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 - Antithecystem

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >
1
Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed
« on: December 19, 2017, 10:06:52 PM »
@Roger

Quote
Nobody is saying you can't question things, but if you are unhappy about immigration, or various government policies then take the various democratic routes available to you to change the government and the people that have been voted in to represent you. Rabble rousing is how non democratic societies operate, in a democracy, the MAJORITY gets the say which is how it should be. That should follow balanced and reasonable discussion, not spewing out hate and threats anonymously across the internet.
As far as I know Eric Dubay wasn't doing that, some-many of his claims may have been exaggerated or made up, but I don't think he was 'spewing hate and threats'.
Again, youtube has the legal right to do whatever it wants with their website, but morally, they should've left his channel and content intact.

Quote
I'm afraid that Holocaust denial has absolutely nothing to do with democracy or freedom of speech and everything to do with Racism and anti sematism. If you want to question the holocaust then research it properly and talk to some of the now ageing servicemen or their families, that found the concentration camps and thousands of piled corpses awaiting burning or burial. My Father was one of those soldiers and was too disgusted and horrified to discuss it with even decades later.  Talk to the survivors and descendants of some of the millions of Jews, Gypsies and mentally ill people who were slaughtered because they were despised because of the propaganda spouted out about them.
Even if the official version of the 'holocaust' was broadly accurate, which has been disputed by revisionists (some of them Jewish themselves), because Jews dominate much of Hollywood and the MSM, their perspective of WW2 is shouted from the rooftops, where as the Slavic, Japanese, Gypsy, German and so on perspectives of events are marginalized.
Many genocides and atrocities have been committed around the world in the history of the world, but how many of their stories are being told on the big screen or in novels and plays?
Few and far in between.
Europeans are taught at school and by the MSM to cast their biases and bigotry aside, to empathize with the perspectives of others, but the Jewish perspective, particularly when it comes to WW2 and West Asia is also very prevalent in our culture, sometimes to the detriment of other groups and their concerns.

Quote
You want to talk about the immigration of the thousands of refugees and foreigners coming to the US, but America is almost completely built on immigration, Trump's family were German, where did your family come from?
Regardless of where I and others who're already here came from, or how we got here, we're here now, and some of us, including some of my ancestors, have now been here for centuries.
We're citizens and new or would be arrivals are not, not yet, and so it should be up to us to decide how many immigrants we permit, and where from.
We don't owe them a living, and in many cases we're doing them and the corporations who take advantage of their cheap labor a favor.
I want to protect our environment, I want to protect jobs.
Europeans built their civilizations from the ground up without the aid of mass immigration, and North Americans can continue building ours without importing millions, if we wish, and many of us do.
And some ethnoreligious groups may be more compatible with our civilization than others.
I'm for reducing the quantity and increasing the quality of immigration, importing millions of 'refugees' from war torn countries we're at odds with, does just the opposite of that.


Quote
You're worried about Muslim immigrants taking your way of life, but I don't see you getting upset about the native American Indians being slaughtered, lands stolen off of them and forced into a Christian way of life.
There are people who're upset about that, who feel called to help Native Americans maintain what's left of and rebuild their society, and they have my moral support, but importing millions of refugees from the middle east, isn't going to help Native Americans achieve their objectives at all.

Quote
What about you standing up for the rights of millions of Black people in the US? Their ancestors were kidnapped from Africa and forced into slavery in the US at the hands of wealthy white people, are you standing up for their freedom of speech and the right to the same freedoms you have? The Ku Klux Klan had freedom of speech and white folks turned their backs while the rapes and murders were being carried out.
I'm actually Canadian, we don't have a history of slavery here, we don't owe Afro-Canadians anything, but some still think we do.
Do native Italians, Scandinavians and Poles owe anyone anything?
They have little-no history of colonialism.
Many Non-European civilizations had a history of slavery, imperialism and militaristic expansion, do they owe anyone anything, before Europeans pushed for the worldwide abolition of slavery?
No one seems to be arguing they do.
If native Americans have a right to preserve their DNA and their heritage, aren't native Italians, Scandinavians, Poles and every European people, especially native European peoples, entitled to maintain theirs if they wish?
They ought to be.

2
Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed
« on: December 19, 2017, 08:52:08 PM »
Free speech is about context too. The things I say quite legally, morally and rightfully whilst doing it with my wife would be completely unacceptable to say to her in the school playground when we are picking up the kids.

Sure, some people have issues with the Jews for example, and from an Arab POV the Jews have and are still today committing crimes so some of these issues are quite valid. The existence of these anti-Jew statements are therefore valid, moral and quite righteous. However.......should someone go into a packed synagogue and say them? Or go into a Jewish school and tell the kids? No.

The issues are against certain individual Jews therefore if someone has an issue with them they should tell them personally not just any random people who share their faith.

*note I am only using the Jews as an example as they are referenced in the OP. I don't want to be falsely labelled as anti Jewish (I think ALL religions are piles of shit and should be scrapped)
Eric Dubay was posting his criticisms, right or wrong, on his blog, forum and youtube.
Of course youtube has the legal right to take them down if they think they're wrong, or even if they're just offended, but that's still a point against youtube, as a medium that ought to facilitate the free exchange of ideas and ideals and not pick sides.
So long as someone isn't promoting vigilante violence, they should leave it up there, it's not as if he was going up to random Jews on the street or in the synagogues and shouting, hurling insults at them.

We should be able to criticize the official story of the 'holocaust', in some western countries we're not presently able to, and we should be able to criticize Jews as an ethnoreligious group or any other ethnoreligious group.
While not every Jew is responsible for atrocities, crimes, lobbying and propaganda for their causes that sometimes arguably harms Whites, Christians, Arabs (race), Muslims (religion) and others, the Jewish race as a whole, is arguably more willing and able to act subversively than some other groups because of their power and how fiercely loyal to their tribe they are, and how suspicious of outsiders they are.

It's not just individual Jews acting independently of one another, but some Jews band together to further their interests at the expense of ours, and these lobbies, media, roundtables, thinktanks and so on, and elements of extremism present in the Jewish community at many levels, themselves need to be called out, not just individuals.

3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Lunar Nature
« on: December 19, 2017, 06:24:10 PM »
@Roger

Quote
Philosophers, Theologians etc, are expressing opinions which differentiates them from scientists who are carrying out research and experiments to disprove or prove a hypothesis.
Not all scientists have sufficiently tested their hypothesis, some have, some haven't, and as much as they've tested their hypothesis, they could always test them more.

Some theologians, and especially some philosophers, do test some of their theories against reality, they may not set up experiments, otherwise they'd be doing something more akin to science, but they do derive their arguments for their theories from their experience of the reality we're suppose to share.
And they do make arguments for their theories, so to say everything that happens outside of big scientific laboratories is equally untrustworthy, or everything that happens inside big scientific laboratories is equally trustworthy, is stretching it, philosophers and theologians typically employ more rigorous argumentation than people in general do.
And while scientists perhaps tend to agree more than philosophers and theologians do, their agreement is not absolute, just as the disagreement between philosophers and theologians is not absolute.

Alt scientists and individuals also do research and conduct experiments, and while much of this research and experimentation may not be as rigorous as big science, it's still better than no research and experimentation at all.
Big science hasn't tested everything common sense or our culture, customs tells us about the world, does that mean we should completely discount common sense and our culture, customs, while having faith in everything science says?
Should we completely discount our own experience and interpretation of that experience, or our intuition?

What I'm basically arguing for is degrees, rather than thinking of everything that happens in big science as fact, and everything that happens outside of big science as fiction or opinion, I say there are no facts, no certainties, only opinions, but not all opinions are equal, and sometimes, what happens outside of big science, can be right, and big science wrong, big science isn't always, or at all superior to everything that happens outside of it, so I say look at everything, trust in degrees and think for yourself.

Quote
The whole point of an education is that you get to learn things that others have researched and learned before you.
I'd like to see a world where big science has to compete more with alt, small science, and I want to be part of the new alt, small scientific communities.
I'm going to start from scratch, do my own science, and encourage others to do the same.
I see science as more subjective than you, I think there's thousands of ways science could've developed, that we winded up with the cosmology, medicine and technology that we did, is mostly happenstance, and I'd like to see science develop in totally different directions.
I think things are infinitely more ambiguous, open to interpretation and variation than you do.

4
Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed
« on: December 19, 2017, 10:30:20 AM »
Government shouldn't get involved much at all in group politics, but if it should, it shouldn't just be to protect minorities from the majority, but also to protect the majority or other minorities from minorities.

You shouldn't have it only your way, if you want government to protect minorities from 'unreasonable' criticism, than government should also protect the majority from 'unreasonable' criticism, if you want want government to promote and orient its policy around 'reasonable' criticize of the majority, than it should promote and orient its policy around reasonable criticism of minorities.

You are unfortunately missing one basic fundamental point. In a democracy, YOU control the government, you can change it, that's what the vote is all about and how Trump got in. You can never let individuals take control and decide what is acceptable as criticism, because those with the biggest fists, knives or guns will wrest the control from the weaker individuals and shout down and intimidate all opposition. Look at ISIS if you want to see a modern example.

Roger
It's not that I missed your point about democracy, it's that I wasn't sure what point you were making, it sounded like you were saying we should just trust the 'experts' and let them decide everything, and not even have a democracy, or that a democracy was only right insofar as it trusted the experts.

Ideally we're a democracy, but really our government is often out of our control.
For example are you sure most people think you shouldn't be able to question the 'holocaust', or that most people want immigration, period, let alone millions of 'refugees', if that's even what they are?

If we're not allowed to criticize certain religions, like Islam, and the people who take it seriously (AKA extremists), as they grow in popularity in certain regions of the west, these people will run amok, change and flout our laws, and one day in the not so distant future they may even vote in a tyrannical government or stage a coup.
And then they'll be restricting our freedom of speech, and a whole lot more, for all the 'wrong' reasons.

Lastly, I think there's a reason why freedom of speech is the first amendment in the US constitution, in a democracy it's perhaps the most fundamental freedom.
You see if you forbid people to speak for or against x, then to even suggest that law be lifted, could itself be interpreted as speaking for or against x, and so we run the risk of banning some speech for all time, setting something in stone.
I think having open dialogue is really essential to what it means to be a democracy, you start limiting that, and you're basically saying citizens can't be trusted, or even if it's only for a few 'fools' (if that's really what they are) that can't be trusted, you're still giving up the most important freedom in a democracy, the freedom to assemble, to openly, honestly debate and discuss policy and the issues before casting our votes.

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Lunar Nature
« on: December 19, 2017, 10:07:49 AM »
@Roger

Quote
1) Have you ever run across a busy road with your eyes shut to see if you get hit or not?
Does that mean we should trust stereotypes and superstitions, or everything philosophers, prophets and theologians, when they're in agreement, which's admittedly rare, *laughs, have to say, instead of critically examining them?
Does that mean a patient living in the 16th century should've trusted his doctor to administer bloodletting, or a patient living in the mid 20th century should've trusted his doctor administer electroshock treatment/lobotomies?

I don't need to trust anyone to know getting hit by a car will injure me, I've been hit with smaller, slower moving objects than cars, and I got damaged, and I've seen people get hit by cars, and they got damaged, so I can infer what will in all likelihood happen to me.

All that being said, we have to balance faith or trust and doubt.
The more people claim something, from all walks of life, mainstream experts, alt experts and people in general, the more I've confirmed similar claims for myself, the less valid reasons I can think of for why the people making the claim may be exaggerating, lying or mistaken, and so forth, the more I'm inclined to believe the claim, even never having tested it myself.

It's not that I don't trust science at all, it's that I trust science a lot less than you, especially when it comes to say medicine.
But I've decided not to trust a single thing scientists have to say about the heavens until I can confirm it myself, as a hobby.
As far as I know, there's no way suspending judgment about the Noumea behind the Phenomena of the heavens can harm me in any way, and if almost everything they have claimed is correct, than big science has nothing to fear from people like me.

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed
« on: December 17, 2017, 10:45:35 PM »
Government shouldn't get involved much at all in group politics, but if it should, it shouldn't just be to protect minorities from the majority, but also to protect the majority from minorities, and minorities from other minorities for that matter.

You shouldn't have it only your way, if you want government to protect minorities from 'unreasonable' criticism, than government should also protect the majority from 'unreasonable' criticism, if you want want government to promote and orient its policy around 'reasonable' criticism of the majority, than it should promote and orient its policy around 'reasonable' criticism of minorities.

7
Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed
« on: December 17, 2017, 10:29:36 PM »
Look, not all ethnoreligious groups are equal, some commit blue collar crimes, white collar crimes and/or terrorism substantially more than others, for whatever reasons, environmental, mimetic and/or even genetic, and society needs to be more leery of such groups, both in its private and public dealings with them, and we may need to reduce or even temporarily eliminate these groups from coming here in the first place, at least until they clean up their act.

When some groups rise to positions of wealth and political power, they're still fiercely loyal to their tribe, and they use their wealth and  political power to benefit themselves at the expense of every other group or the nation itself.

We need to let people criticize groups, and it is, or ought to be up to people to determine what is and isn't reasonable criticism.

Now of course we can determine this individually, liberally or democratically, authoritatively, but in my opinion, not only is the former more effective, it's more moral.

For me, and I think a lot of other people across the political spectrum, free speech is sacred.

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed
« on: December 17, 2017, 03:46:47 PM »
@Roger

Quote
It's a matter of degree and how much is acceptable as free speech and stating an opinion, as against making false claims and faking evidence as the truth and spreading it globally.
It shouldn't be up to government, historians or media to determine what's false, it should be up to individuals.

Quote
There seems to be some sort of idealistic idea that people can make up their own minds, but clearly that is frequently not the case as people can and do band together in mindless groups following the herd.
Government, historians and media lie and make mistakes.

Governments become authoritarian, often under the guise of protecting us.

In a liberal democracy, it's our duty to be critical and scrutinize our institutions.

You're basically saying government and the intellectuals it allies itself with are the authority.

You have everything topsy-turvy, we're the authority, they're our servants.

Quote
Just supposing you stopped in the street to ask your neighbour's 8 year old daughter if she was enjoying her new school and could your own 8 year old daughter play with her as you have just moved into the area? Another neighbour saw this exchange from the window and started telling other residents that you could be a paedophile. The rumour spreads around the neighbourhood and soon your picture appears on an anti paedophile website hate mail arrives in your mailbox, then groups of people with placards start to gather outside your house chanting 'Get the Paedophile' and very other hate slogans.

You could of course smile and say that there is freedom of speech and they are entitled to their opinion, but like I said there are degrees of freedom of speech and sometimes it can be very dangerous.
The only time I'd restrict speech is when people are threatening an individual or group, or perhaps falsely claiming there's an immediate threat, classic example: someone yelling bomb in a movie theater, other than that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

As far as I know, Eric Dubay wasn't threatening anyone.

Now he may support some ideas about Jews that could lead to a few individuals threatening them, but that wouldn't be his fault, or the fault of his speech.
Fundamentally we're not children, and we shouldn't be treated as such.
Speech itself isn't responsible for what people do, people are.
Speech itself doesn't kill people, people do.
I'm not going to let a few idiots who commit violence ruin free speech for everyone.
Ultimately it's a small price to pay for sovereignty over my own consciousness, if you really value sovereignty.

9
[From a globe-earther]

So what is the motive for the government or whoever to lie about the shape of the Earth?
Like what benefits does it give them?
I can't see any. It makes no sense to me.

Why not just say it was flat?

Also, whoever is lying to us would have had to have started hundreds of years ago because even around the time Christopher Columbus was alive, it was commonly accepted that the Earth was round. (It's a false myth that he proved the Earth was round, everyone knew already)
Because big science once really believed it was round, for many of the same reasons you believe it's round today, and Aristotle believed it was round 2500 years ago, but proved themselves to themselves wrong when they entered space in the mid 20th century, and to their surprise and chagrin, stared back at a flat earth.
If they came clean and fessed up now, big science and big government would lose much of their credibility, so they have to keep the lie going.
Plus there's a lot of money in the lie anyway, and they lie about where a lot of the money goes, a lot more than we think goes directly into their pockets.
Now if the earth is flat and infinite or at least a lot bigger than globular earth, than there'd also be money in exploring other parts of the earth too, but because of a dome, or aliens and/or angels forbidding us from exploring other parts of the earth, it may not be possible.
Also, if there are aliens and/or angels beyond Antarctica, they may be trying to keep knowledge of them hidden for sociopolitical purposes.

This is where FEH falls apart. The fake conspiracy. Scientists have egos, and they love proving one another wrong. No scientist is remembered for following the crowd. All the greats have changed the way we view the world. If the Earth was flat, someone would have said so and changed history. You can dream up a million fantasy reasons why they would lie, but in the end it really is just fantasy. Maybe it fills some need in you to think you're being lied to all the time or that you can't trust "the system". I don't know. You give humans far too much credit in their ability to keep secrets. We are miserable at it.
Yea, and the greats, the heroes of science are few and far in between.
Most scientists, like most people are sheople.
And there are some unsung heroes who've been unfairly marginalized and ostracized.

Scientists have caught themselves and have been caught by others lying many times in the past.
Tip of the ice berg: Sugar and Tobacco companies paid scientists to withhold data that would damage their products marketability.
Now eventually these lies were uncovered, after decades and millions dead of cancer and diabetes, but if they lied in the past, what makes you so sure they're not lying to us today?
Of course some of them are lying to us about some things, the only sensible question is: how deep does the deception go, is it just a few rotten apples, or is the whole of science rotten to the core?

I am not against, science, but I am against scientism.
Science is a method, among other things perhaps, with various submethods, and among other methods, like the Zetetic, Cartesian, Socratic, Zen Buddhist, intuitionist, and so on and so forth, for uncovering truth.
But Scientism is an ideology: the notion that science put into practice, can virtually do no wrong.
Theoretically it's a really good method at least, perhaps one of, or even the best man can at this point in his evolution conjure for uncovering many truths.
The problem is you have a rosy picture of it, especially when it comes to its practice.

The Human Specie, of which last I checked scientists are still members of, are motivated by all sorts of things: wealth, power, ego, sex, violence and the list goes on, the aesthetics, attachment to, popularity and comprehensibility of their theoretical models versus the truth.
Now there are checks and balances in place to make truth the priority, just as there are checks and balances in place to keep corporations, media and politicians from lying to us, and guess what?
These checks and balances aren't perfect, arguably far from it, and as good as they can be, theoretically at least, always room for improvement.

Now politicians aren't sacred to us, nor is your mechanic, we're not afraid to challenge and stand up to them when we think there is a need.
So what's so sacred about scientists and doctors?
Nothing, absolutely nothing is, it's buyer beware, it always has been, still is and always will be, it's just some'll always be more gullible than others.
One needs to find the right balance of skepticism and trust, and in my opinion most of us place far too much faith in our institutions, to the point of absurdity.

If I said to you politicians love justice, you would probably scoff.
Well, the same is true of scientists and truth.
It's a business...it's about the bottom line.

Science has become a highly lucrative industry.
Gone are the days of the wealthy, lone natural philosopher wandering off into a cave, field or forest nearby his country home to nobly pursue his lofty, Aristotelian notion of truth at his leisure.
All the low hanging fruit has been picked.
Now we have teams of scientists fresh out of uni with student debt and a mortgage to pay, equipped with advanced, state of the art, highly specialized, technical instruments and laboratories, millions upon billions of dollars invested in them and their experiments...so they damn well better come up with something good, or make it look good, for the corporations and governments funding them, or they will be axed.
Such people are easy to herd.

Gone are the days when the common man with a few coin, some binoculars, a measuring tape and a pencil could confirm many a scientific theory for himself.
Science has become so compartmentalized, so esoteric, and so very far removed form laypeople, especially when it comes to astrophysics, and so all the more easy to manipulate by the powers that be.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET
« on: December 16, 2017, 05:50:08 AM »
@OP

Quote
If gravity doesn't exist than what did Isaac Newton discover?
People always knew what goes up from the earth must come back down to the earth, barring buoyancy, what Newton did, was extrapolate this.
He supposed that all matter possessed this power to attract objects to it, not just the earth, it's just that the earth's attraction was so great, the earthbound objects attraction was nearly impossible to observe.
Later some socially stunted fellow by the name of Cavendish supposedly proved Newton's theory correct by employing some sort of experiment.

Newton also said that the moon was attracted to the earth and the earth the sun, in exactly the same way a penny thrown off a rooftop is attracted to the earth, it's just that the moon happened to have just the right forward momentum, that it would continuously miss the earth it was falling towards, and this forward momentum would curve, kind of like the forward momentum of a tether ball curves as the ball moves around the pole.

And with that, it was possible to leave our stable and steady cosmos, where the earth was the earth, the moon the moon, and the sun the sun, forever and ever.
With that, for later scientists, who supposedly observed super novas, and sought naturalistic, evolutionary explanations for the origin and destination of everything, it became possible to think the sun may have formed from bits of matter clumping together over time.

Some of these bits of matter, being supremely lucky, eventually formed the planets, or so they thought, due to their forward motions, forward relative to the sun.
Somehow their forward motions were always just fast enough to keep them from colliding away from the sun, and just slow enough to keep them in the solar system, while the vast majority of the matter in the solar system was not so lucky, and either was thrown out, or collided with the sun.

And so the clockwork precision, order and harmony we have in our solar system today, was born of blind chance, chaos.
Dumb, dead gravitationally charged matter, unable to finish her job of devouring everything within range.

11
[From a globe-earther]

So what is the motive for the government or whoever to lie about the shape of the Earth?
Like what benefits does it give them?
I can't see any. It makes no sense to me.

Why not just say it was flat?

Also, whoever is lying to us would have had to have started hundreds of years ago because even around the time Christopher Columbus was alive, it was commonly accepted that the Earth was round. (It's a false myth that he proved the Earth was round, everyone knew already)
Because big science once really believed it was round, for many of the same reasons you believe it's round today, and Aristotle believed it was round 2500 years ago, but proved themselves to themselves wrong when they entered space in the mid 20th century, and to their surprise and chagrin, stared back at a flat earth.
If they came clean and fessed up now, big science and big government would lose much of their credibility, so they have to keep the lie going.
Plus there's a lot of money in the lie anyway, and they lie about where a lot of the money goes, a lot more than we think goes directly into their pockets.
Now if the earth is flat and infinite or at least a lot bigger than globular earth, than there'd also be money in exploring other parts of the earth too, but because of a dome, or aliens and/or angels forbidding us from exploring other parts of the earth, it may not be possible.
Also, if there are aliens and/or angels beyond Antarctica, they may be trying to keep knowledge of them hidden for sociopolitical purposes.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: "Flat earthers"?
« on: December 16, 2017, 04:19:18 AM »
I think this is a great opportunity to tidy up the names.

"Flat Earth" is quite vague - it could be flat and square, for example.

Similarly, "Round Earth" can also be Flat Earth, if the Earth is a disc.

I appreciate the difficulty describing a flat map of the earth which agrees with cosmological, navigational and astronomical evidence, but in the absence of such a map the best the "Ballies" have to work with is the "Flatties'" own logo.

"Globers" and "Discers"? C'mon guys, you can think of something funnier than that :)
Some other alternatives:

Round Earthers: Spherists.

Flat Earthers: Okay Diskers if they believe in a disk earth, but Plainers if they believe in an infinite earth, and Domers if they believe in a domed earth.

13
According to Eric Dubay, some early modern sailors tried to circumnavigate Antarctica, and it took them a lot longer than it should have, so for this reason, among others, he figures Antarctica is the periphery of our plane, not the center.
He also said the south pole is a lot colder, darker and lifeless than the north pole, which would be the case if the south pole was the periphery, because the sun would be further away from it than the center.
He and other flat earthers may have other reasons, but those're the ones I'm familiar with.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A few questions about "lands beyond"
« on: December 16, 2017, 03:10:22 AM »
...Drops acid.*

Alright, let's give'r:

Quote
1. How likely do you think it is that there are habitable lands beyond what is shown on a globe?
I think it's likely, because ETs are likely visiting us (see the disclosure project), and while ETs could come from planes above us (astroplanes), the ocean, inside the earth, planes below us (subplanes), or even from parallel worlds, I think it's likely at least some, if not all of them are coming from other parts of the (infinite) plane, the reason being: it's a smaller leap to suggest this plane is bigger than we know, than to suggest there's other planes altogether, and while they could be coming from the ocean or inside the earth, the vast majority of unidentified craft is airborne (aircraft), as opposed to waterborne (watercraft) or earthborne (earthcraft), furthermore Greys, the most common ET, are humanoids, suggesting they evolved in a similar environment, on a plane, as opposed to the ocean, or in the earth.
 
Quote
2. What do you actually call such places as a whole?
You could call them other worlds, like in Mario Brothers 3, lol, there's world 1 (our world), world 2 (nearest to ours), world 3 and so on.
Or you could call them exoplanes, extraplanes (like extraterresrials), bioplanes (because they're other parts of the (infinite) plane capable of supporting life), or solarplanes (because they're other parts of the plane with (a) sun(s).
The parts of the plane that aren't inhabitable could be called the badplanes, like badlands, or wasteplanes, like wastelands, or deadplanes, darkplanes, coldplanes, or any synonym for cold, or iceplanes, or any synonym for ice.
The plane as a whole, if infinite, could be called the infinite plane, as it's already being referred to as, or the uniplane, like the universe, or the megaplane.
As for what we refer to our part of the plane as, we could call it the homeplane, or the innerplane, as opposed to the outerplane.

Quote
3. How likely do you think it is that there are people/ETs living in those places?
Very likely, for reasons already states.

Quote
A couple more for those of you who are Christian:
I'm a luke warm Christian, so I'll try to answer these too.

Quote
4. If there are people/ETs in the outer lands, would they need to be saved?
If they're other humans, yes, if they're humanoid or a nonhuman sentient species, probably, seems unlikely God would create all these humanoids and nonhuman sentient species with bodies and minds, but only give one of them, us, a soul, and freewill, which would probably lead them to sin, but we'd have to do a lot of praying about it, and a lot of investigating into their nature.
If one of them had the capacity to comprehend the gospel, and wanted to hear it, I certainly wouldn't turn them away, at worst if it wasn't meant for them, I'd be doing no harm, I don't see how it could harm them much at all, and even if it did, well they wouldn't have souls anyway, so not much of a loss, but if they did have souls, freewill and sin, or their equivalent of that, making mistakes, being tempted to do what's harmful to themselves and fellow ET's, and we witheld the gospel from them, seems to me that'd be a greater evil.

Quote
5. Would you yourself go on a voyage to preach the gospel to them?
I don't think I'd go on a voyage for that specific reason, I'd go for all sorts of reasons, mainly just to experience it all, but I'd spread the gospel along the way, if they had ears to hear it, a brain to think it, a heart to feel it, and most importantly, a soul to save.

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Lunar Nature
« on: December 15, 2017, 05:02:23 PM »
@Roger

Quote
I would assume from your questions that you are either lacking in education at this time of you life due to a young age, or are not widely experienced in observation etc, so I will attempt to answer your questions for you.
This is incorrect, I'm familiar with much of what big science has to say about our solar, lunar or geosystem.
But if I never test any of their claims for myself, how do I know I'm not being duped?
Now I can't possibly test all of their claims, but the more I confirm, the more likely it is the rest of them are true.

Now you will undoubtedly object: well thousands of scientists have confirmed the claims of thousands of scientists.
But that itself is also a claim, maybe big science is more like a cryptoreligion, if you will, religion masquerading as science, when it comes to a few, some, many or most of its claims.
I'll never know for sure until I begin testing some things myself.

I already know a priori that big science is at least somewhat religious, corrupt, and mistaken, because human nature is somewhat religious, corrupt, and mistaken, no matter how many checks and balances are put in place, but I have no idea to what extent, especially when it comes to subjects like astronomy.
I'm already sure big science is very corrupt when it comes to health and medicine, through my own observations of my own body and people I've talked to.

Quote
There is no similarity between the sun and moon at all apart from their apparent size in the sky and the fact that they both appear to be round. The sun is much further away, but appears a similar size because of it's vast distance from us compared to the moon. The Sun is about 92 million miles and the moon about 240,000 miles. The moon's diameter is about 2000 miles and the sun's is 400 times larger, but as the sun is also 400 times further away they look the same size from the earth.
I have yet to see any proof for this claim.
And it seems more unlikely, but certainly not impossible, that two objects would appear to be the same size, yet actually be very different in size and distance.

Quote
If the moon were ice, then spectral analysis would show it, but it is just a ball of rock and dust basically.
I've yet to perform a spectral analysis on the moon.

Quote
The moon reflects the light from the sun, which is why there is an eclipse when the sun, earth and moon line up and the earth blocks the light from the sun. You can also see that the moon doesn't emit it's own light when the sun is to one side of it so you only see part of the moon reflecting the sun's light.
I've yet to observe this for myself.

Quote
When we refer to the face of the moon or earth, we are not comparing it to a human face, but the side or 'Face' that we see, rather like 'the face of a cliff'.
I know.

Quote
Sometimes the moon appears to have two eyes and a mouth during a full moon, but that is just the positioning of surface features.
It's been a while since I've looked at the moon through a telescope, but from what I remember, you're right about this.

Quote
Basically correct, although the white is more a lighter grey.
Looks more white to me.

Quote
It has been known for centuries since the first telescopes that there is no visible liquid on the surface, although the darker areas are known as Mare or Seas as some of the early observers thought they could be seas and named them as such. We still use the same names now and if you look at the moon through binoculars or telescope you can clearly see the darker areas and the craters on the moon caused by meteorite impacts.
It's been a while since I've looked at the moon through a telescope, but from what I remember, you're right about this.

Quote
The moon itself doesn't change colour, it is the effects of us viewing it through the earth's atmosphere that makes it look different colours sometimes. So a reddish dust cloud in our atmosphere could make the moon appear red, but there are many other conditions that can produce different apparent changes but are mainly changes in our atmosphere.
How could I confirm this for myself?
I can't view the moon from outside of our atmosphere.
Maybe red is the moons real color, and white is the aberration.
Everything could be a trick of light, I could be a trick of light, you could be.
I'm more inclined to trust my own eyes, unless I have a reason to doubt them.

You say the red color is due to a red dust cloud, but have you verified this for yourself?
Maybe the white color is due to a persistent white dust cloud, or a persistent layer of white dust in our atmosphere.

Quote
There is no weather on the moon as it has no atmosphere, for the same reason there is no vegetation.
I will admit the moon looks barren, and if it looks barren, it probably is, althou maybe the earth would also look barren when viewed from outer space.
I don't trust Nasa or other government space agencies to tell me what the earth looks like from outer space, or what the moon looks like from its surface.

Anyway, having nothing else to go on, I'm inclined to believe it's more barren than our earth, because of how it looks, but I'm far from certain, because I can't explore the moon for myself, nor can anyone almost, only a handful of people supposedly have, and they may be attempting to swindle us.
The more people from different walks of life can confirm something, the more I'm inclined to believe it.

Quote
I hope some of that helps you and I should add that my answers come from a round earthers perspective although I am quite sure that some but not all of them will be agreed with by flat earthers.
You see I'm not coming from a round earth, or flat earth perspective, I'm coming from a perspective of deep ignorance, and deep suspicion of mainstream institutions, but also of fringe institutions.
It's not that I'm more ignorant than you, in my estimation, it's that I've acknowledged my ignorance, where as you've yet to acknowledge yours.
Their claims are not my knowledge, if I believe in them, they're my faith, and if I don't believe in them, they're what I doubt.

16
Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed
« on: December 15, 2017, 03:53:04 PM »
Hate Speech?
You hate free speech!
His channel was removed because Nasa, the scientific extremists and ZOG can't stand having their propaganda and dubious claims challenged.

You're probably joking but just in case, he was a Nazi apologist.
I'm not a Nazi Apologist, althou sometimes I wonder if the Third Reich was really as bad as mainstream historians and media claims.

Every individual and group, no matter how abhorrent, should have their speech protected, not just including Nazi Apologists, but especially Nazi Apologists...and anarchists, and communists, and scientologists, and other groups our society despises.

17
Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed
« on: December 13, 2017, 01:37:11 PM »
Hate Speech?
You hate free speech!
His channel was removed because Nasa, the scientific extremists and ZOG can't stand having their propaganda and dubious claims challenged.

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Lunar Nature
« on: December 13, 2017, 02:24:12 AM »
The moon appears to be a nearly perfect counterpart to the sun.
They appear to be about the same size as one another and about the same distance from the earth.
If the sun is a big ball of fire, than perhaps the moon is a big ball of ice.
Does the moon emit its own light?
Does lunar light cool as sunlight warms?

The moon has a face just as earth is said to have a face when viewing it from space.
The moon has two primary colors, dark grey and white.
Perhaps the dark grey color represents liquid and one material and the white color a solid and another material, or vice versa.
Sometimes the moon changes color, occasionally it's red, blue or golden.
I wonder what these color changes represent?
Maybe the lunar weather is changing, or vegetation on the moon periodically goes through metamorphosis.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stellar Nature
« on: December 13, 2017, 02:16:36 AM »
Antithecystem,

To answer your questions, the stars are actually the flatulence of interstellar aliens that has been lit by their space lighters for more than 5 years ago. They do this in order to easily navigate through space since it's so dark.

The stars are actually counters for how many times people on earth have masturbated and ejaculated.

The stars are actually very far away from the earth because the earth is a gigantic sociopath that the stars find weird and disturbing, so they keep their distance from the earth fearing they too may become a gigantic sociopath.

The stars are actually far apart because their positions were placed their by the aliens that farted them out and they do this in order for the stars to not collide together and release flaming farts that can destroy the alien's spacecraft and misguide their navigation. They seem close because of the alien technology developed to trick humans into believing they are close together. They fear that we may conspire on their plot to control the universe with their burning flatulence.

If we really want to find out how they are formed, we could signal the aliens. All you have to do is burn salmon, lube, and some pubic hair between the two prongs of a curling iron and the aliens might trace the smell through their high-tech smell sensors and may come here. Most aliens don't like humans, so when they know its from Earth, they usually ignore it and go on with their lives.
Interesting theory, well I guess it's about as valid as any other theory, since it's not verifiable.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Stellar Nature
« on: December 12, 2017, 05:44:32 PM »
More than the shape of the earth, what's intrigued me is the nature of stars.
What are they?
Are they bright balls of fire, or something else?
If so, how do they keep burning for eons?
Is their fuel inexhaustible, or are they just so big that a day of their burning is equivalent to thousands of years of ours, or can they somehow sparkle and shine without burning at all?

Are they pinholes in the curtain of night?
Are they souls of ancient heroes and kings?
At this point in time, we can only speculate.

Are they much bigger than the earth, and very far away, or much smaller, and very close?
Are we spinning or are they spinning?
Perhaps we're both spinning.

Stars appear to be very close together.
While scientific extremists says this is merely a trick of light, that they're actually much further apart than they appear, I'm more inclined to think they're about as near together as they seem.
They also appear to be uniform in size, and uniform in distance from one another and the earth.
While scientific fundamentalists tell us this is also a trick, a trick of perspective, I'm more inclined to trust my eyes and Occam's razor than their wild speculations and unverifiable dogmas.

How did they form?
Did the intelligent designer(s) place them there, to light up the night sky?
Do we conjure or dream them into existence?
Are they unformed, always did exist, and presumably always will?
Are they the remnants of the earth's gravitational formation, or are we a remnant?
I guess we'll never know for sure, until the public has direct access to the heavens, and until we have the technology to reach out and touch the stars.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >