be truly catastrophic. But if they continue on the path of disillusionment they appear to currently be on, I think it could be a while before they regain the trust of the general electorate... and that could mean a stalling, if not outright reversal, of progressive ideals having an impact on government.

I wish this bothered more people.

Also third parties lol

So as long as they have somehow continue to receive the support from the cities they've destroyed, they have a chance then?

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« on: May 05, 2017, 06:03:16 PM »
If someone was going to give me a $1,000,000,000,000 over 50 years I think the least I could do is fake some photos.
Or build rockets and go into space.....Like every other space agency across the earth.

What's harder to do? What's possible to do?

Don't forget NASA originally was originally apart of the DOD, and no doubt has developed some good rockets and propulsion technology... for Missiles.

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« on: May 05, 2017, 04:04:25 PM »
If someone was going to give me a $1,000,000,000,000 over 50 years I think the least I could do is fake some photos.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 05, 2017, 03:01:43 PM »
Again, I agree completely. But, unfortunately, so far it seems to be working. Again, just look at how some people are gobbling up ridiculous media spins here, and how they're fighting tooth-and-nail to defend it. It's great that these numbers are dropping in favour of those who are simply upset with the media, and hopefully it will result in some change in voter awareness in the future, but I'm a bit skeptical about that actually happening.

Hopefully people stop watching or reading the garbage and they go out of business. Really at a loss at how you coerce a nation to start valuing the truth again though.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: Feeling the rotation of the moon?
« on: May 01, 2017, 04:40:57 PM »
Forget feeling the rotation, it would be awesome if we could ever actually see the rotation of the moon.

Alas, we just have to accept that it is rotating just ever so perfectly as to not appear to rotate at all from the perspective of a person on any point on earth at any given time.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 01, 2017, 04:36:11 PM »
Yeah, I don't think Bill was a pampered spoiled man-child. He was raised by his grandmother and mom in New Orleans. Then his mom married an abusive, alcoholic, car salesman.

Sure, he's good ole slick Willy. But pampered and spoiled? I don't think so.

Don't forget that he's also a rapist. I guess being rich and pampered isn't the worst thing that can happen to you, or not always a reliable metric when determining the objective morality and value of a person's character.

18
If that's the case for the sun to appear going "down the horizon", then why is the sun and therefore its light colored with a redish-orange hue during sunsets?

Because the light from the sun is traveling through more atmosphere. Just like on the RE model.

As the sun moves away from it's upper most position in the sky and closest point to us, it should get slower and slower as it descends.  Based on a flat plane perspective, as it reaches the horizon it should basically come to a stop since it is traveling almost perfectly away from us at that point. 
Above us it is traveling perpendicular to us - so it appears to move it's fastest.
at the horizon, it's moving parallel away from us so we shouldn't see it move at all.

If the the earth is a spinning sphere, it should basically look the same size as it plots across the sky most of the sky until it shines through our atmosphere - which is does.

The sun is always moving at the same height in the sky, at the same speed, always parallel to your line of sight. Your thing about it traveling perpendicular or parallel and its apparent speed and position is fun to think about, but not an acknowledgment of reality.

In my opinion, it does appear to move faster when it is over head. I know it's just an illusion though, based on how light is perceived by your eyes and interpreted by your brain, ie perspective.

19
I have to see some evidence of this "Sun looking twice as big near the horizon" claim. If anything, the Sun is either the same exact size near the horizon as it was in the middle of the sky, or slightly smaller or slightly squished vertically, based on what I've seen. I don't know if a spotlight sun is widely accepted by the FE community. I certainly don't think it is a spotlight, and from what I see, there is a gradual transition from day to night. The further the light travels, its color changes due to interaction with the atmosphere. Shortly after the red wavelength, it becomes invisible. The atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, it's opacity, and the distance to the light source, is what causes the darkness of night.

As for why it appears to go under the horizon seems to be chalked up to not knowing what a 300mi diameter object looks like as it goes overhead. If you watch a plane fly out over an ocean, even though it may be maintaining its altitude, it appears to be heading down to interact with the horizon before it becomes invisible due to the atmosphere. The assertion is we simply don't know how an object like the Sun would appear if it is beyond the vanishing point.

20
But to make an argument, as the OP does, that Russia doesn't mean what they are saying based on the technology we supposedly had "pre-Speak-and-Spell", just shows how lacking in knowledge the average FEer is in logic and basic human progress.

So, acknowledging that the technology we used 50 years ago to supposedly land on the moon is objectively inferior in every imaginable way to what we have developed since is somehow illogical?

And you're both idiots by the way

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 46  Next >