201

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method

« on: March 12, 2016, 11:38:23 PM »

The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.

If this helps any, for what it's worth, although I haven't specifically studied it in depth, my historical understanding is that the 'Elements' of the Zeteticist Euclid who was favorably mentioned by Rowbotham were the pillar of the laws of math and science in ancient Greek, Roman, Arab/Muslim, Latin scholastic, and Ottoman civilizations, and the so-called scientific method which focuses on hypothesis rather than truth is that of Francis Bacon of Elizabethan England. Well funded artificial means including colonialism, ownership of the press by a few wealthy people, mandatory education systems by the nineteenth century is how Euclid's book and zeteticism were largely removed from education by the end of the nineteenth century and how Bacon's hypothetical reasoning became so ubiquitous.

A hundred years ago, the atheist muckraker Upton Sinclair wrote a series of excellent six non-fiction books which severely criticized corrupt institutions in the United States particularly exposing how the love of money is at the root of the corruption of these   The 'Goose Step' is about universities. He has another book about grade schools, an outstanding one about fiction in the press, yet another entitled 'The Profits of Religion', etc.

It is my perspective that such books by muckrakers like Upton Sinclair accurately depict the context in which such falsehoods as modern space trips are propagated and widely believed.

George Seldes hard hitting non-conformist 1942 book 'The Facts Are a Guide to Falsehood and Propaganda in the Press and Radio' is based upon and an update of Upton Sinclair's equally severe 1920 expose of the American press.

Albeit not in any sense as politically aware as Sinclair and Seldes, Arthur Koestler's 1950's classic 'Sleepwalkers: Man's Changing Vision of the Universe' may give some insight into the earlier influence of Bacon's flawed philosophy. It's also one of the few books published in the twentieth century which affirms that flat earth teaching was dominant in the Roman Empire from before Constantine's time until the Muslim conquest.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleepwalkers

202

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 04, 2016, 10:05:12 PM »

Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!

>second.

Sanders is not a socialist or radical unless compared to his competition, but he's by far the best option among the candidates.

Noam Chomsky endorsed Sanders and said that he doesn't have much of a chance. In corroboration of that I've since read that the reason Clinton has an advantage over him has nothing to do with the desires of common voters. Over the last two years her team has focused on getting the super delegates in each state to promise her their vote. The super delegates are a sizeable fraction of delegates in every state who are not elected by the voters at all. This fact heavily prejudices the elections in advance and is unsurprisingly omitted by major media because emphasis upon it would make people understand how the elections are a fraud designed to make it appear as if the establishment candidate defeated any challengers fair and square which is a lie.

That being said, Clinton is the lesser of two evils compared to Trump (who would indeed make for better late night TV).

So it's looking like Bill Clinton will get third and fourth terms as U.S. president. Republican presidents are not quite that clever.

203

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: March 04, 2016, 05:05:18 AM »

'What Did You Learn in School Today?'
By Pete Seeger

204

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: March 03, 2016, 11:40:38 PM »

Having been in submarines in the Navy based on both coasts, subsequently travelled the world on unemployment, lived abroad and now driving a semi truck over the road, I thought this Johnny Cash tune was peculiarly fitting:

205

Science & Alternative Science / Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus

« on: March 03, 2016, 07:37:40 PM »

I was thinking I could probably add Arthur Koestler to that list of folks who've written a couple of uncommonly useful critiques of "science" in spite of their distasteful political views. Perhaps 'Sleepwalkers' is his best.

206

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Ultimate Proof?

« on: March 03, 2016, 07:21:30 PM »

I find Mark Sargent's style and presentation the best and most convincing of the flat earth youtube brigade

I haven't looked deeply into his material, but that's my perception. Sargent and Matt Boylan are the two picks of the lot. Sargent sure seems to have had a great attitude and personality while other newcomers dived into all of the petty bickering.  He just published a book version of his videos from 2015 which is available through Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1523851430/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=

207

Science & Alternative Science / Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus

« on: March 03, 2016, 06:38:22 PM »

I think either 17November or Levee had some theories that nuclear weapons and proliferation were part of the conspiracy. He believed Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been firebombed.

I differed with the Nukelies website administrator who believed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed whereas I believe it was only one bomb which started fires that did most of the destruction of peoples' homes.

Having read the postings I made as 17 November, he correctly deduced that was and is my viewpoint as per a comment about it on his website.

Perhaps a more significant difference is the Nukelies website positive view of Nazism with which I disagree. Just because I agree with some facts presented by folks like Alexandr de Seversky and Crawford Simms does not mean I accept their right wing politics.

By analogy, I think Holocaust Museums are good educational venues to visit for school groups, law enforcement, etc, but that doesn't mean I agree with the ADL's views of Israel.

We need to use discernment to distinguish verifiable or testable facts presented by a source from that source's general philosophy.

208

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: When will this **** stop?

« on: June 20, 2015, 08:46:47 PM »

Why are we spending trillions of dollars fighting ISIL and al-Qaeda over seas when we have plenty of domestic terrorists right here at home?

Those who fear the possibility of domestic change beyond their control encourage constant distractions like ISIS or whatever precisely to deflect significant focused attention from domestic problems. 

American wealthy have done this since Europeans first settled.

209

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Party Membership

« on: June 20, 2015, 07:20:34 PM »

Used to be a card carrying Communist. Still have the card, in fact. I am a registered Republican now. Politically, I admit to being a total mess. I despise modern-day liberal bullshit, which is what the Democrats (and the Communist Party USA [CPUSA]) espouse. I don't like all the socially liberal crap.

But on a purely economic level, I am still basically Marxist. So, I guess you could say that I registered Republican for moral and ethical reasons, in many ways, as well as for their firm support of Israel. But economically I would better fit a Left Wing, even borderline Communist approach.

The problem is that in this country, economics and morals have gotten all mixed and muddled. If you are a Conservative morally speaking, you are invariably a Republican. If you are a Liberal morally speaking, you are invariably a Democrat.

It didn't used to be that way. Just a few years ago, you could be what they called a Blue Dog Democrat. A socially conservative, economically Left wing Democrat. You could also be a socially liberal, economically Right Wing Republican.

But at this point, most Republicans are socially conservative, economically Right Wing persons. Most Democrats are socially liberal, economically Left Wing persons.

And then you start mixing the two. So, I consider myself a borderline Communist, but as a social conservative, I oppose race based Affirmative Action. I don't believe in transfer of wealth just because a guy comes from a historically mistreated group of people. That's crap in my view.

I am in favour of social welfare, yes, like any good Communist, but not based on race. And like any sensible human, I believe that hand-outs should be limited. In return for social welfare, a person should be required to get job training, and should be required to look for work, and should be tested for drugs. If you are tested for drugs to keep your job, why aren't they tested for drugs to take your money?

So this country is a cluster-f**k in my view. So I end up a Republican for moral reasons, even though I'm basically still a Communist economically speaking.

I'm not officially with any party.
I respect the Greens although I'm probably closest to communist of the Stalinist or Hoxhaist variety (after Enver Hoxha of Albania). To be even more specific, I tend to agree with the conclusions of the late Englishman Bill Bland who founded the Stalin Society but was expelled from it by its current leaders because he was critical of Mao (as was Hoxha).

I recently came across Wang Ming who was Mao's long time Stalinist rival within the Chinese Communist Party whose writings changed my views somewhat against the cultural revolution and the pro-Maoist writings of Edgar Snow.

I really like the Stalin era Communist Party USA chairman William Z. Foster and have most of his prolific books which make him the best american historian I have read. I think of him in many ways like Wang Ming in China and his economic and political beliefs basically continued by the Hoxhaists.

As to the major american parties, I consider the bourgeois western democracies to be a moderate branch of fascism at best. The Republicans can be more open about it, but the Democrat Party is just as bad. I told a friend about a slim history of the Democrats I have by a Trotskyite publisher that includes a chapter entitled "The Party of Slavery" to which he replied that it's different today, but southern Democrats have always controlled that party and were the chief enemies of the New Deal and the civil rights movement disfiguring and limiting the potential of both.

210

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Lets agree on a chapter format

« on: June 20, 2015, 06:31:05 PM »

Hey Tom. I think it would be interesting to review the ENaG text, and to review all scriptural quotes, and explore them thoroughly, and see how Rowbotham was using them to defend his idea of Flat Earth. I could also explore possibly some of the other quotes that he used as well. But I would start with the Scripture first. What do you think?

I think it's a good idea. This article might point out a few verses for starters:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

211

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Lets agree on a chapter format

« on: June 03, 2015, 08:05:10 PM »

I think that this is very interesting...

You can contribute to whatever topic you have interest in. ... I can't tell you to dig up some dirt on Wherner Von Braun so we can make a section defaming him.

212

Philosophy, Religion & Society / The Bolsheviks and the Old Belief

« on: May 10, 2015, 06:33:40 PM »

I wanted to say I had this post in mind especially for Chris Spaghetti from Daniel's forum and his earlier posts about atheism. He had made remarks on two occasions which indicated at least some similarity in our pursuits: namely that he was already aware and long interested in a book about a Canadian Methodist preacher who was an incorrigible Maoist (to which I might add that he check out the life of Harry Ward) and a comment of mine that Saudi Arabia's government was far more cruel than that of Israel.

I just wanted to say that I have recently discovered to my satisfaction that the elders of the Russian Old Believers (particularly the Belo Krinitsa) were not only leftist politically oriented, but heartily welcomed and supported the Bolsheviks during and after the Russian revolution. From the course of my study, this seemed logical as the Old Believers were the ancient and persistent enemies of both the Romanovs and the Russian state church after about 1654.

Just thought you'd like to know.

EDIT:
I was reminded of this as I will just happen to be stopping for the night in North Umberland, Pennsylvania this evening and will visit the American residence of Joseph Priestley, another leftist preacher whose house was burned down by the British after he wrote a refutation of Edmund Burke's 'Reflections on the Revolution in France' for which reason he relocated to this house in rural Pennsylvania on the riverfront. Priestley was also the discoverer of oxygen and carbon monoxide among other things and his house an occasional meeting place of the American Chemical Society since the nineteenth century.

Joseph Priestley House
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley_House

213

Science & Alternative Science / The Asteroid Rhetoric

« on: May 02, 2015, 04:04:46 AM »

I have noticed in the American media in recent years a fascination with asteroid and meteor crashes that appears to me ultimately of an artificial origin and out of proportion to reality. For one thing, the focus on this particular phenomenon was not previously as intense, and I am skeptical about the extent of its grounding in reality including the veracity of some of what is reported as fact. More specifically, I suspect that the mass credibility in mass asteroid catastrophes has been promoted and manipulated primarily for military reasons. It seems likely a cover story for aerial bombardments.

214

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?

« on: April 13, 2015, 09:38:12 AM »

In america, I understand two sets of programs: 
1) the less publicized X plane program which was modified into the space shuttle during the Nixon years
and
3) the more publicized Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Skylab programs which involved an increasing amount of fakery

I think all of the american and Soviet space programs involved some degree of fakery and were both centrally coordinated.  Some involved more fakery than others.  I suspect that NASA had a large degree of involvement in Soviet space propaganda.  A false and inflated myth of Soviet military and scientific supremacy was promoted unanimously by both Khruhschevites and american anti-communists. 

215

Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay shot us down

« on: April 04, 2015, 05:43:35 AM »

DuBay not only treats people like Lumberg, he even looks like him a little bit:

216

Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay shot us down

« on: April 03, 2015, 08:50:48 PM »

I'd like to remark out of conscience in spite of all the stuff that Acenci said against this forum that he seems to me a decent guy who is new to a of this. Enthusiastic and possibly still slightly naive, but overall a decent guy.

217

Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay shot us down

« on: April 03, 2015, 08:31:33 PM »

I was just reading some of Dubay's threads. It looks like he banned acenci ...

Dr. Evil has banned mini me.
Don't worry. He'll get a replacement after about a 10 minute period of inconsolability.
Goons from Stormfront.org are beginning to discover his website.

218

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: April 02, 2015, 05:56:30 AM »

'Dumb and Dumber' probably belongs on that list as this film's 1990's equivalent.
Love the protest scene in Illinois:

219

Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay shot us down

« on: April 02, 2015, 03:03:19 AM »

Perhaps a posted warning about the racism on Eric DuBay's website would be jumping the gun considering that his forum is still in its infancy. Although I must say it's an excellent idea and a prudent possibility to bear in mind if it were warranted in the future.

220

Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay shot us down

« on: April 01, 2015, 11:34:19 PM »

http://ifers.boards.net/thread/70/adolf-hitler-real-truth-handle
fascism...that worldview limits possibilities.

He generates interest. It certainly doesn't hurt us.

Fair enough.  If we benefit from his knowledge and ignore his error, perhaps only his possibilities are limited.