61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 24, 2021, 09:22:29 PM »

I think action80 has described the problem very well, despite any slight inconsistencies of verbiage you may see.

The concept itself is intractable, which is to say directly paradoxical, which is to say non-real.  The fact that what we observe cannot be modeled with the concept is unsurprising, and shows that newton was wrong (about a great many things, unsurprisingly).

We know where a light in the sky will be because of its past "performance" as action80 rightly points out.  It's how we "predict" eclipses too, from charts.

Another way to describe / aspect of the paradox is in the answerS to the question, "what happens to you at the center of the earth"?

Newton didn't know, and we don't either.  The concept suggests that the immense weight of everything crushes you, AND that you get rend asunder by the gravitational forces pulling you outward in all directions, AND that you feel nothing because all gravitational forces cancel themselves out.

Gravitation is a philosophically unsound and unscientific posit, which newton understood and admitted. He asked that his name not be associated with it as a result.

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 23, 2021, 07:52:04 AM »

I don't accept data that requires such abject appeal to authority (cannot be validated / verified independently), but even assuming you do AND that the earth is a sphere (and everything else in the heavens, to boot) doesn't help us explain what is (or why it is) through theory.

I would like to be clear that I think this entire thread is a farce (very much related, if not quintessentially demonstrative, of what JSS is certain does not exist in the "zealous" thread). 

RET is not a thing and surely if it was it wouldn't contain the totality of all the universe within it.  We are merely criticizing creation mythology that is disingenuously/erroneously passed off as science from childhood.

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why does the moon have impact craters?

« on: March 23, 2021, 07:45:33 AM »

@tumeni

They are, yes.  I didn't say any of their musings were reasonable, just that they have them.

The moon constantly has a "blocker", unless you think the impact craters are from things launched out of volcanoes - etc.

It is not that things COULDN'T hit the moon, it is that we might expect them (when musing upon it) to do so with some difficulty (significantly less frequency than without a blocker) and at angles that would tend not to be perpendicular to the plane of the surface.

What are your contrary musings (just out of curiosity)?

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 23, 2021, 03:17:41 AM »

Sure, ignore the three body paradox.

How about the creation of spherical balls of matter in the first place (in order to have any systems, of any number, at all).

None of the models can do that without invoking massive amounts of speculative fiction.

Stars, planets, you name it.  Not without "supermassive black holes" and worse...

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why does the moon have impact craters?

« on: March 23, 2021, 03:12:23 AM »

Nothing magical about it, it's a natural, logical consequence of a large body like the moon rotating as it orbits.  Tidal forces and friction will eventually slow it's rotation until it is tidally locked as it is now. It's all very simple and easy to understand, actually.

Last I checked it was absolutely an anomaly, with no other observable or observed examples.  We can observe things that appear to have their own moons, but none are "locked" by magic.  Of course you can speculate that that is due to lack of liquid water, but this is a wild speculation (on top of centuries of them).

I'm not aware of any modern astronomers who have a problem with tidally locked bodies and how they become that way.  Which astronomers are you referring to?

It's not about the tidal locking, it's about the impact craters.  There would be expected to be far fewer (especially large ones) as the face (presumed to be riddled with them) is always towards the earth.  So the musing goes.  Astronomy is (largely, not entirely) pseudoscience, as you know.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why does the moon have impact craters?

« on: March 22, 2021, 09:58:15 PM »

It is presumed that the moon has impact craters, much the same as the craters we find on earth are presumed to be caused by impact events (there is almost no reason to suspect this).

As the moon is magically locked to the earth, and we only see the one "side" of it - this explanation doesn't hold water - which has been pointed out by many astronomers over time.

It is again PRESUMED that the moon wasn't always magically locked to the earth the way it is now, but we have no evidence to support these assertions.  They are mythological in origin, not scientific.

67

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 22, 2021, 07:31:38 PM »

@stack

I’m not sure what makes you think you have the authority or that your role here is to educate anyone. Instead of just always claiming something without evidence and relying on the notion that you are more knowledgable than others, you might want to actually back up your claims.

I have, you ignored them because you are biased.  I am not the only researcher to perform an iconographic study of "aliens" over time.  Perhaps you wish to do the same (or start researching those that have?)

You inability to recognize and admit when you are wrong is harming you.  I urge you to reconsider.

We are not evaluating your claim that close encounters is the beginning of the gray iconography, because it clearly isn't - which I've already "backed up".  Try practicing what you preach!

68

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 22, 2021, 02:07:05 AM »

@stack

Interesting that you believe you are default more informed than someone else.

I suspected it, by default (based on my prior experience with you, in this thread and outside it. As well as my extensive research and knowledge on the subject - we are few and far between)

You proved your lack of knowledge in at least three ways. One, the regurgitation of a wiki article.  Two, the complete ignoring of everything I said in an earnest effort to educate you. And three, that you don't even know that close encounters has been "revised"/"remastered".  Your lack of depth in this subject is evident. It requires no belief.

I didn't. I didn't have a bias.

Re-read the thread.

I thought about what you wrote and wondered if it was true or not.

No, you assumed it wasn't true and attempted to use that as a reason to discredit any finding or statement I may make. Classic debunker.

In pondering and looking into it, I started to find some discrepancies. And equally, you cannot objectively make any claim if your preexisting bias is that it MUST be right. As you have done.

One of us has spent years on the research, and is sharing a research conclusion bore of that work.  One of us isn't.  It's all terribly simple.

Why do you presume that you are in the role of a "teacher" from which some one can learn? Just because you claim to be some sort of expert?

I generously offered to share my knowledge with you and educate you.  Pearls before swine, sadly.

Not a foregone conclusion. I just question your constant barrage of "through your independent research findings things work like this..." without ever really backing anything up.

And in cases like this where you recieved the "backing up", you just ignored it and continued to believe whatever you wanted to.  Good research ethic!

And I fully demonstrated that folks who probably have perhaps studied more than you on the subject contradict your claims. (See paper above)

You fully ignored and then tried to distract from how you were wrong.  Next time, own it - you learn more that way!

69

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 22, 2021, 01:52:54 AM »

Does your research involve field trips, interviewing witnesses and so forth?  Or is it mainly google/YouTube based?

I do not conduct interviews, no.  I do, of course, study the anecdotes collected by other researchers.

I don't go on field trips with the express purpose of seeing ufos (though I frequently look up!).  In general, there is no reason to - they are too ephemeral (and are clandestine surveillance craft, besides).

Accept nothing without thorough validation first.  This is not advice limited to ufology.

My research approach is most informed by the late great stan friedman. If you stick with him and listen closely to what he says, you should do alright.

It is a subject riddled with frauds and lying profiteers (not unlike much of the "flat earth" circuit / youtube etc.).  Sadly many of the "experiencers" are also victims in my view.

70

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 21, 2021, 08:43:16 PM »

@stack

Part of the result of years of research is that I am much better informed than you are.  You can pout about it, or try to learn something.

I've already wasted too much time on you.

You cannot objectively evaluate any claim if your preexisting bias is that it MUST be wrong.

This is a good example, though I doubt you will learn anything from it.

Your foregone conclusion (bias) is that I am wrong (about everything) and that I don't do thorough research.

I've fully demonstrated to you that the close encounters aliens are not grays at all - you learned nothing. 

71

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 20, 2021, 07:21:07 AM »

@stack

It is sad to see you miss the point so egregiously.

The "aliens" in close encounters are in no way grays.  They are modeled after the betty and barney hill "aliens" and they have beautiful/deep eyes for that reason. 

http://sfa.admin.srv.e-makers.fr/images/uploads/objectitemPicture/419/picture/532a_845x485p.jpg

Independent research is not for everyone.

P.S. lucas and speilberg are shameless revisionists.  you have been hoodwinked.

72

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 20, 2021, 04:13:32 AM »

@stack

Communion (book), Intruders (tv series), Fire in the Sky (Aliens proper do not look like the quintessential gray, but the helmets/suits they wear do! Apparently it was a twist the director added in because they found out in the middle of production that intruders had been made, and already did exactly what they were doing...)

Communion is sort of the beginning of it, and it becomes more sinister looking (more insectoid) as time progresses.

Communion (1987) :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Communion_book_cover.jpg

Intruders (1992) :

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104523/mediaviewer/rm2511026432?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_prd_47

Fire in the Sky (1993) :

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uCTs22y_1GI/UCV6cdSLKuI/AAAAAAAAB_s/ccbfIP9vC30/s1600/vlcsnap-2012-06-24-22h29m13s173.png

73

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 19, 2021, 07:54:00 PM »

The 90's gray is designed to be scary.  They have nothing in common with the betty and barney "little people", whose skin was white/pale (not gray, until MANY MANY years after the fact.... Memory is a funny thing!)

The swinging 60's aliens were friendly (and sometimes robots).

The abduction mythos takes a dark turn in the 80's, for the purposes of psychological warfare.

It seems you do have some interest after all!

74

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 19, 2021, 03:14:55 PM »

@stack

And look at that, it was wasted on you.

The gray that we know and love began in the 90's.

You can say that this is a "proto" grey, and there is some minor merit to that perspective - but if you think the aliens in close encounters were Grey's, then you can't trust your own eyes.

They are modeled after the barney and betty hill "aliens" who were also not grey or like the grays we know and love from the 90's.  A very small amount of research (beyond the wiki article) would be needed to confirm such things...

75

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 19, 2021, 02:00:55 AM »

Ufology is an excellent subject to build and hone your skills as an independent researcher (especially interested in studying human belief).

The scourge of alien worship is very real, and heavily advertised/propagated.

I'll throw you a bone since I'm in the mood, but I fear it will be wasted on you.

http://www.sciencefictionarchives.com/en/collections/333/extra-terrestrial-orignal-costume-from-close-encounters-of-the-third-kind

76

Flat Earth Community / Re: Student Researching this Discourse Community

« on: March 18, 2021, 06:24:05 PM »

@tumeni

Unless the OP is interested (which they initially stated they were not), I don't think we should clutter up this thread with it.

You have likely already been given the answer, and it is certainly in my post history.

77

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 18, 2021, 06:08:30 PM »

@stack

Unlike you I do not have a background in ufology and I haven't studied more than most on the subject, but even I know common stereotypical depictions of aliens as "grays" goes way back before the 90's.

Well then, perhaps it is time to delve a little deeper into why and how you "know" these things.  Considering you haven't studied them, and are simply regurgitation a wiki article...

I can explain why you are wrong, and show you that the 90's are the first time the gray we know and love was popularized - but is it really worth the effort? (Seeing as you don't have any interest or preexisting knowledge on the subject)

If so, I'd be happy to educate you but I don't think you could honestly say that it would be worth my time.

78

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 18, 2021, 09:47:02 AM »

Welcome!

I think kokorikos nailed it in their answers so I will skip over those.

I am becoming a believer of flat earth.

I strongly caution against that.  We are in this mess BECAUSE of belief in the first place (#3 on kokirikos' list)!  Seek to KNOW the shape of the world instead, and work to remove belief where it does not belong (like in knowledge and fact, especially scientific)

Why haven't more people studied this ?

I have a background in ufology.  I have studied more about "aliens" and the belief therein than most other people.  I can assure you that aliens ONLY exist in fiction, and that is their clear and obvious origin.  The gray that we know and love was first depicted in the 90's.

There is nothing wrong with asking grand questions, but you should not be surprised when answers are not forthcoming! We seriously struggle with vastly simpler/smaller/mundane/terrestrial  questions; like, what is the true shape of the entire world - for instance.

If outer space does not exist who put the firmament there and how ?

Who says it has to be a who?

The creation mythology that we were (most all) steeped in under the guise of science and education informs that nothing made everything over unfathomable amounts of time.  Just because earth has a dome (possibly) and space is fiction doesn't preclude this perspective/belief.

Many, when faced with the reality that their creation myth is just that - revert to religion.  God did it.  It is a more defensible answer, but still somehow unsatisfying.

In my view a creator is necessitated regardless of preference in creation mythology. However, bouncing like a pinball from belief to belief is no way to learn anything.  As I warned initially, belief is a trap and is to be excised from knowledge and fact whenever identified (much easier said than done).

I can't seem to ever really find these answers

Are you surprised?  The big questions are so hard (and ostensibly hopeless) that most people forget about them when they "grow up".  I think we will have to continue to search for the answers, but I am confident they are there to find!

79

Flat Earth Community / Re: Student Researching this Discourse Community

« on: March 18, 2021, 09:00:26 AM »

1.Why do you believe in the Flat Earth Theory?

I don't.  In fact, I endaevour to excise belief from knowledge/fact entirely (especially scientific).  Belief, also known as bias, is across purposes to objective study of any kind.

In my view, there is no flat earth theory (in a scientific context of the word).  The shape of the world being, generally, flat is a posit (and for others, a conclusion and/or belief).

I am more accurately described as a "globe skeptic/denier".

2. How do you know who's "In" or "Out" of this Discourse Community?

By who posts here!  It's an internet forum, not a community.  Many of the most active posters are RE proponents, and staunchly opposed to any other shape for the world (in possibility, and especially in actuality)

3.How Long have you been here?

I've been most active for about a year, and have had my account for roughly 2.

4.Why are you involved?

Now THAT'S a challenging question.

In the most general, I am here for rational discourse with others.

In the most specific, I am here to disseminate and expose my research findings, conclusions, and approaches to scrutiny/criticism.

5. What does "Noob" mean?

Seriously? Is this your first time using an internet forum?  Google can answer your "noob" question. Lol. It is short for "newbie"; someone who doesn't have experience.

6.How do you communicate with other Flat Earth Theory DC members?

Words mostly, sometimes a picture / video or two.  It is important to note that flat earth research is not localized entirely to this forum (tfes).  As your questions seem limited to tfes in particular, the answer would seem to be - this internet forum.

7.Are there conflicts in this Discourse Community? If so, what are they?

People suck, is the short answer.  Conflicts are inevitable as a direct result.

If you read the FAQ/Wiki/Read before posting content (which you really should), you will find that this site proper (the "upper fora") is actually not for discourse at all - it's for debate (which inherently involves conflict)

8.Do some have difficulty writing or speaking here?

Absolutely, for a myriad of reasons.

Sometimes the rules of the forum are not followed (such as reading the content I mentioned before posting), sometimes rules of debate are violated, and sometimes the ire of the mods is invoked (for a variety of other reasons).

9.Who has authority here? How is it written? Where does that authority come from?

It's an internet forum.  Administrators and moderators have the authority.  The authority stems from ownership, typically.

10.Are members stereotyped in any way? Why?

Of course.  In general stereotypes are used to remove the burden of the necessity to evaluate people individually.  It's to save time, and to keep separate/categorize.

RE proponents are generally stereotyped as fundamentalist religious zealots, and FE proponents are generally stereotyped as morons/"conspiracists"/crazies.

Did I mention that stereotypes almost always contain at least a "grain of truth"?

In any case it is both reductivist and dehumanizing to view (or treat) an individual person as a / by stereotype.

Please let me know if you need/want any further clarification!

80

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Consistently editing posts without changing anything

« on: March 17, 2021, 08:53:05 PM »

This is interesting.

Are you saying / is it true that simply editing your post makes a thread appear on the unread / replied to listing?

If so, I think that should be disabled if possible. Only new posts should count towards such things.

Many times I will reread a thread and see an error (spelling / grammer) or, like in Tom's example, somewhere the diction or phrasing could use some adjustment.

Had I known/recognized this was bumping the threads to the "new" lists, I might not have made the minor changes at all.