Show Posts

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


Messages - CableDawg

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10  Next >
41
Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken
« on: October 17, 2016, 12:39:38 PM »
Hello, people! ...who don't even have the courage to let their true identities or names be known... and yet trying to prove and convince people here of something truthful. At the start, there's already inconsistency. Anyway, for the fun of it, seeing how people here one-sidedly and narrow-mindedly defend their sides of the what's really the truth out there, I tried to get new line of reasoning and evidences/facts, but it's very disappointing as everything discussed and presented here has been already presented and arguably discussed somewhere here and in other fora. Nothing new! Everybody still went around the circle trying to catch each other's behind. :) .... Hey, wake up!  Each of you people has a point! Tom and his colleagues have a point. And rabinoz, et.al. also have a point.. You all have points, but can't you ever see that all your (repeated) arguments and evidences/observations are valid based on which frame of mind or mindset you have, GE or FE? Why can't both sides or parties cooperate and join together to prove once and for all what the earth really is? And be a real truth seeker, not a debater or arguer all your life. For example, re earth's curvature, go further beyond 200 miles away from a seashore using high powered telescope mutually agreed upon and proper calculations, and be brave and humble enough to accept the real truth, GE, FE or something else. Tom in this forum has a point in presenting his views on how things about GE had transpired or came to be. Rabinoz, in trying to prove his globe-based reasoning and facts, has also a point just like other FEs here in their posts.

Pls elevate the discussion to the next level to find the truth, and nothing but the truth...an irrefutable and indubitable truth out there... maybe the level of analytical, intellectual and/or imaginative faculty among people here just does not have that capacity.... one way of knowing, try answering my question below.... :)

You seek the truth but how do you know it when you find it?  Do you merely cobble disparate pieces together to get something you agree with and label it as the truth?

42
Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken
« on: October 17, 2016, 12:37:36 PM »

I was just making a pointless point.
How sharp is the point on a pointless point?

Only as sharp as the individual making the point.

43
Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken
« on: October 17, 2016, 12:24:28 PM »
Scientific interpretations about the world are skewed under the dogma of a round earth, and elaborate phenomena and explanations are invented whenever an observation contradicts the status quo.


Why are scientific interpretations regarding round Earth the only interpretations being dragged down by ancient dogma passed on by hundreds of generations?  Since the inception of the Scientific Method all dogmas of generations before where/are defeated and/or abandoned as they were/are shown to be wrong.  Why is the round Earth dogma the only one which has stood the test of time?  What makes it special?

Equating astronomy and astrology?  Have you ever heard the phrase "wronger than wrong"?

How long has it actually been that anybody declared that the world was perfectly round?  You also seem to forget that gravity is influenced by mass, not shape.  You are also, purposely, phrasing your statement incorrectly.  The gravity map of Earth shows Earth as not perfectly spherical because it is representative of the varying gravity as measured at various points.

Pilots fly a preplanned path!  The sacrilege of such an action!  How dare they?!  Do you not also travel by foot, bicycle, car or any other method via a preplanned path?  Or do you randomly wander around until you finally reach your destination?  I'm not entirely sure how this is an argument for FE or against RE.  As for shortest distance and according to the FE map there are a number of locations in the United States which would greatly benefit from a shortened flight path directly over the North Pole when flying to Europe.  In fact I've made many flights from a location which would have benefitted when going to Europe and I have yet to see the North Pole.  I guess the only recourse is to chalk this up to a conspiracy by the airlines to make more money off its passengers.

What point are you even trying to make regarding satellite communications?  How does this have anything to do with supporting FE?

So, NASA was created by some shadow organization for some nefarious purpose prior to which point nobody on Earth had any idea of what the Earth looked like but NASA went ahead and projected Earth as a sphere because the people expected to see a sphere.  Gotcha.

How is it a coincidence that the U.S. put a satellite in orbit just shortly after Russia?  That's what the race was all about.  Both countries were working on capability, Russia beat us to the punch.  What does this prove?  As for the failures of the space program, would you have it that everything about it should have been fully formed, functional and without incident from its inception to now?  How many other human endeavors can make the same claim? 

Since you guys like to stand so proudly on the shoulders of Rowbotham let's look at one of his failures.

He proposed using Earth's rotation as the prime mover for air travel.  His proposal was to launch an airship, keep it stationary via some method and let Earth rotate under it until the desired destination was reached.  Needless to say, this was an utter failure.

Now, by the logic you use regarding NASA's failure and that they shouldn't be trusted because of them, the entirety of FET collapses under the weight of Rowbotham's spectacular failure.

44
This is an informational query for any Flat Earthers on this forum. Lets say that I found a way to get us funded. Lets keep the amounts ambiguous for now. If you were provided with some amount of money, what would you do with it to promote the society?

What experiments would you conduct, projects would you work on, or promotional activities would you organize?

Imagine that our budget was $10,000, $50,000 or $100,000.

Thank you.

How long did the amount stay ambiguous?

Aside from paying for the venue and all the other hidden costs of standing up a debate how much are you actually going to pay those you would invite to the debate?

How do you think a debate is really going to help your cause?

Wouldn't your cause be better helped if you were to fund something which would offer actual proof of FET?  Why not fund an expedition to the ice wall to map and measure it?  According to FET the ice wall should have a circumference of about 75,000 miles where as the accepted circumference of Antarctica is about 11,000 miles.  If you can prove the ice wall really is 75,000 miles in circumference you would have solid proof of one of the primary claims of the theory.

45
Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« on: October 16, 2016, 08:02:48 AM »


, it's wise to choose the "IFs" that can give you at least one life more... :)

You say this as if (BIG IF here) it's a foregone conclusion that your particular belief system is the one which will give you at least one more life.

A question that comes to mind...

What kind of person are you, really, when the only thing that forces you into moral behavior is the THREAT of having your forever life taken away from you?  In case you didn't notice, I doubly emphasized threat because that's all religion really is.  A threat.  It's not a promise of anything.  It's a threat used to make people behave in a certain manner.

This is, I believe, what sets Atheist apart from and above the religious.  We don't need the ancient threats of an ancient, ignorant culture to force us into moral behavior.

46
Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« on: October 16, 2016, 07:42:28 AM »
It's for the children.

Not really, for me, it's for the unwise or shall we say, fools. My reason? simple. If you choose to be atheist, well, religion, say christianity, teaches a life (heavenly life is more attractive than that of hell) after this earthly life. Now, if this next life is indeed true, then unbeliever, atheist by choice, will go to hell and the believer can have that heavenly next life (well, assuming he/she is good christian of course :)   ); and if it is not true, well, the believer and the atheist both end in nothing. Who is wiser then? Certainly, the believer. Let's just be wiser in making choices like this... :)
Hell, you say. Now, this is God's version of it all. You know, the creator of everything, except hell. Until I've read Satan's side of the story, the Bible is just God pointing fingers.

The problem with religion is the absence of logic. From the believers that is. Adam and Eve populated earth, in all our colors, shapes and sizes, yet there's a surprisingly small amount of  people showing the symptoms of being inbred. This is just one of the humorous flaws.

Well, of course, you can say all you want to say against God and the Bible. You can despise and condemn religion with all your might. You really can. No one will prevent you from doing this. hehehe.... but the problem is everyone dies. You die. And when you die, this is the time when anyone, with or without believing God, can confirm in real time whether this "next life after this life" is true. My point is this. Believing or not believing a God out there who tells us that next life exists, we all gonna DIE. Unless you're also a God and 100% sure of where you're going to after this life, you'll be wise enough to choose to be atheist. Get what I mean? But you are not. You cannot even stop or exempt yourself from dying. If you don't die, well, I'll believe in you and likewise be an atheist, but you do die... :)   Well, who's wiser then in making a choice? the one who is open-mined opting for a chance to go on living a good next life or the one who is too narrow-minded opting for nothing, but only this present life? If you're a gambler, and you know you'll lose no matter what you do and how many times you bet, and still you keep on betting, well, what are you? simple, a fool... a wise gambler bets with a mindset that he'll win... meaning, hoping, believing, and taking a chance to win. Just like that, we take the same chance to go on living after this life.... well, i have no problem with your choice, you opted to live only once, well, good luck... it's your choice... :)

Let's follow your logic...

You believe that Jesus died and was raised to heaven.

You believe that True Christians™ will also raised to heaven when they die.

This makes them exactly the same as their god.

Therefore they are, each of them, gods.

Do you have fervent belief in yourself?

47
Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« on: October 16, 2016, 07:26:04 AM »
Hate is not a human "failing". The root of hate is fear, is fear a human failing?

Socialized religions are non-moral, that is, they contain both moral and immoral individuals. Religions are not God, they are man's interpretation of God and their frailties and inequities do not disprove the existence of God. The proof of God is that man is capable of love, belief in God does not require the abandonment of reason.

To believe in God is not necessarily driven by a fear of death, it can simply be a belief that something exists beyond man.

There is a preponderance of evidence that the earth is round. In order for it be flat there would have to be millenniums of liars along with photos, first hand accounts, satellites in orbit, etc. that would have to be ignored or otherwise explained to accept a flat world. Socialized religions are based on faith and faith is blind acceptance of the unknown. For this reason individuals who live by faith are more willing to accept a flat world.

R

Proof of god is that man is capable of love?

I love tacos.  Which god does that prove?

48
Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« on: October 16, 2016, 07:22:28 AM »
Now, I assume that being an atheist you are a FEer yourself?

What does one have to do with the other?

Well, RE science has gotten itself into a bit of a pickle, imho.  In explaining the wonders of the universe down to almost the minutest detail, you've created a number of variables that, if even off slightly, would not have allowed life to exist (no, I'm not talking about the so-called "Goldilocks zone", you guys have covered that one brilliantly; what I speak of is more a "Goldilocks universe", a universe that was juuuuuuuust right for life to exist).

It just makes much more sense for such a universe to have been created, because otherwise you're looking at a statistically impossible coincidence that things turned out so perfect for life.  And if it was created, there is a creator, QED.

So it really makes no sense for me to be a REer and not believe in God.

On the other hand, FET is so wide-open and unexplored, its deepest mysteries have yet to be revealed.  It may come about that after exhaustive research into the origins of the universe we will run into the same issue.  But there's no reason to assume it at this point, so it's perfectly reasonable to be a FEer and also be an atheist.

Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?

I see that you were probably a "one and done", but I thought this was worth addressing too in case you do come back.  It's easy to be religious and disagree with some of your religion's doctrines about morality.  I know lots of people who are able to achieve this.  All you have to do is turn your brain off and pretend it makes sense to pick and choose what you want to believe out of whichever book it is that you believe in that was supposedly transcribed by an infallible God.  That's all!

And you make the mistake that you can apply statistics/probability to a sample size of 1.

That we are able to have this discussion proves that our universe, far from being in the "goldilocks zone" and statistically impossible, is in fact in the realm of 100% possibility, that is to say actuality.

My challenge to you is for you to produce evidence of these other universes which proves our universe to be a statistical impossibility.

49
Flat Earth Theory / Re: ISS nonsense
« on: October 16, 2016, 05:45:34 AM »
Please reply with a simple and logical explanation of why there is no recorded footage of a space ship leaving earths atmosphere.  That's all I need answering.  That question must be niggling your own mind now that you're thinking about it?  It's such an easy thing to do and it would completely debunk and close down this website and the entire FE thinking everywhere.  1 video!  Come on, you can't tell me you don't think they must have something to hide??  If you say you don't think it's a valid question then you're a liar mate

Though I'm sure you're long gone and will never read this I'll say it anyway.

You say that the one video you are requesting would be easy to produce and would debunk all of FET.

Something that would be easier and less costly than putting a man into space would be for the FE society to mount an expedition to the ice wall to map it and measure it.  This would, if supportive of the FET, be irrefutable proof of the theory. 

Why has it never been done?  Surely there are enough FE believers around the world to finance such an expedition so it shouldn't be about money.

50
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Please explain Earth's shadow on the moon.
« on: October 11, 2016, 05:26:21 AM »
Considering that, in the FE model, the sun and moon are both basically nothing more than spotlights on a track the best I can come up with which falls within the realm of FE theory is that occasionally the moon passes over a reflective device located somewhere on the FE which reflects "dark light" back up to the moon.  It is this "dark light" which looks like a shadow.

Disclaimer:  I can't find any reference to or support of "dark light" in the real world or in the FE wiki.  I merely made up "dark light" as it is the only thing I can come up with which fits various FE theories which deal with shadows.

51
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Genuine Question
« on: September 21, 2016, 08:02:27 AM »
I would amend GTG's comment to flat earthers do not regard photographs as evidence for or proof of anything unless the photograph supports their theory.  One prolific FE poster has even used animated GIFs to support his theory of bendy light.

Aside from that, I've asked a similar question regarding the ice wall.  Why have they never mounted an expedition to map and measure the ice wall?

The clearest, most rational answer I can come to as to why they don't pursue actual proof of their ideas is that what they would quickly be proved wrong if they ever actually tried.

52
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« on: September 14, 2016, 10:44:12 AM »
The most qualified person to replace a scientific theory in an given discipline with another scientific theory is a scientist in the given discipline, obviously.

Quite incorrect.

If Science A is to be replaced with Science B it makes a lot more sense that someone who is very knowledgeable and practiced in Science B would do it, not an ignorant and biased Science A proponent.

Let's go to Mr. Rogers Neighborhood and pretend for a little bit.

To be fair to your implication we'll assign actual Science to "Science A" and even though it's not, really, science we'll assign FET to "Science B".

That you are knowledgeable in Science B contributes nothing to your reliability as a source or resource in replacing Science A with Science B for at least two reasons. 

1.  Your "science" isn't even a valid replacement for Science A.
2.  You've proved that you have little to no knowledge of Science A which, as much as you'd like to deny it, is a requirement for you to replace Science A with Science B.  Without actual knowledge of Science A you've got no foundation on which to base the statement "Science B is better or more valid".

53
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« on: September 14, 2016, 10:30:28 AM »
Cool thing about astrology, as with FET, is that neither is founded in any type of science nor does either have any rules of constraint and any individual can produce a narrative which is pleasing to them.  What about you and your chosen narrative of FET makes you, decidedly, a reliable source?

Whether the subject matter is Astrology or Quantum Theory, it doesn't matter. The professionals in that field are in the best position to debunk other fields or to show his or her own field to be correct. The professionals in those fields are not in the best position to show his or herself to be wrong, however.

A Quantum Theorist probably isn't looking to prove that quantum particles or any type of matter doesn't actually exist, as that is counter to almost everything basic and fundamental about QM, everything he or she has learned, and all of his or her own published works.

The Wave-Matter Theory guy in that above link who says that QM is wrong is in the best position to prove QM to be wrong, as he knows the most about his subject and has written the most about it and has done most of the research. Being the most reliable source on that subject, he is also in the best position to prove himself to be correct.

What makes you a reliable source or resource?

54
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« on: September 13, 2016, 01:14:32 PM »
It also makes you absolutely unreliable as a source for FET.

Are Astrologers not reliable sources for the practice and teachings of Astrology?

Are they not the most reliable source to find and present evidence for it, if such evidence can exist?

For example, perhaps only an properly motivated Astrologer would be up on the statistics of the number of murders on full moons, and might argue that is possible for the celestial bodies to affect the human complexion. Maybe such a dedicated Astrologer would have all sorts of stats for us about the sun and the planets and the heavens. I only know about the murders during a full moon association. A knowledged Astrologer would know much more.

The Astrologer is not in the best position to debunk himself, as he is not actively persuing that, but he is in the best position to show himself to be right or the opposition to be wrong.

Cool thing about astrology, as with FET, is that neither is founded in any type of science nor does either have any rules of constraint and any individual can produce a narrative which is pleasing to them.  What about you and your chosen narrative of FET makes you, decidedly, a reliable source?

55
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« on: September 13, 2016, 03:17:12 AM »
In fact, Jefferson (or really any intelligent person) would be a far more reliable source than the people who fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Such an ironic thing for you to say.  From all accounts you've fallen for FE hook, line and sinker.  Seems that puts you directly in the unreliable camp.

And that makes me the most reliable person to debunk RET, but perhaps not the most reliable person to debunk FET.

It also makes you absolutely unreliable as a source for FET.

You see how that works don't you?  I didn't change what you originally said, which was that a person who fell for anything hook, line and sinker was an unreliable source, period.

Now you are changing tack (common for you when called out) to a source only for debunking something.

56
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« on: September 12, 2016, 12:22:52 PM »
In fact, Jefferson (or really any intelligent person) would be a far more reliable source than the people who fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Such an ironic thing for you to say.  From all accounts you've fallen for FE hook, line and sinker.  Seems that puts you directly in the unreliable camp.

57
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:27:17 AM »
Quote
The Cavendish Experiment, to name but one example, demolishes the assertion that "almost everything pushes others...Magnetic illusion is the only exception".  The attractive force of gravity can be demonstrated by a home science enthusiast's low budget version of the Cavendish experiment, with more than one example posted on YouTube.

The Cavendish Experiment is not a proof of gravity. It is very flawed. This experiment is incredibly sensitive and at this scale forces such as the electrostatic force are significantly more powerful than the weak force of "gravity". The slightest external or internal force could affect the device. Cavendish made no effort in his experiment to account for such forces.

See this article by Miles Mathis: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Also, in those Youtube videos, the experimenters aren't even conducting their experiments in a closed environment. People are walking, breathing, and moving all around them. Ridiculous.

Really Tom?

All the proof you demand of us and you point us to an article by someone trained in philosophy, latin, history, politics and management?

His opinion on the subject is no more valid than your opinion on the subject.

Him believing the same as you doesn't make him right.

58
A simple question for beginners.  :)

Who, other than yourself, is saying they don't work at 30,000 feet?

You were soundly beat down when your "knowledge" of television transmit/receive systems was shown to be lacking and you're now turning to cell phone transmit/receive systems?

Do you not understand that television, radio and cell phones operate on the same principals?


59
Flat Earth Theory / Re: ISS nonsense
« on: September 04, 2016, 09:21:28 AM »
Anyway, my question regarding video feeds was aimed at why they don't have on board cameras NOT a video from ground level of a 'rocket' docking at ISS.

I'm left wondering why you haven't written to NASA with this question.

I'm also left wondering why you're even asking the question to begin with.

You've already proved yourself to be like 99% of all other flat earthers in that you won't believe anything you see, hear or read unless it aligns with what you already believe.

You've already set it up for failure as you believe the inside of the space shuttle and ISS looks exactly like the inside of an airliner.  What airlines are you flying on which have such stripped down aircraft?  The only aircraft I've been in that are stripped of all creature comforts are military transport and they don't even look like the interior of the space shuttle or ISS, at least in the pictures I've seen of them.  Or have you actually been in the space shuttle and ISS and therefor have first hand experience in what they look like on the inside?

As with the video request.  Even if an astronaut did exactly what you are asking for you still wouldn't believe it.  You'd come up with a cock and bull story about it being pieced together from various bits and pieces because the light wouldn't be the same in all frames or you'd see something in the video that you believe marks it as a fake.


60
Flat Earth Theory / Re: ISS nonsense
« on: September 04, 2016, 09:11:28 AM »
As a FEB i want to say my idea.

This question shows you are using your own brain. So according to RE's you are a stupid. Why do you use your brain instead of accept as a sheep what NASA said . :)

To what extent though?

Any person can use their brain to come up with a question.  Doesn't mean it's a good question though.

Any person can also use their brain to learn why a rocket goes from a vertical trajectory to a horizontal/vertical trajectory.  Doesn't mean that people do.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10  Next >