The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on March 20, 2018, 11:44:02 PM
-
There is a documentary about Convex Earth Theory that is coming out in 8 days. http://convexearth.org/
We should all take notice. Convex Earth Theory is another sister theory that came out of Samuel Birley Robotham's Earth Not a Globe studies in the mid 1800's. Rowbotham knew that there were other conclusions from his own that could stem from his experiments. Hence why the work is called "Earth Not a Globe," and not "The Earth is Flat," and why he named his original investigative society "The Zetetic Society" rather than anything Flat Earth specific. Sister organizations will often reference Rowbotham's experiments in support of their own theories.
In Earth Not a Globe the main point and moral is that the Globe Earth model is demonstrably false, moreso than a discovery of what the truth may actually be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzRnXSZ4_cU
-
... and, if you go to the website for those issuing the documentary, there is NOTHING to say who they are, nor what their qualifications are .... unusual for a bunch of scientists, wouldn't you say?
-
... and, if you go to the website for those issuing the documentary, there is NOTHING to say who they are, nor what their qualifications are .... unusual for a bunch of scientists, wouldn't you say?
The second sentence of that YouTube video literally says who they are. They claim to be researchers from the Zigurats - CTZ Technological Center.
There is also more information on their site in the About Us section:
http://convexearth.org/
About Us
Dakila Research and Technology Center Zigurats
The Convex Earth research is being conducted in a partnership between the CTZ - Zigurats Technology Center and Dakila Research.
The Zigurats Technology Center is a research complex comprising a Data Processing and Analysis Center, an Astronomical Observatory and a Technological Research Laboratory. CTZ has its headquarters in the citty of Corguinho-MS and operates in the areas of Astronomy, Quantum Physics and technological innovations.
Dakila Pesquisas is a research association that works in several areas of knowledge, especially the sectors of Quantum Physics based on Laryngeal Science, Engineering and Technologies that participated in the research stages.
It was seven years of intensive research with the support of many specialized professionals such as cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and other experts in other areas who together contributed to the finalization of Terra Convexa research.
In March the result of this work will be available to the entire scientific community and to all interested parties.
Contact Us
Contact Us
+ 55 11 3459-9945
facebook.com/TerraConvexa
contato@terraconvexa.com.br
terraconvexa.com.br
youtube.com/c/terraconvexa
-
... and, if you go to the website for those issuing the documentary, there is NOTHING to say who they are, nor what their qualifications are .... unusual for a bunch of scientists, wouldn't you say?
The second sentence of that YouTube video literally says who they are. They claim to be researchers from the Zigurats - CTZ Technological Center.
There is also more information on their site in the About Us section:
http://convexearth.org/
About Us
Dakila Research and Technology Center Zigurats
The Convex Earth research is being conducted in a partnership between the CTZ - Zigurats Technology Center and Dakila Research.
The Zigurats Technology Center is a research complex comprising a Data Processing and Analysis Center, an Astronomical Observatory and a Technological Research Laboratory. CTZ has its headquarters in the citty of Corguinho-MS and operates in the areas of Astronomy, Quantum Physics and technological innovations.
Dakila Pesquisas is a research association that works in several areas of knowledge, especially the sectors of Quantum Physics based on Laryngeal Science, Engineering and Technologies that participated in the research stages.
It was seven years of intensive research with the support of many specialized professionals such as cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and other experts in other areas who together contributed to the finalization of Terra Convexa research.
In March the result of this work will be available to the entire scientific community and to all interested parties.
Contact Us
Contact Us
+ 55 11 3459-9945
facebook.com/TerraConvexa
contato@terraconvexa.com.br
terraconvexa.com.br
youtube.com/c/terraconvexa
Interesting that there is absolutely no information online regarding this research organization outside of their own website. I wonder what observatory they are using?
-
A link with some more information about this documentary:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientists-at-dakila-pesquisas-release-documentary-proving-that-the-earth-is-not-round-300598977.html
SAO PAULO, Feb. 19, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Inquiries concerning the shape of the Earth have been a recurring theme in human history. Based on a series of natural phenomena that contradict accepted academic teaching on the matter, Brazilian scientists at Dakila Pesquisas decided to investigate these inconsistencies. In seven years of studies, scientific experiments were conducted at different points in the world, with the involvement of government institutions and professional researchers from a variety of fields. The results will be presented in the feature-length Convex Earth: The Documentary. The preview, by invitation, will take place on March 26, at 7:30 pm, at the Shopping Eldorado in São Paulo (SP). Three days later, the documentary will be released at convexearth.org, in Portuguese, English and Spanish.
According to Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira, founder of Dakila Pesquisas, the thesis that the Earth is round has been refuted by seven experiments: a geodesic experiment, which consists of measuring two buildings at a considerable distance; using sea level as a reference; a laser experiment to ascertain the flatness of water surfaces; leveling of water surfaces; optical distortions relating to processes of reflection; an experiment with boats on the horizon line; and experiments involving gravity and heavenly bodies.
In order to carry out the geodesic experiment, the base and the top of two buildings were measured, one in Torres, Rio Grande do Sul, and the other in Natal, Rio Grande do Norte. Engineers at the National Institute of Land Settlement and Agrarian Reform (INCRA - Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária) took part in these activities. A long-range laser was used to measure the flatness of the waters at the Três Marias Dam in Minas Gerais; at the Lagoa dos Patos, in Rio Grande do Sul; at Lake Titicaca in Peru; and on the seas around the island of Ilhabela in the state of São Paulo, and at the Straits of Gibraltar the sea passage separating Europe from Africa. In this way, the theory of gravity has been challenged by two essential natural measures: the plumb line and the level.
All the experiments had the participation of astronomers, cartographers, geologists, topographers and civil engineers, among other professional researchers. Cutting edge equipment was used. After the release of the documentary, Dakila Pesquisas will make available all of the methodology and technology used so that those interested can verify the results.
"In addition to addressing the shape of the Earth, the documentary will reveal the discovery of a new continent sealed off by a great wall of ice. New knowledge will also be demonstrated concerning the Sun, the Moon and the constellations," Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira disclosed.
Following the documentary, the book Convex Earth will be released, including all the scientific findings and a new map of the world.
Founded in 1997, in Corguinho, Mato Grosso do Sul, Dakila Pesquisas is comprised of researchers and scientists from diverse fields of knowledge, mainly the exact and natural sciences.
Information: Camila Cortez (+55 61 4141-7045) camila@supremaintegrada.com.br
SOURCE www.terraconvexa.com.br / www.dakila.com.br
-
A link with some more information about this documentary:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientists-at-dakila-pesquisas-release-documentary-proving-that-the-earth-is-not-round-300598977.html
SAO PAULO, Feb. 19, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Inquiries concerning the shape of the Earth have been a recurring theme in human history. Based on a series of natural phenomena that contradict accepted academic teaching on the matter, Brazilian scientists at Dakila Pesquisas decided to investigate these inconsistencies. In seven years of studies, scientific experiments were conducted at different points in the world, with the involvement of government institutions and professional researchers from a variety of fields. The results will be presented in the feature-length Convex Earth: The Documentary. The preview, by invitation, will take place on March 26, at 7:30 pm, at the Shopping Eldorado in São Paulo (SP). Three days later, the documentary will be released at convexearth.org, in Portuguese, English and Spanish.
According to Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira, founder of Dakila Pesquisas, the thesis that the Earth is round has been refuted by seven experiments: a geodesic experiment, which consists of measuring two buildings at a considerable distance; using sea level as a reference; a laser experiment to ascertain the flatness of water surfaces; leveling of water surfaces; optical distortions relating to processes of reflection; an experiment with boats on the horizon line; and experiments involving gravity and heavenly bodies.
In order to carry out the geodesic experiment, the base and the top of two buildings were measured, one in Torres, Rio Grande do Sul, and the other in Natal, Rio Grande do Norte. Engineers at the National Institute of Land Settlement and Agrarian Reform (INCRA - Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária) took part in these activities. A long-range laser was used to measure the flatness of the waters at the Três Marias Dam in Minas Gerais; at the Lagoa dos Patos, in Rio Grande do Sul; at Lake Titicaca in Peru; and on the seas around the island of Ilhabela in the state of São Paulo, and at the Straits of Gibraltar the sea passage separating Europe from Africa. In this way, the theory of gravity has been challenged by two essential natural measures: the plumb line and the level.
All the experiments had the participation of astronomers, cartographers, geologists, topographers and civil engineers, among other professional researchers. Cutting edge equipment was used. After the release of the documentary, Dakila Pesquisas will make available all of the methodology and technology used so that those interested can verify the results.
"In addition to addressing the shape of the Earth, the documentary will reveal the discovery of a new continent sealed off by a great wall of ice. New knowledge will also be demonstrated concerning the Sun, the Moon and the constellations," Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira disclosed.
Following the documentary, the book Convex Earth will be released, including all the scientific findings and a new map of the world.
Founded in 1997, in Corguinho, Mato Grosso do Sul, Dakila Pesquisas is comprised of researchers and scientists from diverse fields of knowledge, mainly the exact and natural sciences.
Information: Camila Cortez (+55 61 4141-7045) camila@supremaintegrada.com.br
SOURCE www.terraconvexa.com.br / www.dakila.com.br
Looking forward to seeing their methodologies as well as having them peer reviewed. Why did you have to post this so soon? Now we have to wait...
-
On second look, I now think that this is likely a Flat Earth Documentary, rather than one of the "the earth is slightly convex/concave" theories. The title is "Convex Earth" but that could just mean that they are challenging the concept of a Convex Earth.
We will have to see what they conclude and what their theory actually is.
-
Well, this ought to be entertaining, if nothing else. I now wait with bated breath.
EDIT: And in response to Tom's post, typed while I was typing, I agree. I does look like another flat earth presentation.
The bit about the newly discovered continent ought to be especially entertaining...
In fact, I believe I'll go out on a limb here and predict that the B.S. meter is about to be pegged.
-
Thousands of years of science overturned after 7 years of hardcore research! They must be real smart and stuff. I wonder if they actually bothered to actually, you know, go visit that new continent?
I'm calling fake on their picture of that toilet shaped Earth. You could tell it was CGI.
Humans are getting dumber, I can feel it.
-
Their other video is fantastic. He tries to claim that the Earth can't be tilted because you can't tilt a sphere... And this is what is wrong with the world, very basic scientific facts are so poorly taught that a grown man doesn't understand what the tilt of the Earth actually means.
Tom, hope you aren't putting any faith in these guys. lulz...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyzTFrHI8A
-
There is a documentary about Convex Earth Theory that is coming out in 8 days. http://convexearth.org/
We should all take notice. Convex Earth Theory is another sister theory that came out of Samuel Birley Robotham's Earth Not a Globe studies in the mid 1800's. Rowbotham knew that there were other conclusions from his own that could stem from his experiments. Hence why the work is called "Earth Not a Globe," and not "The Earth is Flat," and why he named his original investigative society "The Zetetic Society" rather than anything Flat Earth specific. Sister organizations will often reference Rowbotham's experiments in support of their own theories.
In Earth Not a Globe the main point and moral is that the Globe Earth model is demonstrably false, moreso than a discovery of what the truth may actually be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzRnXSZ4_cU
Hold on, aren't these the guys that claim to have an alien teleportation device?
http://www.felipecastelobranco.com.br/videos/real-teleportation-tecnology-at-dakila-research-brazil/
Oh my, is this really the point FE has reached?
;D
-
I'm looking forward to them using their alien teleportation device to zap themselves over to the edge of the earth and prove once and for all that the world is flat.
Hang on though... Can an alien teleportation device exist in a flat earth universe?
I don't know, this is all getting very confusing.
-
The second sentence of that YouTube video literally says who they are. They claim to be researchers from the Zigurats - CTZ Technological Center.
There is also more information on their site in the About Us section:
No names. Who are they?
No qualifications. Where did they study? What qualifications did they gain? What work have they done in the past?
Yes, we know WHERE they are, and what their establishment is called, but that's about it.....
-
Thousands of years of science overturned after 7 years of hardcore research! They must be real smart and stuff.
To set that in context, I'm reminded of a a BBC documentary I saw last year, which unfortunately seems not to be available online, so I'll need to fill in the detail for you - it features a group of British astronomers, astrophysicists, and the like, following their road trip as they visit the places where they worked after leaving university 50 years ago.
Britain's Star Men: Heroes of Astronomy
From the BBC website;
"Four British astronomers celebrate 50 years of work and friendship by going on a road trip to revisit some of the world's greatest observatories. In California, a world leader in observational astronomy at a time when America's space programme was at its height, the astronomers spent their formative years developing friendships that would last a lifetime, and making scientific discoveries that would change the course of history.
Together they represent the most productive period astronomy has ever had. Their journey through the southwestern United States allows them to see once again the places and landscape they explored as young men. Now in their 70s, they share their reflections on a life spent looking at the universe.
Star Men celebrates the history of stargazing: the inventions and discoveries that have enabled us to learn so much about the universe, but more importantly to understand how much more we have yet to discover."
At the time the documentary was made;
One was/is Emeritus Professor of Observational Astronomy at Cambridge
Another - Emeritus Professor of Astrophysics, also at Cambridge
Another - Emeritus Professor of Astronomy, University of Arizona
Last - Ira S. Bowen Professor of Astrophysics, California Institute of Technology
Between them, they have over 200 years of experience in their fields
At one point, they're on the balcony of an observatory in the USA, and one relates the story of how, one day, he was out there looking at the weather, judging how it would be for the evening's observations, and a group of tourists below yelled up to him "How did you get up there?".
His reply?
"I worked bloody hard for 15 years"
-
Tom, now that it has been shown that these folks can't figure out a spinning sphere and claim to have an alien transport device, do you still think they have anything factual to offer?
-
Tom, now that it has been shown that these folks can't figure out a spinning sphere and claim to have an alien transport device, do you still think they have anything factual to offer?
I don't find a problem with his argument that we should be able to experience the earth spinning. The famous astronomers Tycho Brahe and Giovanni Riccioli also believed that we should be able to experience and detect the spinning earth.
Tycho performed numerous experiments designed to detect the rotation of the earth, which seemed to suggest that the earth was not rotating.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.3642.pdf
VIII. Tycho also argues that if the cannon experiment were performed at the
poles of the Earth, where the ground speed produced by the diurnal motion is
diminished, then the result of the experiment would be the same regardless of
toward which part of the horizon the cannon was fired. However, if the experiment
were performed near the equator, where the ground speed is greatest, the result
would be different when the ball is hurled East or West, than when hurled North or
South.
The form of the argument is thus: If Earth is moved with diurnal motion, a ball fired
from a cannon in a consistent manner would pass through a different trajectory when hurled
near the poles or toward the poles, than when hurled along the parallels nearer to the Equator,
or when hurled into the South or North. But this is contrary to experience. Therefore, Earth is
not moved by diurnal motion.
If Tycho is to be believed, experiments have shown this to be correct. Moreover,
if a ball is fired along a Meridian toward the pole (rather than toward the East or
West), diurnal motion will cause the ball to be carried off [i.e. the trajectory of the
ball is deflected], all things being equal: for on parallels nearer the poles, the ground
moves more slowly, whereas on parallels nearer the equator, the ground moves more
rapidly.7
The Copernican response to this argument is to deny it, or to concede it but claim
that the differences in trajectory fall below our ability to measure. But in fact the
argument is strong, and this response is not.
Riccioli concludes in the pdf with:
None of the above examples of what should happen if the Earth moves are in
accord with what we see. Therefore, the Earth does not move with diurnal, much less
annual, motion.
-
As per the discovery about an "alien transport device," I see no such claim. You linked me to a random 6 second video that has the words "Seek Knowledge" around a picture of Albert Einstein.
The title of the video is "Real teleportation Tecnology at Dakila Research – Brazil". There is no reference to aliens. I don't know who made the video or why, and its 6 second length has nothing to do with teleportation, but the Dakila website claims that they research and experiment with quantum effects, so I can only assume that the title is referring to the particle teleportation effects that is known to exist under Quantum Theory, rather than your asserted alien technology.
-
Why do you cite experiments and conclusions from the 1600s, which by their very era and nature did not have access to the tools and techniques we have today, and which been comprehensively disproved by more recent events?
-
Why do you cite experiments and conclusions from the 1600s, which by their very era and nature did not have access to the tools and techniques we have today, and which been comprehensively disproved by more recent events?
Why not quote them? They were very educated and accomplished astronomers. Did they not have access to measuring methods to see that cannon ball was not significantly deflected as the math predicted? The ball should have been deflected by many yards. Its not like this is measuring atoms.
-
I don't find a problem with his argument that we should be able to experience the earth spinning. The famous astronomers Tycho Bachi and Ricioli also believed that we should be able to experience and detect the spinning earth.
In what way would you experience the Earth spinning? There is more than enough evidence that it is spinning, but what do you think you as a person would experience?
-
Why do you cite experiments and conclusions from the 1600s, which by their very era and nature did not have access to the tools and techniques we have today, and which been comprehensively disproved by more recent events?
Why not quote them? They were very educated and accomplished astronomers. Did they not have access to measuring methods to see that cannon ball was not significantly deflected as the math predicted? The ball should have been deflected by many yards. Its not like this is measuring atoms.
You really are very dishonest. I'm sure they were educated but that doesn't mean they were correct. You are apparently educated...
Why are you quoting them and dismissing the experiments which do show the earth's rotation - Foucault pendulums and so on.
You are a mess of confirmation bias, clinging on to any scraps of evidence which conform to your discredited world view and ignoring the tsunami of evidence showing you are wrong.
-
You really are very dishonest. I'm sure they were educated but that doesn't mean they were correct.
You could say that about any living human in any time period.
Name calling. Avoidance tactics. Dismissal of evidence. Are you even here to debate?
-
You really are very dishonest. I'm sure they were educated but that doesn't mean they were correct.
You could say that about any living human in any time period.
Name calling. Avoidance tactics. Dismissal of evidence. Are you even trying to debate?
Sorry, do you have a monopoly on that? It's just interesting that you pick the one experiment from the 16th Century which you think backs up your view and ignore all the experiments which show you to be wrong. My nod to debate was to mention Foucault pendulums but I've looked in your Wiki and I see you have some ridiculous "explanation" for that too. There is plenty of evidence and experiments which shows the earth rotates.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-every-experiment-to-detect-the-Earths-motion-has-instead-shown-it-is-stationary
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/tum-fed122211.php
-
You really are very dishonest. I'm sure they were educated but that doesn't mean they were correct.
You could say that about any living human in any time period.
Name calling. Avoidance tactics. Dismissal of evidence. Are you even trying to debate?
Sorry, do you have a monopoly on that? It's just interesting that you pick the one experiment from the 16th Century which you think backs up your view and ignore all the experiments which show you to be wrong. My nod to debate was to mention Foucault pendulums but I've looked in your Wiki and I see you have some ridiculous "explanation" for that too. There is plenty of evidence and experiments which shows the earth rotates.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-every-experiment-to-detect-the-Earths-motion-has-instead-shown-it-is-stationary
Sorry, but I am going to have to prefer the studies of Tycho Brahe, the greatest astronomer of his era, who did claim to perform many experiments, over the words of "Buddha Buck, studied at University at Buffalo" and "Joe Gedge, Physics student, average Joe", who do not claim to perform any experiments to back up their assertions.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/tum-fed122211.php
Actually, that experiment is measuring the earth's "wobble". The device is attached to the earth deep underground and a stabilized laser is pointing at it, measuring how much the earth vibrates and moves in relation to the laser.
https://physicsworld.com/a/laser-gyroscope-measures-the-earths-wobble/
-
You really are very dishonest. I'm sure they were educated but that doesn't mean they were correct.
You could say that about any living human in any time period.
Name calling. Avoidance tactics. Dismissal of evidence. Are you even trying to debate?
Sorry, do you have a monopoly on that? It's just interesting that you pick the one experiment from the 16th Century which you think backs up your view and ignore all the experiments which show you to be wrong. My nod to debate was to mention Foucault pendulums but I've looked in your Wiki and I see you have some ridiculous "explanation" for that too. There is plenty of evidence and experiments which shows the earth rotates.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-every-experiment-to-detect-the-Earths-motion-has-instead-shown-it-is-stationary
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/tum-fed122211.php
Sorry, but I am going to have to prefer the studies of Tycho Brahe, the greatest astronomer of his era, who did claim to perform many experiments, over the words of "Buddha Buck, studied at University at Buffalo" and "Joe Gedge, Physics student, average Joe", who do not claim to perform any experiments to back up their assertions.
Tom, the key phrase in your statement is "of his era". The long and short is, he was wrong. He held an Earth-centered view of the universe. This was long ago proven incorrect. Using him as some gold standard of Astronomy isn't going to fly today. Many scientists held views that were incorrect. It isn't so much the person saying something (I know we all like to pull out the biggest names we can find that agree with our positions), but the tests that confirm what they are saying. If an assertion isn't testable or doesn't make predictions, it is useless.
And again, I ask, in what way would you experience the Earth spinning?
-
This appears to be an account of many tests performed over many years about the movement of the Earth. I would just note I do not see Tycho mentioned here (although cannon experiments are mentioned and described as being highly inaccurate and therefore useless). http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1913PA.....21..208R
I would also note, much of the reason for Tycho not believing the Earth rotates is rooted in how he viewed the Earth and the heavens. That being one is made of 'heavy' stuff while the other is light/aetheric in nature and rotation/movement is it's natural state. A product of the times he lived in.
-
Yes, and this is where Tom is being dishonest. Just because someone famous (honestly, not that famous, I'd never heard of him) says something that doesn't mean they are correct.
But Tom cherry picks the one dude who was claiming what he still believes and dismisses all the people who said he was wrong. Convenient, that.
Good ole' Confirmation Bias...
-
Sorry, do you have a monopoly on that? It's just interesting that you pick the one experiment from the 16th Century which you think backs up your view and ignore all the experiments which show you to be wrong. My nod to debate was to mention Foucault pendulums but I've looked in your Wiki and I see you have some ridiculous "explanation" for that too. There is plenty of evidence and experiments which shows the earth rotates.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-every-experiment-to-detect-the-Earths-motion-has-instead-shown-it-is-stationary
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/tum-fed122211.php
Sorry, but I am going to have to prefer the studies of Tycho Brahe, the greatest astronomer of his era, who did claim to perform many experiments, over the words of "Buddha Buck, studied at University at Buffalo" and "Joe Gedge, Physics student, average Joe", who do not claim to perform any experiments to back up their assertions.
Tom, the key phrase in your statement is "of his era".
Nope. The key phrase in my statement was he performed experiments while the Quora.com commenter who says that you just need to set up a gyroscope did not.
If an assertion isn't testable or doesn't make predictions, it is useless.
The rotation of the earth is testable. Tycho Brahe tests the matter and gives his conclusions.
And again, I ask, in what way would you experience the Earth spinning?
If the earth was spinning we would have astronomers saying that they performed experiments and verified that it was spinning, rather than reading about astronomers who performed experiments and saw that it was not spinning.
-
This appears to be an account of many tests performed over many years about the movement of the Earth. I would just note I do not see Tycho mentioned here (although cannon experiments are mentioned and described as being highly inaccurate and therefore useless). http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1913PA.....21..208R
If the cannons in the tests were inaccurate then the conclusion from the test would be that something deflected the cannon ball. However, the cannons were accurate, hit their target, and that was not the conclusion.
But Tom cherry picks the one dude who was claiming what he still believes and dismisses all the people who said he was wrong. Convenient, that.
The "dude" I picked performed experiments and wrote studies on the matter, with an entire country funding his astronomical research with 5% of its wealth.
The "dude" you picked from the Quora.com commenting area performed no experiments, and just says vaguely that we need to set up gyroscopes. Yet your source is more credible?
-
Sorry, but I am going to have to prefer the studies of Tycho Brahe, the greatest astronomer of his era, who did claim to perform many experiments...
How do you reconcile yourself with Tycho Brahe's knowledge that the Earth was round? All his observations and recordings are on that basis. Pretty good for a bloke who didn't have a telescope. And his assistant Kepler went on to provide the laws of planetary motion! Not sure your mate Tycho would be impressed with your attempts as empiricism....
-
"of his era" ...
If Tycho Brahe had lived through the modern era, where we've seen 50+ years of orbital space flight, have imagery of the whole Earth every 10 mins through weather satellites, have seen over 20 humans go to the Moon and back .....
Do you think he would bother doing his experiment?
-
"of his era" ...
If Tycho Brahe had lived through the modern era, where we've seen 50+ years of orbital space flight, have imagery of the whole Earth every 10 mins through weather satellites, have seen over 20 humans go to the Moon and back .....
Do you think he would bother doing his experiment?
You just answered the question of why the source is old. Astronomers wouldn't study something unless they felt it was a matter of question or contention. Congratulations?
-
"of his era" ...
If Tycho Brahe had lived through the modern era, where we've seen 50+ years of orbital space flight, have imagery of the whole Earth every 10 mins through weather satellites, have seen over 20 humans go to the Moon and back .....
Do you think he would bother doing his experiment?
You just answered the question of why the source is old. Astronomers wouldn't study something unless they felt it was a matter of question or contention. Congratulations?
So you don't think those things I quoted are a matter of question or contention, then?
-
If the earth was spinning we would have astronomers saying that they performed experiments and verified that it was spinning, rather than reading about astronomers who performed experiments and saw that it was not spinning.
OMG Tom, we have done that. Go weigh yourself at the equator. Go Google gravity probe B and it's confirmation of frame dragging caused by Earth's rotation. Foucault pendulums, gyroscopes, the Paris gun, ocean currents, jet streams, etc... If the best you have is a one guy from the 1500s, ya might as well give it up.
-
"of his era" ...
If Tycho Brahe had lived through the modern era, where we've seen 50+ years of orbital space flight, have imagery of the whole Earth every 10 mins through weather satellites, have seen over 20 humans go to the Moon and back .....
Do you think he would bother doing his experiment?
You just answered the question of why the source is old. Astronomers wouldn't study something unless they felt it was a matter of question or contention. Congratulations?
The key point on Tycho Brahe's work is whether the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa. He knows the Earth is round and his observations rely on it. He might dispute the spin but he agrees with the shape.
Do you accept his findings?
-
"of his era" ...
If Tycho Brahe had lived through the modern era, where we've seen 50+ years of orbital space flight, have imagery of the whole Earth every 10 mins through weather satellites, have seen over 20 humans go to the Moon and back .....
Do you think he would bother doing his experiment?
You just answered the question of why the source is old. Astronomers wouldn't study something unless they felt it was a matter of question or contention. Congratulations?
So you don't think those things I quoted are a matter of question or contention, then?
I happen to think that it is a matter of question and contention, but that is not what the educational system teaches. Astronomers like Tycho Brahe studied these things back then because it was an open question. But today Astronomers are taught and told that it has all been resolved. They don't even consider to study or confirm these types of things today.
This is why the Flat Earth Society is the greatest free thinking organization on earth. The movement questions the unquestionable and challenges the unchallenged.
The key point on Tycho Brahe's work is whether the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa. He knows the Earth is round and his observations rely on it. He might dispute the spin but he agrees with the shape.
Do you accept his findings?
Every Astronomer bases the assumptions in his or her work on the current dogma of the day. If the shape of the earth was not something under question or contention, it would not be studied. The earth's rotation or geocentricity is not studied today, which is why there are no modern attempts. It is a "closed matter". In the mid 1500's, the earth's shape was a "closed matter," although there were still debates about whether it was the center of everything.
It is not a coincidence that Tycho published his findings around the time Copernicus did. These studies were the result of world wide debates. Tycho didn't decide to do it on his own. If the shape of the earth were under question instead, Tycho would have studied that.
-
"of his era" ...
If Tycho Brahe had lived through the modern era, where we've seen 50+ years of orbital space flight, have imagery of the whole Earth every 10 mins through weather satellites, have seen over 20 humans go to the Moon and back .....
Do you think he would bother doing his experiment?
You just answered the question of why the source is old. Astronomers wouldn't study something unless they felt it was a matter of question or contention. Congratulations?
So you don't think those things I quoted are a matter of question or contention, then?
I happen to think that it is a matter of question and contention, but that is not what the educational system teaches. Astronomers like Tycho Brahe studied these things back then because it was an open question. But today Astronomers are taught and told that it has all been resolved. They don't even consider to study or confirm these types of things today.
This is why the Flat Earth Society is the greatest free thinking organization on earth. The movement questions the unquestionable and challenges the unchallenged.
The key point on Tycho Brahe's work is whether the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa. He knows the Earth is round and his observations rely on it. He might dispute the spin but he agrees with the shape.
Do you accept his findings?
Every Astronomer bases the presumptions in his work on the current dogma of the day. If the shape of the earth was not something under question, it would not be studied. The earth's rotation or geocentricity is not studied today, which is why there are no modern attempts. It is a "closed matter". In the mid 1500's, the earth's shape was a "closed matter," although there were still debates about whether it was the center of everything.
Tom, you are completely wrong on this. I pointed you to an experiment that took place in 2005. You are speaking from a place of complete ignorance because you don't know what experiments are being done.
-
Tom, you are completely wrong on this. I pointed you to an experiment that took place in 2005. You are speaking from a place of complete ignorance because you don't know what experiments are being done.
Aren't you the person who found a Youtube video with the word "teleportation" in the title and assumed that it meant that the researchers discovered an alien transporter technology?
-
"of his era" ...
If Tycho Brahe had lived through the modern era, where we've seen 50+ years of orbital space flight, have imagery of the whole Earth every 10 mins through weather satellites, have seen over 20 humans go to the Moon and back .....
Do you think he would bother doing his experiment?
You just answered the question of why the source is old. Astronomers wouldn't study something unless they felt it was a matter of question or contention. Congratulations?
So you don't think those things I quoted are a matter of question or contention, then?
I happen to think that it is a matter of question and contention, but that is not what the educational system teaches. Astronomers like Tycho Brahe studied these things back then because it was an open question. But today Astronomers are taught and told that it has all been resolved. They don't even consider to study or confirm these types of things today.
This is why the Flat Earth Society is the greatest free thinking organization on earth. The movement questions the unquestionable and challenges the unchallenged.
The key point on Tycho Brahe's work is whether the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa. He knows the Earth is round and his observations rely on it. He might dispute the spin but he agrees with the shape.
Do you accept his findings?
Every Astronomer bases the assumptions in his or her work on the current dogma of the day. If the shape of the earth was not something under question or contention, it would not be studied. The earth's rotation or geocentricity is not studied today, which is why there are no modern attempts. It is a "closed matter". In the mid 1500's, the earth's shape was a "closed matter," although there were still debates about whether it was the center of everything.
It is not a coincidence that Tycho published his findings around the time Copernicus did. These studies were the result of world wide debates. Tycho didn't decide to do it on his own. If the shape of the earth were under question instead, Tycho would have studied that.
Out of curiosity, why is Brahe the only one that matters? What about Kepler and his experiments? Newton? Einstein?
Also, I think it is important for you to honestly answer Pablo's question above.
-
Tom, you are completely wrong on this. I pointed you to an experiment that took place in 2005. You are speaking from a place of complete ignorance because you don't know what experiments are being done.
Aren't you the person who found a Youtube video with the word "teleportation" in the title and assumed that it meant that the researchers discovered an alien transporter technology?
No, I posted the video about the sphere. I pointed you to a modern experiment that proved the world was spinning. It also proved one of Einsteins' posits. Your thoughts?
-
"of his era" ...
If Tycho Brahe had lived through the modern era, where we've seen 50+ years of orbital space flight, have imagery of the whole Earth every 10 mins through weather satellites, have seen over 20 humans go to the Moon and back .....
Do you think he would bother doing his experiment?
You just answered the question of why the source is old. Astronomers wouldn't study something unless they felt it was a matter of question or contention. Congratulations?
So you don't think those things I quoted are a matter of question or contention, then?
I happen to think that it is a matter of question and contention, but that is not what the educational system teaches. Astronomers like Tycho Brahe studied these things back then because it was an open question. But today Astronomers are taught and told that it has all been resolved. They don't even consider to study or confirm these types of things today.
This is why the Flat Earth Society is the greatest free thinking organization on earth. The movement questions the unquestionable and challenges the unchallenged.
Because in order to posit the Earth is flat, you must first decide that EVERY space agency on the planet is lying about going into space, and EVERY image of the Earth from space is fake. That's not 'free thinking' talk that's conspiracy talk.
You're also incorrect in assuming there are no experiments being done to ascertain the spin of the Earth. At the very least many science museums that discuss the topic will have a Foucault Pendulum on display, and information on it. An experiment anyone can go and observe happening in real time.
Lastly, and I only have the links in a long buried post that I should dig up to corroborate this, these basic tests and experiments ARE still done today. But you won't find them written about in scientific journals, because they're part of the curriculum in earning your degree. You seem to forget that much of this foundational experimentation is done as part of earning a Bachelor's or even Master's degree.
-
Out of curiosity, why is Brahe the only one that matters? What about Kepler and his experiments? Newton? Einstein?
Kepler didn't even study geocentricity. It was already a "closed matter" by his time. It was a "closed matter" in the times of Newton and Einstein too, which is why none of them thought to study it. The same goes for the shape of the earth. Once things are a "closed matter" in the educational system and in common thought, it is almost impossible to supplant.
Also, I think it is important for you to honestly answer Pablo's question above.
I answered his question.
Because in order to posit the Earth is flat, you must first decide that EVERY space agency on the planet is lying about going into space, and EVERY image of the Earth from space is fake. That's not 'free thinking' talk that's conspiracy talk.
Yes, and there is evidence that the actors are questionable. To blindly trust is incredibly close minded.
You're also incorrect in assuming there are no experiments being done to ascertain the spin of the Earth. At the very least many science museums that discuss the topic will have a Foucault Pendulum on display, and information on it. An experiment anyone can go and observe happening in real time.
Actually, those Focult Pendulums in museums are just motorized props. The pendulum stops after a short while because of air friction. The next time you visit such a museum look up.
Lastly, and I only have the links in a long buried post that I should dig up to corroborate this, these basic tests and experiments ARE still done today. But you won't find them written about in scientific journals, because they're part of the curriculum in earning your degree. You seem to forget that much of this foundational experimentation is done as part of earning a Bachelor's or even Master's degree.
Then go find us someone's homework if you believe that, and are having trouble finding studies. You should know by now that "the studies exist... somewhere" doesn't fly around here.
-
Plus, astronomy 101 isn't usually a lecture class. It involves making observations and reproducing calculations of old. The whole 'they just accept what they're told and assume past work is done' is misrepresentation. I say it's a lie to call astronomy a closed question, a lie from ignorance.
-
Because in order to posit the Earth is flat, you must first decide that EVERY space agency on the planet is lying about going into space, and EVERY image of the Earth from space is fake. That's not 'free thinking' talk that's conspiracy talk.
Yes, and there is evidence that the actors are questionable. To blindly trust is incredibly close minded.
It is just as close minded to blindly declare every single photo from space is fake. Which you must do in order to even entertain the notion the Earth is flat.
You're also incorrect in assuming there are no experiments being done to ascertain the spin of the Earth. At the very least many science museums that discuss the topic will have a Foucault Pendulum on display, and information on it. An experiment anyone can go and observe happening in real time.
Actually, those Focult Pendulums in museums are just motorized props. The pendulum stops after a short while because of air friction. The next time you visit such a museum look up.
This was discussed last time this was brought up. It's magnets designed to help sustain it's momentum and have no effect upon it's movements. As I recall last time you simply declared the magnets are doing it and refused to discuss it more. Not wasting my breath on this again.
Lastly, and I only have the links in a long buried post that I should dig up to corroborate this, these basic tests and experiments ARE still done today. But you won't find them written about in scientific journals, because they're part of the curriculum in earning your degree. You seem to forget that much of this foundational experimentation is done as part of earning a Bachelor's or even Master's degree.
Then go find us someone's homework if you believe that, and are having trouble finding studies. You should know by now that "the studies exist... somewhere" doesn't fly around here.
What studies am I mentioning? Also, as I reference IN that long buried post, collecting said homework is quite difficult if one is not presently enrolled in said classes. Although perhaps I can see if the university I'm working at presently has a class I might be able to secure something from. I'll look into that, but don't wait up for me on this point if someone else has something for this.
-
Also, I think it is important for you to honestly answer Pablo's question above.
I answered his question.
Sorry Tom, but I don't think you did. I wanted to know if you accepted the results of Tycho's empirical observations and experiments? And saying they were based on incorrect foundations doesn't cut it - the guy who invented the car didn't invent the wheel, but if the wheel didn't work the car wouldn't either. It's the same with astronomy - it works because it does.
-
https://m.facebook.com/DakilaResearch/?locale2=en_GB
I particularly like the piece on ancient alien technology.
Come now, is the cognitive bias really so strong that you're willing to look past the clear evidence that these guys are BS woo merchants?
Sad.
-
Or the vessels found in Egyptian pyramids that resonate in such a way as to reorganize the cells in the human body.
Some legit science going on there.
-
https://m.facebook.com/DakilaResearch/?locale2=en_GB
I particularly like the piece on ancient alien technology.
Come now, is the cognitive bias really so strong that you're willing to look past the clear evidence that these guys are BS woo merchants?
Sad.
I did an alt-f find and the word "alien" doesn't appear on that page anywhere.
-
https://m.facebook.com/DakilaResearch/?locale2=en_GB
I particularly like the piece on ancient alien technology.
Come now, is the cognitive bias really so strong that you're willing to look past the clear evidence that these guys are BS woo merchants?
Sad.
I did an alt-f find and the word "alien" doesn't appear on that page anywhere.
Yeah I dunno about the alien thing -- you would certainly have to expand all of the stories to do an accurate search, but I don't care to do it myself. There's definitely some wild stuff going on on their page.
Regardless of any of that, I'm looking forward to their work being peer reviewed.
-
https://m.facebook.com/DakilaResearch/?locale2=en_GB
I particularly like the piece on ancient alien technology.
Come now, is the cognitive bias really so strong that you're willing to look past the clear evidence that these guys are BS woo merchants?
Sad.
I did an alt-f find and the word "alien" doesn't appear on that page anywhere.
Just follow the link in this thread. It's there if you want to find it.
https://m.facebook.com/DakilaResearch/photos/a.161765254422655.1073741828.161764237756090/167020153897165/?type=3&source=48
But I guess your ok with the ancient Egyptian cell reorganizing technology at least.
I mean this is the kind of content I think FE should be thrown in with, I'm just surprised you'd want FE to be associate with that kind of thing.
-
Fascinating stuff. These guys are clearly on the cutting edge of science.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://dakila.com.br/urandir-fernandes-de-oliveira.html&xid=17259,15700022,15700105,15700124,15700126,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700186,15700201&usg=ALkJrhh-kR9GIc6tiW7kV5eWG5aLAjUnXw
-
I don't see the word "aliens" on either of those pages.
I clicked on the documentary about ancient technologies and found a segment about flutes in Bolivia.
I clicked on the second link and it appears to be a bio of one of the founders, who was inspired to create the institution based on some odd experiences he had as a child where he saw some lights, experienced missing time, and a feeling that he was abducted. He explains that "one of the main goals of Dakila Research is to explain unknown phenomena that are often attributed to ufology".
Do you have something against an organization trying to explain mysterious phenomena that people in Brazil will often attribute to ufology?
Is there something bad about flutes in Bolivia?
-
This is why the Flat Earth Society is the greatest free thinking organization on earth. The movement questions the unquestionable and challenges the unchallenged.
Oh please.
You declare the earth being flat an "obvious truth". Your basis for declaring it such is not stated, you seem to think the horizon appearing flat is proof but...well, it isn't.
Open a paint package and make a new image 10000x10000 pixels, zoom out so you can see the whole thing and draw a circle so it fills most of the image. Then zoom in to the image and note how the top is flat for quite a few pixels - when I did it, it was over 100. A big enough curve and a straight line are not distinguishable simply because our visual acuity is only so good. I really shouldn't have to explain this.
Anyway, having arrived at the conclusion of the flat earth being "obvious" you then do basically nothing to test that - I guess if you regard it as obvious then you don't feel the need to. You claim to be all about empirical evidence and yet you do pretty much nothing to collect any - I've suggested some experiments you could do to test your model, you've ignored all of them
And all the evidence which shows you to be incorrect is just ignored, wilfully misunderstood or just flat out denied. This doesn't make you a "free thinker". It's not thinking at all, it's just denial. You can do that about anything, it's easy to prove yourself right about something if you ignore all the evidence showing you to be wrong.
-
Do you have something against an organization trying to explain mysterious phenomena that people in Brazil will often attribute to ufology?
No, but I do find something odd about an organisation that claims to be a group of scientists, but is very cagey about stating who those scientists are, where they gained their qualifications that made them scientists, what work they've done in the past and where it was done and published, etc etc.
Go to any pukka scientific organisation and this will be readily apparent, but at this one. Zip. Nada. Nought.
-
I don't see the word "aliens" on either of those pages.
I clicked on the documentary about ancient technologies and found a segment about flutes in Bolivia.
I clicked on the second link and it appears to be a bio of one of the founders, who was inspired to create the institution based on some odd experiences he had as a child where he saw some lights, experienced missing time, and a feeling that he was abducted. He explains that "one of the main goals of Dakila Research is to explain unknown phenomena that are often attributed to ufology".
Do you have something against an organization trying to explain mysterious phenomena that people in Brazil will often attribute to ufology?
Is there something bad about flutes in Bolivia?
From the ufology link - "In the beginning they were voices, I heard them without knowing where they came from, it started at the age of nine. I also felt the presence of someone next to me, sometimes I saw some figures."
Soooo yeah, the guy that is going to prove there is another continent and that the Earth is convex is probably nothing more than your run of the mill schizo.
-
I don't see the word "aliens" on either of those pages.
I clicked on the documentary about ancient technologies and found a segment about flutes in Bolivia.
I clicked on the second link and it appears to be a bio of one of the founders, who was inspired to create the institution based on some odd experiences he had as a child where he saw some lights, experienced missing time, and a feeling that he was abducted. He explains that "one of the main goals of Dakila Research is to explain unknown phenomena that are often attributed to ufology".
Do you have something against an organization trying to explain mysterious phenomena that people in Brazil will often attribute to ufology?
Is there something bad about flutes in Bolivia?
Oh Tom, that's too funny. OK I admit the direct mentioning of the word aliens is not there. But don't try to cast these guys as rational and scientific (unless you just want to come across like a massive merchant of woo yourself).
From site:
''In the Association of Ufologists and Researchers of Brazil, Dakila Surveys, Alan leads a team of researchers whose aim is to map ancient and modern civilizations, archaeological sites, extraterrestrial interactions, supernatural events.And still researches in the area of physical and mental well-being.''
Not to mention:
- Ancient Bolivian Flute in tune with human brainwaves.
- Ancient Egyptian alabaster jars that resonate a frequency that can 're-organise' human cells.
- The Mycenaean CD-Rom
And of course the ancient astronauts and time travelers:
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://tvch.com.br/%3Fvideos%3Dtecnologias-na-antiguidade-astronautas-na-antiguidade&xid=17259,15700022,15700105,15700124,15700126,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700186,15700201&usg=ALkJrhjkU1VS46HCuKacAE-cYuJfIsBhJw
I can't wait to see what flim flam you come up with to divert attention from all this.
Or you could just admit you didn't research the organization very thoroughly because you were too carried away by your confirmation bias...
-
None of that sounds much different than what is seen on Ancient Aliens by The History Channel.
-
None of that sounds much different than what is seen on Ancient Aliens by The History Channel.
True. I don't think that channel (or the Discovery channel, for that matter) have much credibility these days because of that sort of stuff. I'm not the only one.
But they are giving the people what they want, for better or for worse.
-
I don't see the word "aliens" on either of those pages.
I clicked on the documentary about ancient technologies and found a segment about flutes in Bolivia.
I clicked on the second link and it appears to be a bio of one of the founders, who was inspired to create the institution based on some odd experiences he had as a child where he saw some lights, experienced missing time, and a feeling that he was abducted. He explains that "one of the main goals of Dakila Research is to explain unknown phenomena that are often attributed to ufology".
Do you have something against an organization trying to explain mysterious phenomena that people in Brazil will often attribute to ufology?
Is there something bad about flutes in Bolivia?
From the ufology link - "In the beginning they were voices, I heard them without knowing where they came from, it started at the age of nine. I also felt the presence of someone next to me, sometimes I saw some figures."
Soooo yeah, the guy that is going to prove there is another continent and that the Earth is convex is probably nothing more than your run of the mill schizo.
So? The Ancient Aliens guy claims to have seen UFOs. A lot of the UFO authors claim to have personal experience, or know someone with personal experience, in some manner. That makes sense. Why else would they be motivated to study such mysteries?
James Randi, of the James Randi Education Foundation, was a stage magician, and literally tricked and deceived people for a living. His history in the subject is what inspired him to study magic and the paranormal seriously. We generally have trust in his organization to study the truth. Why should we believe James Randi, who has a history of deceiving people, over someone like this guy, who does not have a history of deceiving people, and says that he just wants to explain his experiences?
-
I don't see the word "aliens" on either of those pages.
I clicked on the documentary about ancient technologies and found a segment about flutes in Bolivia.
I clicked on the second link and it appears to be a bio of one of the founders, who was inspired to create the institution based on some odd experiences he had as a child where he saw some lights, experienced missing time, and a feeling that he was abducted. He explains that "one of the main goals of Dakila Research is to explain unknown phenomena that are often attributed to ufology".
Do you have something against an organization trying to explain mysterious phenomena that people in Brazil will often attribute to ufology?
Is there something bad about flutes in Bolivia?
From the ufology link - "In the beginning they were voices, I heard them without knowing where they came from, it started at the age of nine. I also felt the presence of someone next to me, sometimes I saw some figures."
Soooo yeah, the guy that is going to prove there is another continent and that the Earth is convex is probably nothing more than your run of the mill schizo.
So? The Ancient Aliens guy claims to have seen UFOs. A lot of the UFO authors claim to have personal experience, or know someone with personal experience, in some manner. That makes sense. Why else would they be motivated to study such mysteries?
James Randi, of the James Randi Education Foundation, was a stage magician, and literally tricked and deceived people for a living. His history in the subject is what inspired him to study magic and the paranormal seriously. We generally have trust in his organization to study the truth. Why should we believe James Randi, who has a history of deceiving people, over someone like this guy, who does not have a history of deceiving people, and says that he just wants to explain his experiences?
I suppose it depends on how empirical you would like to be. If you are going to believe someone like the Ancient Aliens guy, James Randi, Tycho Brahe or this collection of Brazilians without seeing what they have seen first-hand, why wouldn't you believe NASA, SpaceX or Albert Einstein?
-
I suppose it depends on how empirical you would like to be. If you are going to believe someone like the Ancient Aliens guy, James Randi, Tycho Brahe or this collection of Brazilians without seeing what they have seen first-hand, why wouldn't you believe NASA, SpaceX or Albert Einstein?
I generally did believe NASA and Co to be telling the truth. But when I saw some of the bubbles in space videos and sneaker prints on the moon pictures, then I didn't believe NASA as much.
-
I suppose it depends on how empirical you would like to be. If you are going to believe someone like the Ancient Aliens guy, James Randi, Tycho Brahe or this collection of Brazilians without seeing what they have seen first-hand, why wouldn't you believe NASA, SpaceX or Albert Einstein?
I generally did believe NASA and Co. But when I saw some of the bubbles in space videos and sneaker prints on the moon pictures, then I didn't believe NASA as much.
All right. And the others? How about the Japanese Space Agency? I'm trying to figure out where you draw your line here.
-
None of that sounds much different than what is seen on Ancient Aliens by The History Channel.
So? What do entertainment channels have to do with it?
The 'History' Channel is not offering itself up as a scientific research center.
More importantly you weren't defending the History Channel as being a legit source of scientific research a few posts back.
Anyway this is all good, I don't engage with obvious woo merchants, life's too short.
Bye!
-
I don't see the word "aliens" on either of those pages.
I clicked on the documentary about ancient technologies and found a segment about flutes in Bolivia.
I clicked on the second link and it appears to be a bio of one of the founders, who was inspired to create the institution based on some odd experiences he had as a child where he saw some lights, experienced missing time, and a feeling that he was abducted. He explains that "one of the main goals of Dakila Research is to explain unknown phenomena that are often attributed to ufology".
Do you have something against an organization trying to explain mysterious phenomena that people in Brazil will often attribute to ufology?
Is there something bad about flutes in Bolivia?
From the ufology link - "In the beginning they were voices, I heard them without knowing where they came from, it started at the age of nine. I also felt the presence of someone next to me, sometimes I saw some figures."
Soooo yeah, the guy that is going to prove there is another continent and that the Earth is convex is probably nothing more than your run of the mill schizo.
So? The Ancient Aliens guy claims to have seen UFOs. A lot of the UFO authors claim to have personal experience, or know someone with personal experience, in some manner. That makes sense. Why else would they be motivated to study such mysteries?
James Randi, of the James Randi Education Foundation, was a stage magician, and literally tricked and deceived people for a living. His history in the subject is what inspired him to study magic and the paranormal seriously. We generally have trust in his organization to study the truth. Why should we believe James Randi, who has a history of deceiving people, over someone like this guy, who does not have a history of deceiving people, and says that he just wants to explain his experiences?
Seeing something you can't explain in the sky is not the same as hearing voices. There is no logical or natural reason aliens can't exist and believing in them isn't the issue. Hearing voices is the sign of an altered state or mental illness. Since I doubt he was tripping at 9, I'm going to go with mental illness.
If you believe show like Ancient Aliens, then I can see why your standard of proof is so low when it comes to FEH. It is an entertainment show. It isn't real.
I don't know who James Randi is. If he is a con-man, I wouldn't believe him. Then again, he literally has nothing to do with this. I'm saying your source has stated he hears and sees things that aren't actually there. He is not a reliable source and I do not believe him, nor should you. This is one of those posts you should have admitted you didn't do enough vetting on and let it go. We all make mistakes and post things that we later regret.
-
Seeing something you can't explain in the sky is not the same as hearing voices. There is no logical or natural reason aliens can't exist and believing in them isn't the issue. Hearing voices is the sign of an altered state or mental illness. Since I doubt he was tripping at 9, I'm going to go with mental illness.
Actually, a lot of children hear voices.
http://www.intervoiceonline.org/2577/young-people/parents/dont-panic-if-your-child-is-hearing-voices.html
First things first, From the research that we have carried out into the experience of adults and children who hear voices it has became apparent that:
- To hear voices is in itself is a normal though unusual experience
- However, it is possible that you can become ill as a result of hearing voices when you cannot cope with them
- For most children (60%) the voices will disappear over time as the child develops and as they learn to cope with the life’s problems (and the emotions and feelings involved with these problems) that led to the voices starting in the first place
It doesn't mean that he is a LIAR.
If you believe show like Ancient Aliens, then I can see why your standard of proof is so low when it comes to FEH. It is an entertainment show. It isn't real.
What do you mean it isn't real? Have you even watched it? They just point out mysteries such as why the ancients painted pictures of UFOs and had stories of chariots in the sky, and speculate on whether the pyramids were built with the help of such creatures. They don't LIE to us.
I don't know who James Randi is. If he is a con-man, I wouldn't believe him. Then again, he literally has nothing to do with this. I'm saying your source has stated he hears and sees things that aren't actually there. He is not a reliable source and I do not believe him, nor should you. This is one of those posts you should have admitted you didn't do enough vetting on and let it go. We all make mistakes and post things that we later regret.
Well, then I would suggest looking more into who James Randi and his society is if you are at all interested in the validity of alternative science.
-
I do know who James Randi is and it is disingenuous to say that he tricked and deceived people for a living. In fact he has spent a lot of time debunking those who do. Randi has spent much of his time debunking psychics and other flim flam and part of doing that is showing how he can reproduce their “abilities” using stage magic techniques. But when you go to see a magician you know that they are tricking you, that’s pretty much why you go. No one goes to a magic show thinking that the person performing has actual magical powers.
-
I do know who James Randi is and it is disingenuous to say that he tricked and deceived people for a living. In fact he has spent a lot of time debunking those who do. Randi has spent much of his time debunking psychics and other flim flam and part of doing that is showing how he can reproduce their “abilities” using stage magic techniques. But when you go to see a magician you know that they are tricking you, that’s pretty much why you go. No one goes to a magic show thinking that the person performing has actual magical powers.
That was pretty much my point. You can't cherry pick something about a person's past and say that it discredits them forever in the future.
This guy's past just involves an odd childhood experience he had, that got him interested in studying unexplained phenomena. It doesn't even have anything to do with deceit.
-
I generally did believe NASA and Co to be telling the truth. But when I saw some of the bubbles in space videos and sneaker prints on the moon pictures, then I didn't believe NASA as much.
Who's in the category of "and Co"? The other space agencies? Anyone else?
-
I generally did believe NASA and Co to be telling the truth. But when I saw some of the bubbles in space videos and sneaker prints on the moon pictures, then I didn't believe NASA as much.
Who's in the category of "and Co"? The other space agencies? Anyone else?
I'm still very curious about this. How does Tom determine who to listen to? Why listen to this Brazilian guy, for example, instead of deGrasse Tyson? Is the Japanese space agency trustworthy, but NASA and SpaceX aren't?
-
Seeing something you can't explain in the sky is not the same as hearing voices. There is no logical or natural reason aliens can't exist and believing in them isn't the issue. Hearing voices is the sign of an altered state or mental illness. Since I doubt he was tripping at 9, I'm going to go with mental illness.
Actually, a lot of children hear voices.
http://www.intervoiceonline.org/2577/young-people/parents/dont-panic-if-your-child-is-hearing-voices.html
First things first, From the research that we have carried out into the experience of adults and children who hear voices it has became apparent that:
- To hear voices is in itself is a normal though unusual experience
- However, it is possible that you can become ill as a result of hearing voices when you cannot cope with them
- For most children (60%) the voices will disappear over time as the child develops and as they learn to cope with the life’s problems (and the emotions and feelings involved with these problems) that led to the voices starting in the first place
It doesn't mean that he is a LIAR.
If you believe show like Ancient Aliens, then I can see why your standard of proof is so low when it comes to FEH. It is an entertainment show. It isn't real.
What do you mean it isn't real? Have you even watched it? They just point out mysteries such as why the ancients painted pictures of UFOs and had stories of chariots in the sky, and speculate on whether the pyramids were built with the help of such creatures. They don't LIE to us.
I don't know who James Randi is. If he is a con-man, I wouldn't believe him. Then again, he literally has nothing to do with this. I'm saying your source has stated he hears and sees things that aren't actually there. He is not a reliable source and I do not believe him, nor should you. This is one of those posts you should have admitted you didn't do enough vetting on and let it go. We all make mistakes and post things that we later regret.
Well, then I would suggest looking more into who James Randi and his society is if you are at all interested in the validity of alternative science.
The International Hearing Voices Network??? Does that also explain the interference he could cause on appliances or the cutlery that bent into his hands? I suppose you'll pull up some random site about that, too.
During his childhood, Urandir coexisted situations that went unnoticed, but that continued to happen during his adolescence, being his initiation in ufology . - "In the beginning they were voices, I heard them without knowing where they came from, it started at the age of nine. I also felt the presence of someone next to me, sometimes I saw some figures. "These events were repeated again throughout his childhood.
Over time, Urandir may realize that his emotional condition would also be capable of generating events, hitherto unexplained - "depending on my emotional state, when I came near an appliance, there was some interference, for example, in the tuning of the radio or television "reports. There were also the cutlery that bent into his hands, which helped him to realize that these facts only happened to him, since no one in the family could do the same. As these events were marking his life, Urandir always treated the facts with normality. "It was normal for me, it did not bother me," he says.
Yeah, every space faring nation is lying and all those satellite services are faked, but this guy, he is telling the truth. M'kay...
-
I generally did believe NASA and Co to be telling the truth. But when I saw some of the bubbles in space videos and sneaker prints on the moon pictures, then I didn't believe NASA as much.
Who's in the category of "and Co"? The other space agencies? Anyone else?
I'm still very curious about this. How does Tom determine who to listen to? Why listen to this Brazilian guy, for example, instead of deGrasse Tyson? Is the Japanese space agency trustworthy, but NASA and SpaceX aren't?
He has a very thought out method for determining who to listen to, it's a method known as confirmation bias. If someone says something he already thinks, they must be trustworthy.
It's a method we all have, but most of us are silly and try to suppress it.
-
He has a very thought out method for determining who to listen to, it's a method known as confirmation bias. If someone says something he already thinks, they must be trustworthy.
Pretty much summed up in this Wiki page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
So even though P2 is not backed up by any evidence, just declared to be true, they can dismiss the tsunami of evidence showing it to be wrong.
So there has been no actual response to Elon Musk's launch, no evidence that it was faked, for example.
But if the earth is flat and space travel must therefore be faked (not quite sure how those two things are connected, even if the earth were flat surely we could still develop the technology to leave it, but given that all space travel shows a globe earth it's declared to be fake) so the launch must have been faked somehow.
It's easy to prove oneself right about anything if one dismisses all the evidence showing one is wrong.
-
He has a very thought out method for determining who to listen to, it's a method known as confirmation bias. If someone says something he already thinks, they must be trustworthy.
Pretty much summed up in this Wiki page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
So even though P2 is not backed up by any evidence, just declared to be true, they can dismiss the tsunami of evidence showing it to be wrong.
So there has been no actual response to Elon Musk's launch, no evidence that it was faked, for example.
But if the earth is flat and space travel must therefore be faked (not quite sure how those two things are connected, even if the earth were flat surely we could still develop the technology to leave it, but given that all space travel shows a globe earth it's declared to be fake) so the launch must have been faked somehow.
It's easy to prove oneself right about anything if one dismisses all the evidence showing one is wrong.
It was always the attempted hijacking of the rational high ground by certain FE believers that really stuck in my throat.
So Tom, thank you for showing your hand, for finally giving me solid evidence that you are neither particularly rational nor scientific in your beliefs.
But even more than that, thanks for showing us that you will support and argue for even the most ludicrous of nonsense rather than admit to being wrong.
-
I generally did believe NASA and Co to be telling the truth. But when I saw some of the bubbles in space videos and sneaker prints on the moon pictures, then I didn't believe NASA as much.
Who's in the category of "and Co"? The other space agencies? Anyone else?
I'm still very curious about this. How does Tom determine who to listen to? Why listen to this Brazilian guy, for example, instead of deGrasse Tyson? Is the Japanese space agency trustworthy, but NASA and SpaceX aren't?
Its pretty simple. There is evidence that NASA is lying, but not evidence that this Brazilian guy is lying.
Per others like deGrasse Tyson, I don't call Tyson a liar. There is no evidence that he is a liar. I see what he has to say and address his points.
-
I generally did believe NASA and Co to be telling the truth. But when I saw some of the bubbles in space videos and sneaker prints on the moon pictures, then I didn't believe NASA as much.
Who's in the category of "and Co"? The other space agencies? Anyone else?
I'm still very curious about this. How does Tom determine who to listen to? Why listen to this Brazilian guy, for example, instead of deGrasse Tyson? Is the Japanese space agency trustworthy, but NASA and SpaceX aren't?
He has a very thought out method for determining who to listen to, it's a method known as confirmation bias. If someone says something he already thinks, they must be trustworthy.
It's a method we all have, but most of us are silly and try to suppress it.
Its a matter of honesty vs dishonesty. In order to discredit this Brazilian guy, you will need to produce evidence of him lying, like evidence has been produced against NASA.
So Tom, thank you for showing your hand, for finally giving me solid evidence that you are neither particularly rational nor scientific in your beliefs.
Because its sooo rational to trust the word of an organization which has produced fake content over the word of an organization which has not.
Because its sooo rational to discredit someone and brand them a LIAR because of an odd experience they had as a child.
THAT is irrational. Do you guys even listen to yourselves?
-
I generally did believe NASA and Co to be telling the truth. But when I saw some of the bubbles in space videos and sneaker prints on the moon pictures, then I didn't believe NASA as much.
Who's in the category of "and Co"? The other space agencies? Anyone else?
I'm still very curious about this. How does Tom determine who to listen to? Why listen to this Brazilian guy, for example, instead of deGrasse Tyson? Is the Japanese space agency trustworthy, but NASA and SpaceX aren't?
Its pretty simple. There is evidence that NASA is lying, but not evidence that this Brazilian guy is lying.
Per others like deGrasse Tyson, I don't call Tyson a liar. There is no evidence that he is a liar. I see what he has to say and address his points.
You're avoiding one: the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency. Have they been caught lying too?
-
You're avoiding one: the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency. Have they been caught lying too?
They don't publish a whole lot of content like NASA does, and there have been several critiques of their work online, but they claim that they got a lot of their technology from NASA and work jointly with them, so that puts them in the same circle.
-
I generally did believe NASA and Co to be telling the truth. But when I saw some of the bubbles in space videos and sneaker prints on the moon pictures, then I didn't believe NASA as much.
Who's in the category of "and Co"? The other space agencies? Anyone else?
I'm still very curious about this. How does Tom determine who to listen to? Why listen to this Brazilian guy, for example, instead of deGrasse Tyson? Is the Japanese space agency trustworthy, but NASA and SpaceX aren't?
He has a very thought out method for determining who to listen to, it's a method known as confirmation bias. If someone says something he already thinks, they must be trustworthy.
It's a method we all have, but most of us are silly and try to suppress it.
Its a matter of honesty vs dishonesty. In order to discredit this Brazilian guy, you will need to produce evidence of him lying, like evidence has been produced against NASA.
So Tom, thank you for showing your hand, for finally giving me solid evidence that you are neither particularly rational nor scientific in your beliefs.
Because its sooo rational to trust the word of an organization which has produced fake content over the word of an organization which has not.
Because its sooo rational to discredit someone and brand them a LIAR because of an odd experience they had as a child.
THAT is irrational. Do you guys even listen to yourselves?
I'm sorry Tom, but I will not debate fantasy.
Time traveling ancient astronaughts, ancient Egyptian artifacts that realign human cells, teleportation devices and ancient Bolivian flutes that can manipulate human brainwaves are fantasy.
This is deeply silly stuff and, again, I'm surprised your need to avoid admitting to an error in judgement is pushing you to associate Zeteticism and FE with them.
-
You're avoiding one: the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency. Have they been caught lying too?
They don't publish a whole lot of content like NASA does, and there have been several critiques of their work online, but they claim that they got their technology from NASA and work jointly with them, so that puts them in the same circle.
Ah yes, the old guilt by association fallacy in full effect. Just who were these 'critiques' by if I may ask? Anyone already biased against them due to prior 'critiques' against NASA? Or someone else? Don't forget the Himawari 8 sat. That's quite a bit of 'content' I would think.
-
I'm sorry Tom, but I will not debate fantasy.
Time traveling ancient astronaughts, ancient Egyptian artifacts that realign human cells, teleportation devices and ancient Bolivian flutes that can manipulate human brainwaves are fantasy.
This is deeply silly stuff and, again, I'm surprised your need to avoid admitting to an error in judgement is pushing you to associate Zeteticism and FE with them.
All musical instruments "manipulate brainwaves". Quantum teleportation does exist. Certain vibrations and resonances do affect cell cultures.
If you actually have anything that shows them to be LIARS let us know.
-
I generally did believe NASA and Co to be telling the truth. But when I saw some of the bubbles in space videos and sneaker prints on the moon pictures, then I didn't believe NASA as much.
Who's in the category of "and Co"? The other space agencies? Anyone else?
I'm still very curious about this. How does Tom determine who to listen to? Why listen to this Brazilian guy, for example, instead of deGrasse Tyson? Is the Japanese space agency trustworthy, but NASA and SpaceX aren't?
He has a very thought out method for determining who to listen to, it's a method known as confirmation bias. If someone says something he already thinks, they must be trustworthy.
It's a method we all have, but most of us are silly and try to suppress it.
Its a matter of honesty vs dishonesty. In order to discredit this Brazilian guy, you will need to produce evidence of him lying, like evidence has been produced against NASA.
So Tom, thank you for showing your hand, for finally giving me solid evidence that you are neither particularly rational nor scientific in your beliefs.
Because its sooo rational to trust the word of an organization which has produced fake content over the word of an organization which has not.
Because its sooo rational to discredit someone and brand them a LIAR because of an odd experience they had as a child.
THAT is irrational. Do you guys even listen to yourselves?
I'm sorry Tom, but I will not debate fantasy.
Time traveling ancient astronaughts, ancient Egyptian artifacts that realign human cells, teleportation devices and ancient Bolivian flutes that can manipulate human brainwaves are fantasy.
This is deeply silly stuff and, again, I'm surprised your need to avoid admitting to an error in judgement is pushing you to associate Zeteticism and FE with them.
All musical instruments "manipulate brainwaves". Quantum teleportation does exist. Certain vibrations and resonances do affect cell cultures.
If you actually have anything that shows them to be LIARS let us know.
I like the way you are changing their own wording in an attempt to make it sound less like utter nonsense.
You missed out ancient time traveling astronauts though. Or are you just going to say you couldn't find that one?
-
If you actually have anything that shows them to be LIARS let us know.
Same, but with JAXA.
-
I generally did believe NASA and Co to be telling the truth. But when I saw some of the bubbles in space videos and sneaker prints on the moon pictures, then I didn't believe NASA as much.
Who's in the category of "and Co"? The other space agencies? Anyone else?
I'm still very curious about this. How does Tom determine who to listen to? Why listen to this Brazilian guy, for example, instead of deGrasse Tyson? Is the Japanese space agency trustworthy, but NASA and SpaceX aren't?
He has a very thought out method for determining who to listen to, it's a method known as confirmation bias. If someone says something he already thinks, they must be trustworthy.
It's a method we all have, but most of us are silly and try to suppress it.
Its a matter of honesty vs dishonesty. In order to discredit this Brazilian guy, you will need to produce evidence of him lying, like evidence has been produced against NASA.
So Tom, thank you for showing your hand, for finally giving me solid evidence that you are neither particularly rational nor scientific in your beliefs.
Because its sooo rational to trust the word of an organization which has produced fake content over the word of an organization which has not.
Because its sooo rational to discredit someone and brand them a LIAR because of an odd experience they had as a child.
THAT is irrational. Do you guys even listen to yourselves?
I'm not calling him a liar, I am pointing out that he likely mentally ill. People who hallucinate are not lying, their reality is valid to them. They are, however, not RELIABLE to tell us the true nature of things.
From their convex Earth docu they said they launched atmospheric probes with: "iridium tracking HD cameras with gravitational lenses and infrared and ultraviolet filters." So yeah...this is basically just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Let's start with iridium. It is a rare heavy metal that exist almost exclusive in the crust. There is some in the atmosphere, mostly deposited by meteorites. It is in tiny amounts and not something you can track with an HD camera. I guess you could say they are tracking iridium satellites, but that doesn't make sense/doesn't fit with a FE/not what they said. Second, gravitational lenses???? Sounds like they heard about relativistic lensing and didn't realize it was an effect of gravity and not something you can put on your camera.
So are they lying or just idiots?
-
I like the way you are changing their own wording in an attempt to make it sound less like utter nonsense.
You missed out ancient time traveling astronauts though. Or are you just going to say you couldn't find that one?
A lot of people think that the ancients were depicting UFOs in their artwork. Speculating on such is not a "lie".
I'm not calling him a liar, I am pointing out that he likely mentally ill. People who hallucinate are not lying, their reality is valid to them. They are, however, not RELIABLE to tell us the true nature of things.
The news article I posted on page one says that all of the experiments had participation of engineers and professionals at different institutes. Are you expecting us to believe that he spread his "hallucinations" to other people too?
From their convex Earth docu they said they launched atmospheric probes with: "iridium tracking HD cameras with gravitational lenses and infrared and ultraviolet filters." So yeah...this is basically just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Let's start with iridium. It is a rare heavy metal that exist almost exclusive in the crust. There is some in the atmosphere, mostly deposited by meteorites. It is in tiny amounts and not something you can track with an HD camera. I guess you could say they are tracking iridium satellites, but that doesn't make sense/doesn't fit with a FE/not what they said. Second, gravitational lenses???? Sounds like they heard about relativistic lensing and didn't realize it was an effect of gravity and not something you can put on your camera.
So are they lying or just idiots?
You do realize that there are some translation errors in this, right? We will have to see more about this before picking out a word and trying to determine its context.
-
I like the way you are changing their own wording in an attempt to make it sound less like utter nonsense.
You missed out ancient time traveling astronauts though. Or are you just going to say you couldn't find that one?
A lot of people think that the ancients were depicting UFOs in their artwork. Speculating on such is not a "lie".
I'm not calling him a liar, I am pointing out that he likely mentally ill. People who hallucinate are not lying, their reality is valid to them. They are, however, not RELIABLE to tell us the true nature of things.
The news article I posted on page one says that all of the experiments had participation of engineers and professionals at different institutes. Are you expecting us to believe that he spread his "hallucinations" to other people too?
From their convex Earth docu they said they launched atmospheric probes with: "iridium tracking HD cameras with gravitational lenses and infrared and ultraviolet filters." So yeah...this is basically just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Let's start with iridium. It is a rare heavy metal that exist almost exclusive in the crust. There is some in the atmosphere, mostly deposited by meteorites. It is in tiny amounts and not something you can track with an HD camera. I guess you could say they are tracking iridium satellites, but that doesn't make sense/doesn't fit with a FE/not what they said. Second, gravitational lenses???? Sounds like they heard about relativistic lensing and didn't realize it was an effect of gravity and not something you can put on your camera.
So are they lying or just idiots?
You do realize that there are some translation errors in this, right? We will have to see more about this before picking out a word and trying to determine its context.
I love it Tom, I'm genuinely unsure whether or not your responses are parody now.
Ancient time traveling astronauts... Amazing.
-
The news article I posted on page one says that all of the experiments had participation of engineers and professionals at different institutes. Are you expecting us to believe that he spread his "hallucinations" to other people too?
No, I think they are a bunch of pseudo-scientists tricking the gullible. It is laughable that you're still standing behind this stuff. This and your claims that scientists just accept blindly what came before says a lot about you. I'll leave it to the reader to interpret what that may be.
You do realize that there are some translation errors in this, right? We will have to see more about this before picking out a word and trying to determine its context.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. You are making a claim that there are translation errors. Prove it. Even a bad translation wouldn't have iridium tracking and gravitational lens mixed up. And frankly, what do iridium and gravity have to do with it anyway? (which is why I don't believe it is a translation error)
You say things like we don't know distances between cities and that aircraft designers don't know how fast their planes fly, but you pass this off as something worth our time? lulz, good one.
-
I like the way you are changing their own wording in an attempt to make it sound less like utter nonsense.
You missed out ancient time traveling astronauts though. Or are you just going to say you couldn't find that one?
A lot of people think that the ancients were depicting UFOs in their artwork. Speculating on such is not a "lie".
I'm not calling him a liar, I am pointing out that he likely mentally ill. People who hallucinate are not lying, their reality is valid to them. They are, however, not RELIABLE to tell us the true nature of things.
The news article I posted on page one says that all of the experiments had participation of engineers and professionals at different institutes. Are you expecting us to believe that he spread his "hallucinations" to other people too?
From their convex Earth docu they said they launched atmospheric probes with: "iridium tracking HD cameras with gravitational lenses and infrared and ultraviolet filters." So yeah...this is basically just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Let's start with iridium. It is a rare heavy metal that exist almost exclusive in the crust. There is some in the atmosphere, mostly deposited by meteorites. It is in tiny amounts and not something you can track with an HD camera. I guess you could say they are tracking iridium satellites, but that doesn't make sense/doesn't fit with a FE/not what they said. Second, gravitational lenses???? Sounds like they heard about relativistic lensing and didn't realize it was an effect of gravity and not something you can put on your camera.
So are they lying or just idiots?
You do realize that there are some translation errors in this, right? We will have to see more about this before picking out a word and trying to determine its context.
Heaven forbid anyone thinks I'm calling the co-founder of your merry band of 'scientists' a liar :
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.ufo.com.br/artigos/urandir-fernandes-de-oliveira-do-charlatanismo-ao-estelionato/&xid=17259,15700022,15700105,15700124,15700126,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700186,15700201&usg=ALkJrhjzut3Zfxpyo0Ew6GU1d-mffsf8Zg
I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. It is translated after all... And from a UFO site... But you don't mind that as we already know.
http://rense.com/general32/abac.htm
And who knows who wrote this... Obviously round earthers conspiring to make this poor chap appear to be lying scum.
-
You know, for a documentary that hasn't even been published or broadcast yet, there's a whole lot of Team Hoaxers over on YouTube happy to sing its praises already....
-
The guy appears to be a convicted con man, but apparently to an FE'er that's still more trustworthy than some round earth shill getting paid to popularize science 🙄
Yet we are the ones that need to research the facts.
-
I love it Tom, I'm genuinely unsure whether or not your responses are parody now.
Ancient time traveling astronauts... Amazing.
There is art that is thousands of years old depicting what appears to be saucer shaped ufos abducting people with tractor beams. What is wrong with speculating on what those people were trying to depict?
Can no one say "that looks like what we think of a UFO" without being discredited as a looney?
No, I think they are a bunch of pseudo-scientists tricking the gullible. It is laughable that you're still standing behind this stuff. This and your claims that scientists just accept blindly what came before says a lot about you. I'll leave it to the reader to interpret what that may be.
From the news article on page one:
"In order to carry out the geodesic experiment, the base and the top of two buildings were measured, one in Torres, Rio Grande do Sul, and the other in Natal, Rio Grande do Norte. Engineers at the National Institute of Land Settlement and Agrarian Reform (INCRA - Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária) took part in these activities."
It says that engineers were involved from national institutes. Did he convince them to lie too?
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. You are making a claim that there are translation errors. Prove it. Even a bad translation wouldn't have iridium tracking and gravitational lens mixed up. And frankly, what do iridium and gravity have to do with it anyway? (which is why I don't believe it is a translation error)
Iridium satellite tracking/communication devices are a real thing. "Gravitational lenses" are not a thing to equip a dirigible with, but I suspect that may be a translation error. Some of those high altitude telescopes do perform gravitational lensing research, and some of those sentences in that clip seem to suggest that study of stellar phenomena is involved in this documentary. It is more reasonable to wait until we have more information before jumping to conclusions based on a single word.
-
Heaven forbid anyone thinks I'm calling the co-founder of your merry band of 'scientists' a liar :
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.ufo.com.br/artigos/urandir-fernandes-de-oliveira-do-charlatanismo-ao-estelionato/&xid=17259,15700022,15700105,15700124,15700126,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700186,15700201&usg=ALkJrhjzut3Zfxpyo0Ew6GU1d-mffsf8Zg
I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. It is translated after all... And from a UFO site... But you don't mind that as we already know.
http://rense.com/general32/abac.htm
And who knows who wrote this... Obviously round earthers conspiring to make this poor chap appear to be lying scum.
If these allegations are true, then it does discredit this Brazilian guy. A history of lies and chicanery impeaches his work on any honest investigation.
However, since the claims and allegations seem only to come from a rival UFO organization, with which he had some kind of ongoing feud, I will withhold judgement on his character until I can find something further to corroborate their claims.
http://en.ufobr.com.br/urandir/controversy-about-the-prison-urandir-hes-innocent
Here we present evidence that shows the innocence of Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira, and his arrest in Porto Alegre. For those unaware Urandir suffers persecution by an offensive line of a Brazilian UFO, which spares no efforts to discredit Urandir. One of the issues that most concern are allegations that undue harassment of irregular sales of land to farm his property in Mato Grosso do Sul Below, a document issued by the Public Prosecutor of RS on September 11, 2000, issued two days after the unfair Urandir arrest in 2000, proving that there was nothing illegal in Urandir activity. Even with this, Brazilian ufologists still made and make further charges against Urandir and insistent, using this fact without showing the evidence that we bring here
-
Heaven forbid anyone thinks I'm calling the co-founder of your merry band of 'scientists' a liar :
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.ufo.com.br/artigos/urandir-fernandes-de-oliveira-do-charlatanismo-ao-estelionato/&xid=17259,15700022,15700105,15700124,15700126,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700186,15700201&usg=ALkJrhjzut3Zfxpyo0Ew6GU1d-mffsf8Zg
I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. It is translated after all... And from a UFO site... But you don't mind that as we already know.
http://rense.com/general32/abac.htm
And who knows who wrote this... Obviously round earthers conspiring to make this poor chap appear to be lying scum.
If these allegations are true, then it does discredit this Brazilian guy. A history of lies and chicanery impeaches his work on any honest investigation.
However, since the claims and allegations seem only to come from a rival UFO organization, with which he had some kind of ongoing feud, I will withhold judgement on his character until I can find something further to corroborate their claims.
http://en.ufobr.com.br/urandir/controversy-about-the-prison-urandir-hes-innocent
Here we present evidence that shows the innocence of Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira, and his arrest in Porto Alegre. For those unaware Urandir suffers persecution by an offensive line of a Brazilian UFO, which spares no efforts to discredit Urandir. One of the issues that most concern are allegations that undue harassment of irregular sales of land to farm his property in Mato Grosso do Sul Below, a document issued by the Public Prosecutor of RS on September 11, 2000, issued two days after the unfair Urandir arrest in 2000, proving that there was nothing illegal in Urandir activity. Even with this, Brazilian ufologists still made and make further charges against Urandir and insistent, using this fact without showing the evidence that we bring here
Sorry Tom, but there are multiple reports on various sites of his shady dealings.
Your one article announcing his innocents and persecution is a news site run by Urandir media, his own site.
-
Sorry Tom, but there are multiple reports on various sites of his shady dealings.
Your one article announcing his innocents and persecution is a news site run by Urandir media, his own site.
How is it multiple reports from multiple sources?
The first site you provided is a nasty posting on the the rival ufo.com.br website. The second website you provided publishes nasty emails sent from people with the rival @ufo.com.br email address. It appears that these allegations are coming from one source. A source that happens to be his rival competitor.
-
Sorry Tom, but there are multiple reports on various sites of his shady dealings.
Your one article announcing his innocents and persecution is a news site run by Urandir media, his own site.
How is it multiple reports from multiple sources?
The first site you provided is a nasty posting on the the rival ufo.com.br website. The second website you provided publishes nasty emails sent from people with the rival @ufo.com.br email address. It appears that these allegations are coming from one source. A source that happens to be his rival competitor.
Or we could just judge him by his own videos. Astound as he twists a fork and rips a coin in two. This isn't even main stage stuff at a freak show. He's a hack making money off the gullible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKz7wvXRdeE
-
So? James Randi has performed similar feats. There are Youtube videos online that teach you how to rip a coin in half. Its all about focusing on tension points.
This guy has several videos online in which he is trying to demonstrate and explain the workings of numerous phenomena.
-
So? James Randi has performed similar feats. There are Youtube videos online that teach you how to rip a coin in half. Its all about focusing on tension points.
This guy has several videos online in which he is trying to demonstrate and explain the workings of numerous phenomena.
Come on! Stop being so dishonest. You know full well that when James Randi does it he is doing it to debunk things like this.
He is showing how stage magic techniques can be used to get the same effects that people who claim to have "powers" do.
Randi's point is that these people do not have powers, they are con artists.
Randi is not claiming to have any "powers", he is explicitly saying he does not.
Compare and contrast with that YouTube video where he is clearly claiming to have powers - look at the translation of the description and the title of the video.
-
He's a hack making money off the gullible.
Or a "plant" designed to bring ridicule to the FE movement.
Most of the FEers I know are highly suspicious regarding this project.
However I agree with Tom that we should give people the benefit of the doubt.
But right now, with this new character info surfacing, its not looking good.
-
Come on! Stop being so dishonest. You know full well that when James Randi does it he is doing it to debunk things like this.
He is showing how stage magic techniques can be used to get the same effects that people who claim to have "powers" do.
Randi's point is that these people do not have powers, they are con artists.
Randi is not claiming to have any "powers", he is explicitly saying he does not.
This guy says that it is incredible what you can do when you focus. With the help of a clear mind you can do many things. I don't necessarily disagree with him that it takes power of the mind to focus and rip a coin in half. Do you?
Are you aware that every Martial Arts studio in the country attributes the feats of its students and instructors to the power of the mind?
-
Dude. The title of the video literally has the word "Paranormal" in it.
It's pretty clear he is claiming something a bit more than "focus".
It's this sort of thing Randi actively debunks so to cite him in defence of it is pretty audacious.
-
Dude. The title of the video literally has the word "Paranormal" in it.
It's pretty clear he is claiming something a bit more than "focus".
It's this sort of thing Randi actively debunks so to cite him in defence of it is pretty audacious.
Ripping a coin in half with your bare hands is a seemingly paranormal thing. I'm not surprised that some people on Youtube would describe it as such. However, if you read his materials, he does say it's it power of focus of the mind. He says that he was inspired by Uri Geller, who bent forks on television and attributed the effect to positive thinking.
I've seen similar feats attributed to the power of focus and clear/positive thinking. Its not really that offensive of an explanation. It probably does take a lot of focus and clear thinking to perform the feats seen in things like martial arts/object bending.
From his website: http://en.ufobr.com.br/urandir/urandir-his-adolescence
The power of the mind has been well researched. When used with balance is a source of security, existential sense of deep self-image and magnetizing. The mind is compared to a virgin forest: who dominates it penetrates it.
One day, at age thirteen, while having lunch, Urandir noticed that his fork was bent and bruised lips. Not satisfied, he threw it on the floor. Immediately thereafter, raking the fork, it continued to bend over and over, until it breaks. This happened at the exact moment when Uri Gueller appeared in a television program bending a fork. He was in action the power of positive thinking, acting on the fork. Amazed, the idea arose in a light that cranky boy did cry out for satisfaction:
Ah! That’s what I do! …
It was the moment when everything became clear to Urandir. Combining the facts, understand that through positive thinking, could manipulate matter and interact with something unusual. Everything became easier.
Positive thinking, clear mind, and focus makes difficult tasks become easier. Is that really so magical?
He doesn't say "this is magic!" He is providing a demonstration of a seemingly odd occurrence and giving an explanation -- the same explanation that martial artists use when they perform feats.
Are martial artists charlatans too?
-
Dude. The title of the video literally has the word "Paranormal" in it.
It's pretty clear he is claiming something a bit more than "focus".
It's this sort of thing Randi actively debunks so to cite him in defence of it is pretty audacious.
Ripping a coin in half with your bare hands is a seemingly paranormal thing. I'm not surprised that some people on Youtube would describe it as such. However, if you read his materials, he does say it's it power of focus of the mind. He says that he was inspired by Uri Geller, who bent forks on television and attributed the effect to positive thinking.
I've seen similar feats attributed to the power of focus and clear/positive thinking. Its not really that offensive of an explanation. It probably does take a lot of focus and clear thinking to perform the feats seen in things like martial arts/object bending.
From his website: http://en.ufobr.com.br/urandir/urandir-his-adolescence
The power of the mind has been well researched. When used with balance is a source of security, existential sense of deep self-image and magnetizing. The mind is compared to a virgin forest: who dominates it penetrates it.
One day, at age thirteen, while having lunch, Urandir noticed that his fork was bent and bruised lips. Not satisfied, he threw it on the floor. Immediately thereafter, raking the fork, it continued to bend over and over, until it breaks. This happened at the exact moment when Uri Gueller appeared in a television program bending a fork. He was in action the power of positive thinking, acting on the fork. Amazed, the idea arose in a light that cranky boy did cry out for satisfaction:
Ah! That’s what I do! …
It was the moment when everything became clear to Urandir. Combining the facts, understand that through positive thinking, could manipulate matter and interact with something unusual. Everything became easier.
Positive thinking, clear mind, and focus makes difficult tasks become easier. Is that really so magical?
He doesn't say "this is magic!" He is providing a demonstration of a seemingly odd occurrence and giving an explanation -- the same explanation that martial artists use when they perform feats.
Are martial artists charlatans too?
Ripping a coin in half does not require focus. It is a trick.
-
If you are going to call this man a charlatan for bending forks and coins and attributing it to the power of focus of the mind and positive thinking, then you may as well call martial artists charlatans.
-
Ripping a coin in half with your bare hands is a seemingly paranormal thing. I'm not surprised that some people on Youtube would describe it as such. However, if you read his materials, he does say it's it power of focus of the mind. He says that he was inspired by Uri Geller, who bent forks on television and attributed the effect to positive thinking.
I've seen similar feats attributed to the power of focus and clear/positive thinking. Its not really that offensive of an explanation. It probably does take a lot of focus and clear thinking to perform the feats seen in things like martial arts/object bending.
Wait - you think these parlor tricks are real?? Uri Geller couldn't do shit with his mind other than think of ways to con people out of money. Yes, focus is highly important and some people can do seemingly amazing things, but none of it involves telekinesis or other paranormal bs. It is generally years of practice or a gimmick. Give me spoon made out of the right metal, and I'll melt that sucker with my bare hands. No skill or mental powers needed. Just a very basic knowledge of chemistry.
If you are going to call this man a charlatan for bending forks and coins and attributing it to the power of focus of the mind and positive thinking, then you may as well call martial artists charlatans.
Not even remotely the same thing. And, to be honest, there is a fair amount of trickery in martial arts.
-
The premise is that the demonstrator is using focus and positive thinking to make difficult tasks easier. Come on. That's not magic paranormal bs. That's exactly the mantra behind many martial arts and self-help philosophies. It's not a magical explanation.
Have you never used those tactics of focus and positive thinking to study in school or take a test?
The demonstrator does not use "this is magic" as the explanation. The philosophy behind his organization is, as you recall, to find explanations for what people think of as paranormal. He demonstrated and explained. I am satisfied.
-
The premise is that the demonstrator is using focus and positive thinking to make difficult tasks easier. Come on. That's not magic paranormal bs. That's exactly the mantra behind many martial arts and self-help philosophies. It's not a magical explanation.
Have you never used those tactics of focus and positive thinking to study in school or take a test?
The demonstrator does not use "this is magic" as the explanation. The philosophy behind his organization is, as you recall, to find explanations for what people think of as paranormal. He demonstrated and explained. I am satisfied.
Of course you are satisfied. He was flat Earthy, so he was good to go from the start. Do me a favor Tom and twist a fork up like that with positive thinking. LOL, so ridiculous. Also, the guy is claiming he got these "powers" from the alien visits, not just being mentally focused.
Riddle me this, can positive thinking cause a glass plate to explode? It can if you're a fraud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z80svWLa3es
-
If you are going to call this man a charlatan for bending forks and coins and attributing it to the power of focus of the mind and positive thinking, then you may as well call martial artists charlatans.
He isn't bending or ripping these objects through focus or the power of his mind. They are tricks that require naught but the proper setup and a gullible audience.
-
The premise is that the demonstrator is using focus and positive thinking to make difficult tasks easier. Come on. That's not magic paranormal bs. That's exactly the mantra behind many martial arts and self-help philosophies. It's not a magical explanation.
Have you never used those tactics of focus and positive thinking to study in school or take a test?
The demonstrator does not use "this is magic" as the explanation. The philosophy behind his organization is, as you recall, to find explanations for what people think of as paranormal. He demonstrated and explained. I am satisfied.
Of course you are satisfied. He was flat Earthy, so he was good to go from the start. Do me a favor Tom and twist a fork up like that with positive thinking. LOL, so ridiculous. Also, the guy is claiming he got these "powers" from the alien visits, not just being mentally focused.
Riddle me this, can positive thinking cause a glass plate to explode? It can if you're a fraud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z80svWLa3es (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z80svWLa3es)
What is the context of that video?
Should I post some videos of James Randi's tricks and snip out his explanations behind them? Is that what we are doing here?
-
The premise is that the demonstrator is using focus and positive thinking to make difficult tasks easier. Come on. That's not magic paranormal bs. That's exactly the mantra behind many martial arts and self-help philosophies. It's not a magical explanation.
Have you never used those tactics of focus and positive thinking to study in school or take a test?
The demonstrator does not use "this is magic" as the explanation. The philosophy behind his organization is, as you recall, to find explanations for what people think of as paranormal. He demonstrated and explained. I am satisfied.
Of course you are satisfied. He was flat Earthy, so he was good to go from the start. Do me a favor Tom and twist a fork up like that with positive thinking. LOL, so ridiculous. Also, the guy is claiming he got these "powers" from the alien visits, not just being mentally focused.
Riddle me this, can positive thinking cause a glass plate to explode? It can if you're a fraud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z80svWLa3es (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z80svWLa3es)
What is the context of that video?
Should I post some videos of James Randi's tricks and snip out his explanations behind them? Is that what we are doing here?
I thought his explanation is that he was given powers by aliens?
Basically this is exactly the kind of fellow that James Randi works to disprove.
-
If this guy is really claiming to have paranormal or magical powers, then I agree. He is a charlatan.
However, that is not what he is claiming in some of his translated texts. He is claiming to be able to explain what many people attribute to paranormal and ufology. I don't know what the context is behind some of these videos, or their purpose. I don't know Portuguese.
-
If this guy is really claiming to have paranormal or magical powers, then I agree. He is a charlatan.
However, that is not what he is claiming in some of his translated texts. He is claiming to be able to explain what many people attribute to paranormal and ufology. I don't know what the context is behind some of these videos, or their purpose. I don't know Portuguese.
I don't either, despite spending some time in Brazil. We are in the same boat there.
So -- how is it we are supposed to believe this guy as opposed to something like JAXA or someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson?
-
If this guy is really claiming to have paranormal or magical powers, then I agree. He is a charlatan.
However, that is not what he is claiming in some of his translated texts. He is claiming to be able to explain what many people attribute to paranormal and ufology. I don't know what the context is behind some of these videos, or their purpose. I don't know Portuguese.
"Urandir shows how he works with his mental power affecting objects."
Seems pretty straightforward.
He thinks he has supernatural powers.
"From the age of eighteen I began to perform paranormal spectacles for people, but the beings in the form of light told me that this energy should not be used for exhibitionism and that I should find out what its purpose is. At twenty-three, another "chance", another discovery. I found in a street two people who had been run over and had broken bones. I felt an urge to touch them and so I did, the pains were diminishing until they ceased altogether. On this day I understood that I could and should use my energy for the benefit of others. "
Can we all finally agree he is a charlatan?
-
Gullible AND disingenuous in one package.
Still supporting this guy and ignoring all the evidence that runs contrary to what you already thought Tom?
This is really silly and your inability to simply admit to being wrong is actually starting to get a bit weird.
Our friend Urandir claims an extraterrestrial entity known as Bilu visits him and gives him his powers and insights. Bilu has come to him for years. Recently Bilu came to him and told him about the shape of the earth ( I wonder if Bilu used the words 'research flat earth bro').
These are Urandirs claims, no-one else's.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://www.urandirfernandes.com.br/bilu-o-et-brasileiro/bilu-explica-o-formato-da-terra&xid=17259,15700022,15700105,15700124,15700126,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700186,15700201&usg=ALkJrhhrYOwNKmdZMWEmDWAhyfD5ZLU3wA
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://www.urandirufo.com.br/categoria/bilu-o-et-brasileiro&xid=17259,15700022,15700105,15700124,15700126,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700186,15700201&usg=ALkJrhhdpLqzVkZdcFQ-hsTDnr4Tn7EFcw
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=754554607895186&substory_index=0&id=191762544174398
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10201476980519423&id=191762544174398
-
Isn't it strange that the forthcoming documentary purports to relate to "convex earth", yet not a single flat-earther has stepped forward to say, unequivocally; "It can't be convex if it's flat" .....?
Aren't the two mutually exclusive?
-
He says that he was inspired by Uri Geller, who bent forks on television and attributed the effect to positive thinking.
Yes, Uri Geller is another person who Randi seeks to debunk.
He claims to do things using "the power of the mind" when actually he is a TV magician.
The only difference between Uri Geller and this bloke and Randi is that Randi admits he is a magician, Geller pretends to be able to do these things because he has "powers".
If David Copperfield wasn't a stage magician and claimed to have "powers" you'd probably believe he could really fly...
-
He says that he was inspired by Uri Geller, who bent forks on television and attributed the effect to positive thinking.
Yes, Uri Geller is another person who Randi seeks to debunk.
He claims to do things using "the power of the mind" when actually he is a TV magician.
The only difference between Uri Geller and this bloke and Randi is that Randi admits he is a magician, Geller pretends to be able to do these things because he has "powers".
If David Copperfield wasn't a stage magician and claimed to have "powers" you'd probably believe he could really fly...
Geller was Randi's main target for much of his career. I believe he wrote a book about him, actually
-
Gullible AND disingenuous in one package.
Still supporting this guy and ignoring all the evidence that runs contrary to what you already thought Tom?
This is really silly and your inability to simply admit to being wrong is actually starting to get a bit weird.
Our friend Urandir claims an extraterrestrial entity known as Bilu visits him and gives him his powers and insights. Bilu has come to him for years. Recently Bilu came to him and told him about the shape of the earth ( I wonder if Bilu used the words 'research flat earth bro').
These are Urandirs claims, no-one else's.
It doesn't sound much different than my local preacher who believes that he was spoken to by angels.
He says that he was inspired by Uri Geller, who bent forks on television and attributed the effect to positive thinking.
Yes, Uri Geller is another person who Randi seeks to debunk.
He claims to do things using "the power of the mind" when actually he is a TV magician.
The only difference between Uri Geller and this bloke and Randi is that Randi admits he is a magician, Geller pretends to be able to do these things because he has "powers".
If David Copperfield wasn't a stage magician and claimed to have "powers" you'd probably believe he could really fly...
Randi claimed for many years that what he was doing was "magic". His former career was a professional magician, remember?
-
Gullible AND disingenuous in one package.
Still supporting this guy and ignoring all the evidence that runs contrary to what you already thought Tom?
This is really silly and your inability to simply admit to being wrong is actually starting to get a bit weird.
Our friend Urandir claims an extraterrestrial entity known as Bilu visits him and gives him his powers and insights. Bilu has come to him for years. Recently Bilu came to him and told him about the shape of the earth ( I wonder if Bilu used the words 'research flat earth bro').
These are Urandirs claims, no-one else's.
It doesn't sound much different than my local preacher who believes that he was spoken to by angels.
He says that he was inspired by Uri Geller, who bent forks on television and attributed the effect to positive thinking.
Yes, Uri Geller is another person who Randi seeks to debunk.
He claims to do things using "the power of the mind" when actually he is a TV magician.
The only difference between Uri Geller and this bloke and Randi is that Randi admits he is a magician, Geller pretends to be able to do these things because he has "powers".
If David Copperfield wasn't a stage magician and claimed to have "powers" you'd probably believe he could really fly...
Randi claimed for many years that what he was doing was "magic". His former career was a professional magician, remember?
Randi never claimed that he had "powers" or anything of the sort. In fact, he was routinely accused of having "psychic powers" despite him being extremely clear that everything he does is through trickery.
-
He says that he was inspired by Uri Geller, who bent forks on television and attributed the effect to positive thinking.
Yes, Uri Geller is another person who Randi seeks to debunk.
He claims to do things using "the power of the mind" when actually he is a TV magician.
The only difference between Uri Geller and this bloke and Randi is that Randi admits he is a magician, Geller pretends to be able to do these things because he has "powers".
If David Copperfield wasn't a stage magician and claimed to have "powers" you'd probably believe he could really fly...
Randi claimed for many years that what he was doing was "magic". His former career was a professional magician, remember?
Here's one of those moments where I wonder if you understand what a social construct/agreement is. Everyone knows/understands that stage magicians are not actually doing what they appear to be doing. That there is some trickery involved, that you may or may not be able to see or notice. But does this necessitate not being amazed at what they can do? Does this make it impossible to allow one to suspend disbelief for an evening, to allow yourself to pretend magic really does exist and these guys are doing it? The stage magician says he's doing magic for many reasons, in part as a way to allow people to engage their suspension of disbelief, in part to lend an air of mystery to such shows. But the people buying tickets still understand what he's doing isn't supernatural. It's skill and practice, trickery and misdirection. This is not the same thing as proclaiming you're supernaturally gifted and doing things to prove your gifts. There is no social contract here where the audience is intuitively informed they're watching tricks. These are attempts to prey upon the gullible. The fact that you either don't seem to understand the difference, or are purposely ignoring it to attempt to peddle your own ideas portrays you as a charlatan as well. You have not once appeared to even entertain the idea you may have made a mistake with this 'evidence' you've presented. I have no doubt that if this man were talking about the Earth being round you would have long ago dismissed him based on what's been presented. You've dismissed other sources for far less.
-
Ohh, I get it.
If I pay The Amazing Randi to perform some feats for me, which he explains with as "magic", its a social contract. But if I pay one of the people he doesn't like all that much to perform some feats, which they describe as "magic", they are frauds. Got it!
-
Gullible AND disingenuous in one package.
Still supporting this guy and ignoring all the evidence that runs contrary to what you already thought Tom?
This is really silly and your inability to simply admit to being wrong is actually starting to get a bit weird.
Our friend Urandir claims an extraterrestrial entity known as Bilu visits him and gives him his powers and insights. Bilu has come to him for years. Recently Bilu came to him and told him about the shape of the earth ( I wonder if Bilu used the words 'research flat earth bro').
These are Urandirs claims, no-one else's.
It doesn't sound much different than my local preacher who believes that he was spoken to by angels.
He says that he was inspired by Uri Geller, who bent forks on television and attributed the effect to positive thinking.
Yes, Uri Geller is another person who Randi seeks to debunk.
He claims to do things using "the power of the mind" when actually he is a TV magician.
The only difference between Uri Geller and this bloke and Randi is that Randi admits he is a magician, Geller pretends to be able to do these things because he has "powers".
If David Copperfield wasn't a stage magician and claimed to have "powers" you'd probably believe he could really fly...
Randi claimed for many years that what he was doing was "magic". His former career was a professional magician, remember?
Let's all just go join Scientology why don't we... If I'm going to pick a recently made up pile of BS to believe it may as well be one that's celebrity endorsed.
-
Ohh, I get it.
If I pay The Amazing Randi to perform some feats for me, which he explains with as "magic", its a social contract. But if I pay one of the people he doesn't like all that much to perform some feats, which they describe as "magic", they are frauds. Got it!
I actually think we should leave this alone now. The nonsense is actually starting to get strangely creepy.
-
Ohh, I get it.
If I pay The Amazing Randi to perform some feats for me, which he explains with as "magic", its a social contract. But if I pay one of the people he doesn't like all that much to perform some feats, which they describe as "magic", they are frauds. Got it!
As mentioned already, Randi is extremely open to letting people know that his "magic" is simply trickery. I am not sure how you can claim to compare him to someone like Geller.
"According to James Alcock, at a meeting where Randi was duplicating the performances of Uri Geller, a professor from the University at Buffalo shouted out that Randi was a fraud. Randi said: "Yes, indeed, I'm a trickster, I'm a cheat, I'm a charlatan, that's what I do for a living. Everything I've done here was by trickery."
-
Ohh, I get it.
If I pay The Amazing Randi to perform some feats for me, which he explains with as "magic", its a social contract. But if I pay one of the people he doesn't like all that much to perform some feats, which they describe as "magic", they are frauds. Got it!
I...wow. It amazes me that you can twist words that badly, and seem actually sincere about your point. Edgar seems to have the right idea here, there doesn't appear to be any purpose in pursuing this with you, as you either have no desire to actually attempt to understand the differences, or you're simply in it for the lulz at this point.
As for the topic, I suppose we'll have to see who allows their names to be posted alongside this video. I think that should be rather telling of some things, and if possible give some avenues of people to discuss how the video creators present and discuss things within the video. See if things are accurate from their perspective, and if they agree with his conclusions.
-
Ohh, I get it.
It's funny how you started a post this way and then went on to demonstrate that you don't get it at all.
Except I expect you do really, you're just on the wind up.
If you go and see a "magician" you understand, unless you a complete imbecile, that the person on stage is tricking you.
Most people understand that the Harry Potter films are not hard hitting documentaries. Magic isn't real.
So you go, you're entertained, you maybe guess how some of the tricks are done, some you can't work out. A good time is had by all.
But you don't go home believing the person has "powers" unless you are stupid, you understand that some trickery is involved.
Only a child would think that the person had some "powers". The magician is not claiming to have any.
If you go and see a "psychic "though then
a) You're an idiot
b) You are doing so because you believe they actually have some "powers". That is what the person is claiming. But they don't have powers, they are using cold reading techniques and other things to con people, often people in this scenario who are vulnerable and desperately hoping to hear from departed loved ones. It's exploitative.
The first person is tricking you but you know they are, the second person is tricking you but you don't know they are.
Is this really such a hard distinction to understand?
-
Ohh, I get it.
If I pay The Amazing Randi to perform some feats for me, which he explains with as "magic", its a social contract. But if I pay one of the people he doesn't like all that much to perform some feats, which they describe as "magic", they are frauds. Got it!
As mentioned already, Randi is extremely open to letting people know that his "magic" is simply trickery. I am not sure how you can claim to compare him to someone like Geller.
"According to James Alcock, at a meeting where Randi was duplicating the performances of Uri Geller, a professor from the University at Buffalo shouted out that Randi was a fraud. Randi said: "Yes, indeed, I'm a trickster, I'm a cheat, I'm a charlatan, that's what I do for a living. Everything I've done here was by trickery."
Are you claiming that in every one of his magic performances he prefaced or ended with an admission that he was a charlatan?
The first person is tricking you but you know they are, the second person is tricking you but you don't know they are.
Is this really such a hard distinction to understand?
Unless Rani explained that it is fake in each of his performances throughout his career, he's clearly leaving the audience to think that something magical or paranormal may have occurred. I don't really see a difference. Not everyone goes to magic and paranormal shows under the pretense of "what I'm about to see is fake" like you do.
You are clearly championing a guy who thinks its okay to lie to people and pretend that you have magic.
-
Ohh, I get it.
If I pay The Amazing Randi to perform some feats for me, which he explains with as "magic", its a social contract. But if I pay one of the people he doesn't like all that much to perform some feats, which they describe as "magic", they are frauds. Got it!
As mentioned already, Randi is extremely open to letting people know that his "magic" is simply trickery. I am not sure how you can claim to compare him to someone like Geller.
"According to James Alcock, at a meeting where Randi was duplicating the performances of Uri Geller, a professor from the University at Buffalo shouted out that Randi was a fraud. Randi said: "Yes, indeed, I'm a trickster, I'm a cheat, I'm a charlatan, that's what I do for a living. Everything I've done here was by trickery."
Are you claiming that in every one of his magic performances he prefaced or ended with an admission that he was a charlatan?
The first person is tricking you but you know they are, the second person is tricking you but you don't know they are.
Is this really such a hard distinction to understand?
Unless Rani explained that it is fake in each of his performances throughout his career, he's clearly leaving the audience to think that something magical or paranormal may have occurred. I don't really see a difference. Not everyone goes to magic and paranormal shows under the pretense of "what I'm about to see is fake" like you do.
You are clearly championing a guy who thinks its okay to lie to people and pretend that you have magic.
This is my last post on the topic -- you are being willfully dense here.
James Randi most likely did not explain that he was a trickster and a charlatan during all of his performances. He did not have to, as he never claimed to have mysterious "powers" or "psychic abilities" or that he had been visited by aliens to be able to perform his feats.
If you can't see the difference between that and a guy like Geller, there is no helping you.
I don't believe anyone here is "championing" Randi. But if we had been, consider the man you're championing yourself.
-
Unless Rani explained that it is fake in each of his performances throughout his career, he's clearly leaving the audience to think that something magical or paranormal may have occurred. I don't really see a difference. Not everyone goes to magic and paranormal shows under the pretense of "what I'm about to see is fake" like you do.
You are clearly championing a guy who thinks its okay to lie to people and pretend that you have magic.
Unless marvel's agents of shield explains that it is fake in each episode, it's clearly leaving the audience to think that something magical or paranormal may have occurred. I don't really see a difference. Not everyone watches fiction under the pretense of "what I'm about to see is fake" like you do.
You are clearly championing a show that thinks its okay to lie to people and pretend superheroes are real.
-
It is just hypocritical that you can trust the word of one person with a history of trickery and deceit and defend it as entertainment, but make judgement calls of another person's shtick as a liar or a conman.
This article (http://www.ufowatchdog.com/urandir.htm) clearly calls Urnadir a "magician" and describes what he does as "entertainment".
"the cave that Urandir has in his property is the lastest hit in ufologic entertainment"
"former goldwasher and amateur magician Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira used primary tricks with laser pens, operated by his employees camouflaged in the bush, to illude the about 70 members of his sect, that today has more than a thousand followers"
This is probably not the best man to trust that he is still not doing "entertainment" in any future work he does, but neither is trusting James Randi that he is still not doing "entertainment" when he goes onto talk shows and claims that science has it all figured out and there is nothing in the world that is not explainable by science.
-
It is just hypocritical that you can trust the word of one person with a history of trickery and deceit and defend it as entertainment, but make judgement calls of another person's shtick as a liar or a conman.
This article (http://www.ufowatchdog.com/urandir.htm) clearly calls Urnadir a "magician" and describes what he does as "entertainment".
"the cave that Urandir has in his property is the lastest hit in ufologic entertainment"
"former goldwasher and amateur magician Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira used primary tricks with laser pens, operated by his employees camouflaged in the bush, to illude the about 70 members of his sect, that today has more than a thousand followers"
This si probably not the best man to trust that he is still not doing "entertainment," but neither is trusting James Randi's organization that he is still not doing "entertainment."
You're digging yourself deeper if you want to bring Randi's organization into this -- it was created solely to disprove the claims of psychics and other paranormals. The organization had absolutely nothing to do with entertainment.
Anyway, going back to your quote there is a fundamental difference there between "The Amazing Randi" and that guy -- Urandir, as claimed by your own quote, didn't do it for entertainment. He did it to trick people into joining his sect.
And to answer to your edit, Randi is all for researching pseudoscience. He doesn't dismiss it out-of-hand, and is well aware that scientific progress could occur through it. He is also well aware that most (essentially all, up to this point) if it is bullshit.
-
Anyway, going back to your quote there is a fundamental difference there between "The Amazing Randi" and that guy -- Urandir, as claimed by your own quote, didn't do it for entertainment. He did it to trick people into joining his sect.
As far as we know he is just operating a fun adventure theme park on his ranch for the people of Brazil to escape into. That's basically what magicians do -- provide escapism from the boring real world.
Maybe the people of Brazil just go there for fun like we go see magic shows here for fun. Have you ever thought about that?
You're digging yourself deeper if you want to bring Randi's organization into this -- it was created solely to disprove the claims of psychics and other paranormals. The organization had absolutely nothing to do with entertainment.
Its a form of entertainment. That is why Randi is featured on talk shows and speaks of big prizes, rather than writing any scientific papers or engaging in scientific research. I don't see any other scientists appearing on talk shows and announcing "prove me wrong, you'll win big money!"
There are numerous accusations that Randi does not let the people who accept his challenge even perform their feat as they claim to be able to perform it. Things along the line of "Oh you claim to be able to use a dousing rod to find water wells? Well, we've hidden a bottle of water somewhere in this building. Find it!" There is no real scientific examination of the claims.
-
Anyway, going back to your quote there is a fundamental difference there between "The Amazing Randi" and that guy -- Urandir, as claimed by your own quote, didn't do it for entertainment. He did it to trick people into joining his sect.
As far as we know he is just operating a fun adventure theme park on his ranch for the people of Brazil to escape into. That's basically what magicians do -- provide escapism from the boring real world.
Maybe the people of Brazil just go there for fun like we go see magic shows here for fun. Have you ever thought about that?
I don't believe that would be described as a "sect."
When did you start caring about scientific papers, anyway?
-
Anyway, going back to your quote there is a fundamental difference there between "The Amazing Randi" and that guy -- Urandir, as claimed by your own quote, didn't do it for entertainment. He did it to trick people into joining his sect.
As far as we know he is just operating a fun adventure theme park on his ranch for the people of Brazil to escape into. That's basically what magicians do -- provide escapism from the boring real world.
Maybe the people of Brazil just go there for fun like we go see magic shows here for fun. Have you ever thought about that?
You're digging yourself deeper if you want to bring Randi's organization into this -- it was created solely to disprove the claims of psychics and other paranormals. The organization had absolutely nothing to do with entertainment.
Its a form of entertainment. That is why Randi is featured on talk shows and speaks of big prizes, rather than writing any scientific papers or engaging in scientific research. I don't see any other scientists appearing on talk shows and announcing "prove me wrong, you'll win big money!"
There are numerous accusations that Randi does not let the people who accept his challenge even perform their feat as they claim to be able to perform it. Things along the line of "Oh you claim to be able to use a dousing rod to find water wells? Well, we've hidden a bottle of water somewhere in this building. Find it!" There is no real scientific examination of the claims.
Tom, what does Randi have to do with a nutter in Brazil claiming the Earth is convex? It is truly an epic strawman, but you can stop attacking it now. Your original post has been shown to have been created by someone not horribly concerned with being factual. Case closed. All this other stuff is just your typical Tom Bishop derailment. I'm waiting for you to claim the plate was broken by perspective.
-
Anyway, going back to your quote there is a fundamental difference there between "The Amazing Randi" and that guy -- Urandir, as claimed by your own quote, didn't do it for entertainment. He did it to trick people into joining his sect.
As far as we know he is just operating a fun adventure theme park on his ranch for the people of Brazil to escape into. That's basically what magicians do -- provide escapism from the boring real world.
Maybe the people of Brazil just go there for fun like we go see magic shows here for fun. Have you ever thought about that?
You're digging yourself deeper if you want to bring Randi's organization into this -- it was created solely to disprove the claims of psychics and other paranormals. The organization had absolutely nothing to do with entertainment.
Its a form of entertainment. That is why Randi is featured on talk shows and speaks of big prizes, rather than writing any scientific papers or engaging in scientific research. I don't see any other scientists appearing on talk shows and announcing "prove me wrong, you'll win big money!"
There are numerous accusations that Randi does not let the people who accept his challenge even perform their feat as they claim to be able to perform it. Things along the line of "Oh you claim to be able to use a dousing rod to find water wells? Well, we've hidden a bottle of water somewhere in this building. Find it!" There is no real scientific examination of the claims.
Tom do yourself a favor and go have a lie down for a bit, your posts have completely degenerated into full on nonsense now.
-
Unless Rani explained that it is fake in each of his performances throughout his career, he's clearly leaving the audience to think that something magical or paranormal may have occurred.
No, he isn't.
Before each film at the cinema you don't get a disclaimer explaining that what you're about to see is fiction. In fact, they do the reverse - they explicitly state that some films are based on true events. By default you expect a film to be fictional, and you expect a stage magician to be tricking you. They are literally called magic tricks or illusions!
Unless you are a child or a complete idiot you understand the premise of a magic show.
I don't really see a difference. Not everyone goes to magic and paranormal shows under the pretense of "what I'm about to see is fake" like you do.
Why are you mixing up magic and paranormal shows? There is a massive difference. One which I'm struggling to believe you don't understand.
Everyone (again, apart from children or complete idiots) goes to see a magic show understanding that they are going to be tricked.
No-one thinks David Copperfield can really fly, or he can really make the Statue of Liberty disappear.
You might not know exactly how he's doing it, but you understand it's a trick.
But paranormal shows, the people doing those ARE claiming that they have supernatural powers and the people going to them buy into that, otherwise they wouldn't go.
I have no idea why you'd go and see a medium unless you actually thought they really have the power to talk to "the other side".
Those shows exploit gullible people. Do not conflate those with magic shows which are designed to entertain.
You are clearly championing a guy who thinks its okay to lie to people and pretend that you have magic.
And you clearly either reason at the level of a 5 year old child who has yet to understand the difference between fantasy and real life, or you're just on the wind up and you're arguing the toss for the lolz.
I'm more inclined to think the latter, if you were as dumb as you come across on here I don't know how you'd function in life.
Which leads me to believe that you don't really believe any of this flat earth nonsense at all, maybe you just enjoy trying to defend the indefensible and have fun playing dumb.
-
Hold up we need to go back to something here:
rather than writing any scientific papers or engaging in scientific research.
Tom, do you expect this Brazilian team to publish a paper in Nature (or another such peer-reviewed journal), and does that factor in to whether or not you will believe their claims? Does publishing a scientific paper only matter when it comes to James Randi?
Are there any peer-reviewed scientific papers, at all, that support your world view that the earth is flat?
-
Tom, what does Randi have to do with a nutter in Brazil claiming the Earth is convex?
Randi is a former magician who you think as trustworthy. This guy is also described as a magician. What's the difference? Is it okay when Randi amazes people with "magic" but not other people?
I'm waiting for you to claim the plate was broken by perspective.
There is no context to the video that was provided. I provided a source which describes the Brazilian guy as a magician. Magicians perform tricks for amusement and entertainment.
Unless Rani explained that it is fake in each of his performances throughout his career, he's clearly leaving the audience to think that something magical or paranormal may have occurred.
No, he isn't.
Before each film at the cinema you don't get a disclaimer explaining that what you're about to see is fiction. In fact, they do the reverse - they explicitly state that some films are based on true events. By default you expect a film to be fictional, and you expect a stage magician to be tricking you. They are literally called magic tricks or illusions!
I have not been to many magic shows which have a disclaimer "Everything you are about to see is fake" before the show starts. The audience is led to believe that something physically impossible happened. At no point are we told "it was all fake." It is an entire industry based on lies.
We are supposed to leave thinking "what I saw was truly unexplainable!" with wonder of whether we really saw something that was magic.
Unless you are a child or a complete idiot you understand the premise of a magic show.
There are children and people of various capacities at these shows. Why is it okay to lie to children? Rather than downplaying and justifying lies, you would do better just to admit that magicians are liars, and their job is to lie to people. And, if it is the magician's job to lie to people, what is the difference between a magician who goes one step further with his backstory and says that he was touched by angles or given his powers by a sorcerer?
Since lies and deception are perfectly okay in your book - where is the line between good lie and bad lie? They are all just magicians with different backstories. What makes a magical backstory acceptable and unacceptable?
-
According to his Wikipedia article Randi described himself as a "conjuror" in his act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi#Magician
"Though defining himself as a conjuror, Randi began a career as a professional stage magician"
Why is this okay, but defining yourself as a psychic or someone who was granted powers by a sorcerer/aliens/devils, not okay?
-
According to his Wikipedia article Randi described himself as a "conjuror" in his act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi#Magician
"Though defining himself as a conjuror, Randi began a career as a professional stage magician"
Why is this okay, but defining yourself as a psychic or someone who was granted powers by a sorcerer/aliens/devils, not okay?
You will have to answer that for yourself, as it is a matter of opinion.
Please respond to the questions regarding scientific papers rather than go around in circles regarding whether or not magicians are trustworthy.
-
Randi is a former magician who you think as trustworthy. This guy is also described as a magician. What's the difference? Is it okay when Randi amazes people with "magic" but not other people?
No, those are your words. I have no idea who the guy is. If you'd like to discuss Randi, you should create a new thread. This thread is about some Brazilian guy that claims the Earth is convex and that he has paranormal powers. I'm not entertaining your thread derailment any further than that and would request that you get back on topic.
There is no context to the video that was provided. I provided a source which describes the Brazilian guy as a magician. Magicians perform tricks for amusement and entertainment.
I posted his own words where he claimed he had paranormal powers and the title of the video references paranormal. I know you want to claim he is saying he is just a magician, but that is not the case at all. A man of your age should know that sometimes it is just better to admit you were wrong and move on. You're like a guy stuck in a hole who just keeps digging.
-
There are children and people of various capacities at these shows. Why is it okay to lie to children? Rather than downplaying and justifying lies, you would do better just to admit that magicians are liars, and their job is to lie to people. And, if it is the magician's job to lie to people, what is the difference between a magician who goes one step further with his backstory and says that he was touched by angles or given his powers by a sorcerer?
Since lies and deception are perfectly okay in your book - where is the line between good lie and bad lie? They are all just magicians with different backstories. What makes a magical backstory acceptable and unacceptable?
Tom - given your strong moral stance on lying to children are you going to add something to the Wiki about Santa Claus not being real either?
-
The documentary is launching in one hour, :)
I'm really apprehensive now after reading this thread.
Does it specify on the website if its free?
-
I have not been to many magic shows which have a disclaimer "Everything you are about to see is fake" before the show starts. The audience is led to believe that something physically impossible happened. At no point are we told "it was all fake." It is an entire industry based on lies.
Yes. And as I said I've never been to the cinema or theatre and before the film or play seen a disclaimer.
"Everything you are about to see is fake. The people are only acting".
Did you come out of Jurassic Park thinking "Shit! Dinosaurs are alive again! Run for the hills!"?
Do you think that if you fit a Flux Capacitor to a DeLorean and drive at 88mph you can go back in time and meet Rowbotham?
I suspect not. You know that films and plays are fictional.
You know, I hope, that magic shows are too. They are called magic TRICKS. There is a clue in the name.
Why is it okay to lie to children?
Ever heard of Santa Claus? I don't know how to break this to you, Tom...
Kids have a sense of wonder and imagination, they probably do believe magic tricks are real like they believe Santa comes down their chimney every 25th December and brings them presents. At some point they grow up and start to learn how the world really works but it is nice, till a certain age, to let children retain some wonder at things.
Since lies and deception are perfectly okay in your book - where is the line between good lie and bad lie? They are all just magicians with different backstories. What makes a magical backstory acceptable and unacceptable?
Most stage magicians don't have a "back story". Very few make claims to have actual "powers". Anyone who does should be treated with suspicion.
Especially if they are claiming to use their "powers" to exploit the gullible and vulnerable rather than just to entertain.
-
The documentary is launching in one hour, :)
Over 8 hours to go according to countdown on the website; I type this at 00.24 UTC/GMT
-
Tom - given your strong moral stance on lying to children are you going to add something to the Wiki about Santa Claus not being real either?
Why would he do that? Does the Wiki contain any mentions of Santa Claus that need rectifying?
-
Tom - given your strong moral stance on lying to children are you going to add something to the Wiki about Santa Claus not being real either?
Why would he do that? Does the Wiki contain any mentions of Santa Claus that need rectifying?
Really? That's it?
Your contribution to the thread is to fact check a sarcastic comment?
What's the point of that?
-
It's up on their website and YouTube now
First two minutes are title sequence with clips from elsewhere, and can be skipped
'Experiments with boats' starts at 5mins
'Experiments with long-range telescopes' starts at 12mins
90 mins total.
That's as far as I've got. I'm tempted to jump to 85 mins for the conclusion and summary
-
I really liked the documentary, found it convincing.
I would show this to others who are considering FET.
I'm sure the Roundies will assess each argument and put their own spin on it, (as they do) but for myself as a FEer, I am happy with how this doco went and I'm having a great day today. :)
-
Tom - given your strong moral stance on lying to children are you going to add something to the Wiki about Santa Claus not being real either?
Why would he do that? Does the Wiki contain any mentions of Santa Claus that need rectifying?
I naively thought I would make a light-hearted comment that would illustrate the utter nonsense of Tom's chosen position of failing to see the difference between the legitimate and innocent presentation of magic as entertainment and that of fraudulent exploitation presented as the supernatural. Sorry if it went over your head, Puck.
-
I was able to watch it. I give it a C. I liked some of the experiments. I liked some of their new approaches and new types of tests. I consider that a contribution, even if we can't trust their results because of the UFO stuff.
I didn't like the long build up. I did not really understand what their new theory of gravity was, or really any of their new theories after the experiments segment. Hard to understand at times.
The unknown continent to the "greater north" sounded interesting. It reminds me of a book written by someone who was involved with long range US Navy flights which allegedly found new land masses to the "North of the North Pole".
-
I was able to watch it. I give it a C.
On a scale of ....
A to E ?
A to Z ?
Come on, now - we don't know the educational conventions in your locale unless you tell us ...
-
Just the usual misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting of physical phenomena.
No better or worse than the hundreds of other silly FE YouTube videos out there, but with a bit of their own spin so they can take ownership of it (as you'd expect from someone with Urandirs apparent history).
I'm trying to research the 'engineers and researchers' used but as everyone is listed as 'cast' in the credits it's s bit hard.
Funny wording that... 'Cast' - what you'd expect from a film with actors rather than a documentary...
-
I haven't watched any of it yet, but if the final conclusion, based on the title, is that we are on a convex Earth, then why aren't FEers denying it?
Surely the two are mutually exclusive? If it's flat, it can't be convex, and vice versa?
-
I haven't watched any of it yet, but if the final conclusion, based on the title, is that we are on a convex Earth, then why aren't FEers denying it?
Surely the two are mutually exclusive? If it's flat, it can't be convex, and vice versa?
It's nonsense. It is flat earth, but without a dome, heliocentric and with satellites being held up by electro magnetism - oh, and with a childrens pool bolted on to the side with a separate continent in it 😂
From what I can tell from YouTube allot of the denser FE'ers out there appear to be getting drawn in by it. Which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
-
Can anyone tell me why they are trying to find curvature in a body of water relative to see level?
A lake would not show any curvature relative to sea level whether the earth is flat without gravity or round with gravity. What we observe would be the same.
Or am I missing something, because I would have thought the engineers and physicists they have advising them would surely have pointed that out.
-
I'm sure this whole film is one big hoax. Remember, next sunday is april fool's day!
The film director, Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira, (initials UFO?) is into the paranormal and an ufologist. Look him up!
The scientists presented: There is no record of them. If, as the voice over claims, they are scientists,they should have a webpage at their institution, or there should be references to their articles, but using their names and searching, there is nothing to be found.
Just look up "Mauro Dias, Geographer cartographer". No results of this "famous" Geographer and Cartographer!
OK maybe Helo Bagda gama, the famous Geologist then? No results either.....
Well maybe Paulo Cesar Parra the Civil engineer then? No results at all!
So Carlos Fabiano the world famous Astronomer will give us some results, but NO!
OK but Eduardo Della Santa will be there to find.... Oh no! Not again no way to find them at all!
The stupid "documentary" makers forgot to give their characters a life outside the "documentary", no Facebook pace, no Twitter account, no reference to their work, nothing at all!
Also, no self-respecting scientist would claim that the atmosphere has a refractive index equal to that of glass, like they do somewhere in the film.
Which would indicate one of 2 things:
1. They have not published… anything, which would then indicate the finds are not scientific.
Or 2: They do not exist.
Looking at their picture of the Earth as a giant toilet bowl may well be a good indication of a hoax also!
-
It's funny that some people are still taking this seriously. Talk about confirmation bias. Maybe he made the Earth convex with his paranormal powers? Satellites held up with electro-magnetism??? Sigh, the world is getting dumber by the day.
-
I was able to watch it. I give it a C. I liked some of the experiments. I liked some of their new approaches and new types of tests. I consider that a contribution, even if we can't trust their results because of the UFO stuff.
I didn't like the long build up. I did not really understand what their new theory of gravity was, or really any of their new theories after the experiments segment. Hard to understand at times.
The unknown continent to the "greater north" sounded interesting. It reminds me of a book written by someone who was involved with long range US Navy flights which allegedly found new land masses to the "North of the North Pole".
North of the North Pole? What did their GPS receiver show?
-
The unknown continent to the "greater north" sounded interesting. It reminds me of a book written by someone who was involved with long range US Navy flights which allegedly found new land masses to the "North of the North Pole".
North of the North Pole? What did their GPS receiver show?
I don't know what their navigational instruments said. I haven't looked into the claims too closely. If you are interested in the matter, here is the source of the book which explains more:
(https://i.imgur.com/lj0luQE.png) (https://archive.org/details/f_amadeo_giannini-worlds_beyond_the_poles.o)
Worlds Beyond the Poles
By F Amadeo Giannini
Online version here: https://archive.org/embed/f_amadeo_giannini-worlds_beyond_the_poles.o
An easier to read version: http://worldsbeyondthepolesbygiannini.blogspot.com/
Summary:
"On January 13 1956 a US Navy air unit penetrated to the extent of 2300
miles beyond the assumed South Pole of the earth. That flight was always
over land, water and ice.
Since December 12, 1928 US Navy Polar expeditions have determined the
existence of indeterminable land extent beyond both pole points, out of
bounds of the assumed 'isolated globe' Earth as postulated by the
Copernican Theory of 1543."
-
The unknown continent to the "greater north" sounded interesting. It reminds me of a book written by someone who was involved with long range US Navy flights which allegedly found new land masses to the "North of the North Pole".
North of the North Pole? What did their GPS receiver show?
I don't know what their navigational instruments said. I haven't looked into the claims too closely. If you are interested in the matter, here is the source of the book which explains more:
(https://i.imgur.com/lj0luQE.png) (https://archive.org/details/f_amadeo_giannini-worlds_beyond_the_poles.o)
Worlds Beyond the Poles
By F Amadeo Giannini
Online version here: https://archive.org/embed/f_amadeo_giannini-worlds_beyond_the_poles.o
An easier to read version: http://worldsbeyondthepolesbygiannini.blogspot.com/
Summary:
"On January 13 1956 a US Navy air unit penetrated to the extent of 2300
miles beyond the assumed South Pole of the earth. That flight was always
over land, water and ice.
Since December 12, 1928 US Navy Polar expeditions have determined the
existence of indeterminable land extent beyond both pole points, out of
bounds of the assumed 'isolated globe' Earth as postulated by the
Copernican Theory of 1543."
Yet not confirmed by current observations. Again, do you agree WGS-84 is correct?
-
Yet not confirmed by current observations. Again, do you agree WGS-84 is correct?
Current observations? Are you paying attention? Whether true or false, a claim of observation was made yesterday.
-
Haha brilliant Tom, the documentary uses GPS and exact distances between points, both data you refute can be proven ie your famous "distance between Paris and New York is unknown".....
-
Haha brilliant Tom, the documentary uses GPS and exact distances between points, both data you refute can be proven ie your famous "distance between Paris and New York is unknown".....
Perhaps that's why it only received a "C" -- how dare they use accurate distances!
-
Perhaps that's why it only received a "C" -- how dare they use accurate distances!
Although not so accurate when it came to the lasers and telescopes being "about a metre or so" above the water level.....
-
It was interesting, but certainly the second half dropped off a bit. I'm still not sure how they concluded there was another continent, but they said they want to find it so if they could it would be a manor discovery. However, I don't believe they will find anything.
As for the earth being convex, I'm still not sure how they came to that reasoning, nor where they got that design of the earth from. The continent's were sort of jumbled up and it looked untidy.
Despite being a flat earther, I do believe in gravity. Believe it or not, it does not disprove the FET. It seems to be a more modern thing that gravity doesn't exist, it really does.
-
It was of the ilk of those documentaries that set up an eye catching proposition like; "Did Hitler use vampires to battle the Russians? " And then the show skirts around the issue for an hour and concludes with an answer of "we don't know".....
The experiments did not seem to be conducted thoroughly enough for the magnitude of their hypothesis. However it was entertainment, which is the point I guess.
-
It was interesting, but certainly the second half dropped off a bit. I'm still not sure how they concluded there was another continent, but they said they want to find it so if they could it would be a manor discovery. However, I don't believe they will find anything.
As for the earth being convex, I'm still not sure how they came to that reasoning, nor where they got that design of the earth from. The continent's were sort of jumbled up and it looked untidy.
Despite being a flat earther, I do believe in gravity. Believe it or not, it does not disprove the FET. It seems to be a more modern thing that gravity doesn't exist, it really does.
Yes, gravity certainly does disprove FET. Why else would folks need to come up with something as wild as UA?
-
Yes, gravity certainly does disprove FET. Why else would folks need to come up with something as wild as UA?
Ahh but then in steps the infinite plane model which can be used to explain it....
-
It was interesting, but certainly the second half dropped off a bit. I'm still not sure how they concluded there was another continent, but they said they want to find it so if they could it would be a manor discovery. However, I don't believe they will find anything.
As for the earth being convex, I'm still not sure how they came to that reasoning, nor where they got that design of the earth from. The continent's were sort of jumbled up and it looked untidy.
Despite being a flat earther, I do believe in gravity. Believe it or not, it does not disprove the FET. It seems to be a more modern thing that gravity doesn't exist, it really does.
Yes, gravity certainly does disprove FET. Why else would folks need to come up with something as wild as UA?
No it doesn't, there's no definite proof gravity pulls things into a ball, it's only a theory and cannot be proved because it's an incorrect theory. The force of gravity does not only come from the centre, it exists all underneath the world, so with the force pulling down on all points it cannot possibly pull everything into a ball because the force of gravity is spread evenly across the world.
Even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove gravity, he acknowledged it's existence.
-
But gravity does explain why all the planets and stars we see are balls. Whilst UA offers an explanation equal to gravity for earth it doesn't explain the rest of the universe
-
It was interesting, but certainly the second half dropped off a bit. I'm still not sure how they concluded there was another continent, but they said they want to find it so if they could it would be a manor discovery. However, I don't believe they will find anything.
As for the earth being convex, I'm still not sure how they came to that reasoning, nor where they got that design of the earth from. The continent's were sort of jumbled up and it looked untidy.
Despite being a flat earther, I do believe in gravity. Believe it or not, it does not disprove the FET. It seems to be a more modern thing that gravity doesn't exist, it really does.
Yes, gravity certainly does disprove FET. Why else would folks need to come up with something as wild as UA?
No it doesn't, there's no definite proof gravity pulls things into a ball, it's only a theory and cannot be proved because it's an incorrect theory. The force of gravity does not only come from the centre, it exists all underneath the world, so with the force pulling down on all points it cannot possibly pull everything into a ball because the force of gravity is spread evenly across the world.
Even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove gravity, he acknowledged it's existence.
Gravity (using the commonly accepted definition of gravity) certainly does go against FET.
If you are unilaterally going to make up a force with different properties to those ascribed to gravity and name it gravity as well that's up to you, but you can't expect others to just go along with that.
-
It was interesting, but certainly the second half dropped off a bit. I'm still not sure how they concluded there was another continent, but they said they want to find it so if they could it would be a manor discovery. However, I don't believe they will find anything.
As for the earth being convex, I'm still not sure how they came to that reasoning, nor where they got that design of the earth from. The continent's were sort of jumbled up and it looked untidy.
Despite being a flat earther, I do believe in gravity. Believe it or not, it does not disprove the FET. It seems to be a more modern thing that gravity doesn't exist, it really does.
Yes, gravity certainly does disprove FET. Why else would folks need to come up with something as wild as UA?
No it doesn't, there's no definite proof gravity pulls things into a ball, it's only a theory and cannot be proved because it's an incorrect theory. The force of gravity does not only come from the centre, it exists all underneath the world, so with the force pulling down on all points it cannot possibly pull everything into a ball because the force of gravity is spread evenly across the world.
Even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove gravity, he acknowledged it's existence.
Gravity (using the commonly accepted definition of gravity) certainly does go against FET.
If you are unilaterally going to make up a force with different properties to those ascribed to gravity and name it gravity as well that's up to you, but you can't expect others to just go along with that.
I'm not 'making it up', the force of gravity is not scientifically proven to come from the core, its a theory. It is actually spread evenly underneath the earth, pulling down together. It is not only pulling down from the earths core.
-
I'm not 'making it up', the force of gravity is not scientifically proven to come from the core, its a theory. It is actually spread evenly underneath the earth, pulling down together. It is not only pulling down from the earths core.
So .. the Earth has a 'core', even though it's flat?
Have you determined whereabouts the core is? How did you or anyone else do this?
-
I'm not 'making it up', the force of gravity is not scientifically proven to come from the core, its a theory. It is actually spread evenly underneath the earth, pulling down together. It is not only pulling down from the earths core.
So .. the Earth has a 'core', even though it's flat?
Have you determined whereabouts the core is? How did you or anyone else do this?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying on a round earth the force of gravity has not being scientifically proved to come from the core.
I'll say it now so you can't say I've claimed something else
Earth is flat and therefore has no core.
-
I'm not 'making it up', the force of gravity is not scientifically proven to come from the core, its a theory. It is actually spread evenly underneath the earth, pulling down together. It is not only pulling down from the earths core.
So .. the Earth has a 'core', even though it's flat?
Have you determined whereabouts the core is? How did you or anyone else do this?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying on a round earth the force of gravity has not being scientifically proved to come from the core.
I'll say it now so you can't say I've claimed something else
Earth is flat and therefore has no core.
Earth is round, see measurements.
-
I'm not 'making it up', the force of gravity is not scientifically proven to come from the core, its a theory. It is actually spread evenly underneath the earth, pulling down together. It is not only pulling down from the earths core.
So .. the Earth has a 'core', even though it's flat?
Have you determined whereabouts the core is? How did you or anyone else do this?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying on a round earth the force of gravity has not being scientifically proved to come from the core.
I'll say it now so you can't say I've claimed something else
Earth is flat and therefore has no core.
Earth is round see measurements.
Yet Dr Rowbotham was able to prove otherwise.
It's flat, see measurements.
-
It was interesting, but certainly the second half dropped off a bit. I'm still not sure how they concluded there was another continent, but they said they want to find it so if they could it would be a manor discovery. However, I don't believe they will find anything.
As for the earth being convex, I'm still not sure how they came to that reasoning, nor where they got that design of the earth from. The continent's were sort of jumbled up and it looked untidy.
Despite being a flat earther, I do believe in gravity. Believe it or not, it does not disprove the FET. It seems to be a more modern thing that gravity doesn't exist, it really does.
Yes, gravity certainly does disprove FET. Why else would folks need to come up with something as wild as UA?
No it doesn't, there's no definite proof gravity pulls things into a ball, it's only a theory and cannot be proved because it's an incorrect theory. The force of gravity does not only come from the centre, it exists all underneath the world, so with the force pulling down on all points it cannot possibly pull everything into a ball because the force of gravity is spread evenly across the world.
Even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove gravity, he acknowledged it's existence.
Gravity (using the commonly accepted definition of gravity) certainly does go against FET.
If you are unilaterally going to make up a force with different properties to those ascribed to gravity and name it gravity as well that's up to you, but you can't expect others to just go along with that.
I'm not 'making it up', the force of gravity is not scientifically proven to come from the core, its a theory. It is actually spread evenly underneath the earth, pulling down together. It is not only pulling down from the earths core.
And that is an opinion you have arrived at given your personal understanding.
So like I said, you are creating another force that acts differently to how gravity is defined as working but calling it gravity.
I will go with the description of gravity that has some consensus rather than make up my own version or piggy back your version. But each to his own.
-
It was interesting, but certainly the second half dropped off a bit. I'm still not sure how they concluded there was another continent, but they said they want to find it so if they could it would be a manor discovery. However, I don't believe they will find anything.
As for the earth being convex, I'm still not sure how they came to that reasoning, nor where they got that design of the earth from. The continent's were sort of jumbled up and it looked untidy.
Despite being a flat earther, I do believe in gravity. Believe it or not, it does not disprove the FET. It seems to be a more modern thing that gravity doesn't exist, it really does.
Yes, gravity certainly does disprove FET. Why else would folks need to come up with something as wild as UA?
No it doesn't, there's no definite proof gravity pulls things into a ball, it's only a theory and cannot be proved because it's an incorrect theory. The force of gravity does not only come from the centre, it exists all underneath the world, so with the force pulling down on all points it cannot possibly pull everything into a ball because the force of gravity is spread evenly across the world.
Even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove gravity, he acknowledged it's existence.
Gravity (using the commonly accepted definition of gravity) certainly does go against FET.
If you are unilaterally going to make up a force with different properties to those ascribed to gravity and name it gravity as well that's up to you, but you can't expect others to just go along with that.
I'm not 'making it up', the force of gravity is not scientifically proven to come from the core, its a theory. It is actually spread evenly underneath the earth, pulling down together. It is not only pulling down from the earths core.
Can you prove this, scientifically?
Havre you even tried to provide a shred of evidence for a single claim you have made in the last few days?
-
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
-
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
Yes, there are 'only' scientific theories for how gravity works.
There is, however, diddly-squat for how an FE alternative would work, and even less to support whatever it is Parallax has invented.
-
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
Yet we can measure it to the Nth degree, and calibrate measuring instruments to it...
-
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
So?
There’s a bunch of things you have no idea about in your model, you don’t even seem to have theories.
You don’t even have a map you can agree on.
-
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
So?
There’s a bunch of things you have no idea about in your model, you don’t even seem to have theories.
You don’t even have a map you can agree on.
Or even how to go about producing a map.
-
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
Yet we can measure it to the Nth degree, and calibrate measuring instruments to it...
And this tells you what it is or where it is coming from?
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
So?
There’s a bunch of things you have no idea about in your model, you don’t even seem to have theories.
You don’t even have a map you can agree on.
What exactly are you expecting from a budget of $0?
-
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
Yet we can measure it to the Nth degree, and calibrate measuring instruments to it...
And this tells you what it is or where it is coming from?
Not of itself, but in tandem with a wide variety of other observations, such as 50+ years of orbital space flight and such ....
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
So?
There’s a bunch of things you have no idea about in your model, you don’t even seem to have theories.
You don’t even have a map you can agree on.
What exactly are you expecting from a budget of $0?
The realisation that hundreds upon thousands of others who HAVE had research budgets, who have worked long and hard to study their fields of speciality, and who have devoted their life's work to further study and research might well know better than you, with your (apparent) lack of will to actually carry out any experimental, empirical work ...
(If I'm wrong in this, and you HAVE actually carried out some empirical work in some field, please let us know in what field this was, when and where you did the work, and where it was recorded or published)
-
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
Yet we can measure it to the Nth degree, and calibrate measuring instruments to it...
And this tells you what it is or where it is coming from?
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
So?
There’s a bunch of things you have no idea about in your model, you don’t even seem to have theories.
You don’t even have a map you can agree on.
What exactly are you expecting from a budget of $0?
Details of how you would proceed if the budget became available.
-
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
Yet we can measure it to the Nth degree, and calibrate measuring instruments to it...
And this tells you what it is or where it is coming from?
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
So?
There’s a bunch of things you have no idea about in your model, you don’t even seem to have theories.
You don’t even have a map you can agree on.
What exactly are you expecting from a budget of $0?
Clearly there is far more than a budget of zero available to FE globally.
This documentary, Mr Steam Rocket and countless other 'experiments' have been carried out so there is money, it's just no-one is choosing to spend it on serious research as they are too preoccupied with attention seeking stunts as that's all FE really is.
Meanwhile in the world of actual science there are kids building particle accelerators in their garages for under $200.
-
What exactly are you expecting from a budget of $0?
Why is your budget $0? Pete keeps boasting about how much you're growing.
There is no serious science budget for the same reason there aren't people queuing up to fund research into alchemy.
It was proven bunk years ago, it's a waste of money.
But you guys could still try a little harder to verify your ideas. I've suggested experiments to determine distance to the sun or moon by taking observations from a few places a known distance apart and triangulating. That's hardly going to cost anything. You say you're empiricists, well take some empirical measurements then.
You claim that the horizon rises to eye level - I've shown that wrong in another thread. But if you think it does then take some measurements, use some equipment to show it. You don't need to spend much for that.
You demand evidence for other people's claims but provide no evidence of your own claims and it wouldn't cost anything significant to do so.
What are you actually doing to test your theories?
-
What exactly are you expecting from a budget of $0?
This is just a convenient excuse to avoid having to provide actual data. ::) You know the Earth is a globe and any real research into it would prove that fact, so you throw your hands up in the air and claim poverty. Rocket guy raised thousands in no time. You could do the same, you just choose not to.
-
Go beg Rocket Guy for some experiments then. We have an annual budget of $0. Zero. Nothing. The webmasters of this website pay for hosting out of their own pocket. We rely on our users to contribute 100% of all content.
We invited you to our potluck and you are the guy who came empty handed and just sits around complaining about the food other people brought.
-
Go beg Rocket Guy for some experiments then. We have an annual budget of $0. Zero. Nothing. The webmasters of this website pay for hosting out of their own pocket. We rely on our users to contribute 100% of all content.
We invited you to our potluck and you are the guy who came empty handed and just sits around complaining about the food other people brought.
Try a kickstarter, maybe you'll get some good support! I think that's the point he was trying to make by bringing up rocket guy.
-
Go beg Rocket Guy for some experiments then. We have an annual budget of $0. Zero. Nothing. The webmasters of this website pay for hosting out of their own pocket. We rely on our users to contribute 100% of all content.
We invited you to our potluck and you are the guy who came empty handed and just sits around complaining about the food other people brought.
Try a kickstarter, maybe you'll get some good support! I think that's the point he was trying to make by bringing up rocket guy.
Exactly. They could raise money if they wanted. The fact is, they have no desire to prove anything. Tom's comments are exactly what I expected.
Tom - why would I contribute to prove something I already know is fake? You guys are the proponents. There should be someone in this community with enough initiative/intelligence to start doing some basic research.
-
Go beg Rocket Guy for some experiments then. We have an annual budget of $0. Zero. Nothing.
You don't need a "budget" to do simple experiments. When you were making ridiculous claims about shadows I did some experiments to show you were wrong. I didn't have a "budget", I just used a lamp and some string and a Rubik's cube, I just used things lying round my house. I've drawn diagrams to show you wrong about other things - again, I didn't need a budget, just some time and a simple paint package. I outlined some experiments you could do on shadows, literally all you'd need is an object to cast the shadow, a torch (flashlight, for you Americans) and a dark room. You don't need sponsorship to fund that.
Literally yesterday you were shown an experiment you could do to measure horizon dip. The equipment needed would cost a few dollars at a hardware store, you don't need a "budget".
You claim to be an empiricist, you're writing a chapter on "The importance of empiricism" and you have done no empirical measurements on anything so far as I can tell, even when you're spoon fed some ideas for experiments which would cost you pretty much nothing and would test part of your theories.
Some empiricist you are.
We rely on our users to contribute 100% of all content.
Well they're doing a splendid job. Pretty much every thread on here is round earthers showing what a load of nonsense your model of a flat earth is. In some there is no flat earth response, in others you and a few trolls flounder around trying to argue, generally try and derail the topic and then run away when you're shown to be wrong. You then retreat to your flat earth Batcave (The Flatcave?) and claim you won the argument.
We invited you to our potluck and you are the guy who came empty handed and just sits around complaining about the food other people brought.
No, we're the guys who brought the steak and chips to your pot luck supper which before we arrived consisted of some mouldy sandwiches.
You're the guys pretending our juicy steak is horrible and you much prefer your lovely mouldy sandwiches which are way better than our crummy old steak.
-
Go beg Rocket Guy for some experiments then. We have an annual budget of $0. Zero. Nothing. The webmasters of this website pay for hosting out of their own pocket. We rely on our users to contribute 100% of all content.
We invited you to our potluck and you are the guy who came empty handed and just sits around complaining about the food other people brought.
Still waiting for details of how you would determine the shape and size of the earth, then we can dicuss funding.
-
Globebusters gives their opinion on this documentary:
https://youtu.be/HZHVtxwvcMw
-
Globebusters gives their opinion on this documentary:
So, like Jeranism, Mike Helmick, and a host of other flat-earthers on YouTube, they're executing a prompt U-turn on their previously-held position of praising it to the heavens? Within the space of three days?
-
Go beg Rocket Guy for some experiments then. We have an annual budget of $0. Zero. Nothing.
You don't need a "budget" to do simple experiments. When you were making ridiculous claims about shadows I did some experiments to show you were wrong. I didn't have a "budget", I just used a lamp and some string and a Rubik's cube, I just used things lying round my house.
The Flat Earth movement does produce "simple experiments" of the kind with zero budget. Have you seen Youtube lately?
You claim to be an empiricist, you're writing a chapter on "The importance of empiricism" and you have done no empirical measurements on anything so far as I can tell, even when you're spoon fed some ideas for experiments which would cost you pretty much nothing and would test part of your theories.
Some empiricist you are.
Empiricism is the a method for the assessment of evidence and the making of conclusions.
It is not a dictum for anything more than that. See: High School General Ed
We rely on our users to contribute 100% of all content.
Well they're doing a splendid job. Pretty much every thread on here is round earthers showing what a load of nonsense your model of a flat earth is.
Why are you here if this is nonsense? Do you also have a presence on unicorn websites telling people that unicorns are not real?
-
Globebusters gives their opinion on this documentary:
So, like Jeranism, Mike Helmick, and a host of other flat-earthers on YouTube, they're executing a prompt U-turn on their previously-held position of praising it to the heavens? Within the space of three days?
I can't speak to that. I don't know what they were or were not saying about the video. I don't follow them every day. In the video I provided they claim to have just been saying "lets wait and learn more."
I am left thinking that the UFO stuff in Brazil may be entertainment of some sort that is ingrained in the culture.
-
Globebusters gives their opinion on this documentary:
So, like Jeranism, Mike Helmick, and a host of other flat-earthers on YouTube, they're executing a prompt U-turn on their previously-held position of praising it to the heavens? Within the space of three days?
I can't speak to that. I don't know what they were or were not saying about the video. I don't follow them every day. In the video I provided they claim to have just been saying "lets wait and learn more."
I am left thinking that the UFO stuff in Brazil may be entertainment of some sort that is ingrained in the culture.
How about explaining how to determine the size and shape of the earth.
-
Globebusters gives their opinion on this documentary:
So, like Jeranism, Mike Helmick, and a host of other flat-earthers on YouTube, they're executing a prompt U-turn on their previously-held position of praising it to the heavens? Within the space of three days?
I can't speak to that. I don't know what they were or were not saying about the video. I don't follow them every day. In the video I provided they claim to have just been saying "lets wait and learn more."
I am left thinking that the UFO stuff in Brazil may be entertainment of some sort that is ingrained in the culture.
I can help you with that.
I looked at YouTube soon after the video was released, and the 'main players' in Flat Earth video over there were all pitching in with a mirror of it, praising it as though it reinforced everything about their position, even though they included the words "Flat Earth" and "Convex Earth" in the titles of their videos. There were loads of them.
Even if you did not see them, I did, and can attest to their presence.
Most all of these YouTube contributors have now removed the videos praising the Convex Earth video, and have uploaded retractions of their previous videos.
You may well have only provided the second portion of what they posted, but all that shows is that you didn't see or re-post the first portion.
-
The Flat Earth movement does produce "simple experiments" of the kind with zero budget. Have you seen Youtube lately?
There's all kinds of crazy stuff on YouTube. How am I to know which experiments you would stand behind so I can comment?
Do you have an official YouTube channel? If so then please post the link and I'll have a look.
In the thread in which we were discussing horizon dip the video you produced had no measurements, it was by your own admission not stabilised video, it was completely useless in terms of determining whether you claim that the horizon is always at eye level is true.
(Spoiler alert: it isn't true, and wouldn't been true even if we were living on a flat earth. I've already produced a diagram explaining why)
If that's your idea of a controlled experiment then I can understand why you're getting things so wrong. As someone else said, it's as valid as measuring wind speed by wetting your finger in the air and holding it up to the wind - fine for determining the difference between "gosh, it's very windy" and "it's very calm", utterly useless for a precise measurement which is what is needed when the horizon dip angle is only 1 or 2 degrees at normal heights.
Why are you here if this is nonsense? Do you also have a presence on unicorn websites telling people that unicorns are not real?
You're the guys trying to publicise the "truth" of the flat earth and seeking publicity. That is what has brought you to my attention.
I lurked here for a while, amused and bemused at the stupidity of some of the arguments you and other flat earthers were making.
In the end I decided to dive in and join in the discussion rather than shaking my head from the sidelines.
I'm mostly here for my own entertainment, I suspect you are too and I'm not convinced you really believe a lot of this stuff.
But also if there are other lurkers out there who are on the fence and I and other round earthers can show how detached from reality you are there I think there's some value in that, I do think the truth is important.
-
I can't speak to that. I don't know what they were or were not saying about the video. I don't follow them every day. In the video I provided they claim to have just been saying "lets wait and learn more."
Take a look at channel "Astro Not"
Three days ago, "Hi-Tech Science Documentary proves FLAT Earth" - "Irrefutable scientific proof: our Earth is FLAT.
The Results from the experiments of the Terra Convexa Documentary "
Today "Convex Earthers interview Alien in a bush - hilarious!" - mocking the SAME 'documentary' team.... with no attempt to delete the previous video, apparently ...
-
I can't speak to that. I don't know what they were or were not saying about the video. I don't follow them every day. In the video I provided they claim to have just been saying "lets wait and learn more."
Take a look at channel "Astro Not"
Three days ago, "Hi-Tech Science Documentary proves FLAT Earth" - "Irrefutable scientific proof: our Earth is FLAT.
The Results from the experiments of the Terra Convexa Documentary "
Today "Convex Earthers interview Alien in a bush - hilarious!" - mocking the SAME 'documentary' team.... with no attempt to delete the previous video, apparently ...
That tells me that they were able to self correct and conduct their investigations reasonably.
Perhaps most flat earthers are just honest and its not all a big hoax?
-
I can't speak to that. I don't know what they were or were not saying about the video. I don't follow them every day. In the video I provided they claim to have just been saying "lets wait and learn more."
Take a look at channel "Astro Not"
Three days ago, "Hi-Tech Science Documentary proves FLAT Earth" - "Irrefutable scientific proof: our Earth is FLAT.
The Results from the experiments of the Terra Convexa Documentary "
Today "Convex Earthers interview Alien in a bush - hilarious!" - mocking the SAME 'documentary' team.... with no attempt to delete the previous video, apparently ...
That tells me that they were able to self correct and conduct their investigations reasonably.
Perhaps most flat earthers are just honest and its not all a big hoax?
Funny, it tells me they jumped on this idea without any investigation and had to backtrack once the truth came out. Kinda like you should have done.
-
That tells me that they were able to self correct and conduct their investigations reasonably.
Except that you showed only one side of this, without reference to the uncorrected version, presenting a distorted view of the sequence of events...
-
That tells me that they were able to self correct and conduct their investigations reasonably.
Except that you showed only one side of this, without reference to the uncorrected version, presenting a distorted view of the sequence of events...
I posted a video in which Globe Busters admitted they were wrong about endorsing the video. That tells us exactly what happened.
Are you just looking to start arguments about anything you can?
-
That tells me that they were able to self correct and conduct their investigations reasonably.
Except that you showed only one side of this, without reference to the uncorrected version, presenting a distorted view of the sequence of events...
I posted a video in which Globe Busters admitted they were wrong about endorsing the video. That tells us exactly what happened.
Are you just looking to start arguments about anything you can?
How's the map coming along?
-
I can't speak to that. I don't know what they were or were not saying about the video. I don't follow them every day. In the video I provided they claim to have just been saying "lets wait and learn more."
Take a look at channel "Astro Not"
Three days ago, "Hi-Tech Science Documentary proves FLAT Earth" - "Irrefutable scientific proof: our Earth is FLAT.
The Results from the experiments of the Terra Convexa Documentary "
Today "Convex Earthers interview Alien in a bush - hilarious!" - mocking the SAME 'documentary' team.... with no attempt to delete the previous video, apparently ...
That tells me that they were able to self correct and conduct their investigations reasonably.
Perhaps most flat earthers are just honest and its not all a big hoax?
What it shows is a complete lack of ability (or will) to carry out basic research on sources of 'information' that support their bias.
Perhaps flat earth is just a hoax by a few a-holes that relies on the lack of judgement present in FE followers?
-
I can't speak to that. I don't know what they were or were not saying about the video. I don't follow them every day. In the video I provided they claim to have just been saying "lets wait and learn more."
Take a look at channel "Astro Not"
Three days ago, "Hi-Tech Science Documentary proves FLAT Earth" - "Irrefutable scientific proof: our Earth is FLAT.
The Results from the experiments of the Terra Convexa Documentary "
Today "Convex Earthers interview Alien in a bush - hilarious!" - mocking the SAME 'documentary' team.... with no attempt to delete the previous video, apparently ...
That tells me that they were able to self correct and conduct their investigations reasonably.
Perhaps most flat earthers are just honest and its not all a big hoax?
What it shows is a complete lack of ability (or will) to carry out basic research on sources of 'information' that support their bias.
Perhaps flat earth is just a hoax by a few a-holes that relies on the lack of judgement present in FE followers?
What are you talking about? I posted the trailer that I found and we researched into its background here on this forum. You saw it for yourself.
-
I can't speak to that. I don't know what they were or were not saying about the video. I don't follow them every day. In the video I provided they claim to have just been saying "lets wait and learn more."
Take a look at channel "Astro Not"
Three days ago, "Hi-Tech Science Documentary proves FLAT Earth" - "Irrefutable scientific proof: our Earth is FLAT.
The Results from the experiments of the Terra Convexa Documentary "
Today "Convex Earthers interview Alien in a bush - hilarious!" - mocking the SAME 'documentary' team.... with no attempt to delete the previous video, apparently ...
That tells me that they were able to self correct and conduct their investigations reasonably.
Perhaps most flat earthers are just honest and its not all a big hoax?
What it shows is a complete lack of ability (or will) to carry out basic research on sources of 'information' that support their bias.
Perhaps flat earth is just a hoax by a few a-holes that relies on the lack of judgement present in FE followers?
What are you talking about? I posted the trailer that I found and we researched into its background here on this forum. You saw it for yourself.
Yeah, sure Tom, you go for that story if it makes you feel better.
Meanwhile others can just read through the early posts on this thread and see what actually happened.