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 - Orbisect-64

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory
« on: April 24, 2016, 12:57:38 AM »
I had to take a full screenshot of page three just for Giants Orbiting's comment.

Would you believe this man has been researching the flat earth literally for ONE MONTH!

When we spoke about this, he had already passed his judgement on the matter over coffee, at a coffee shop!  . . .then,  after he drew to his final conclusion,  he set off to prove it,  and here it is. . .

Making posts that offer nothing but ad hominem, sarcasm, and mockery.

So go visit his page and see how long he was here before making this post.;u=6901

We spoke about this last month. He joined on March 18, 2016, 01:32:34 AM, probably right after our discussion. . . And a grand total of ELEVEN DAYS of research later on March 29, 2016 he's making the above post as an expert who can speak definitively. . .  and who reasons according to the atheistic evolutionary method of mockery and ad hominem - apparently he can't make a point supported with truth, and respect - so he resorts to poking fun at believers just like an evolutionist.

And wait, it gets better!

He joined the site on March 18, and he makes his first well informed comment. . . on March 18. He literally did ALL of his exhaustive research in a matter of A FEW HOURS.

This is called a very well indoctrinated servant who is so "demoralized" that he is beyond help.

(Pay very close attention ladies and gentlemen, globe-earth believers, THIS is how your side does research. You rely on your past government sponsored school education, and you never go beyond the fundamentals you were taught when you were in preschool (your mind is stunted to that of a seven year old);  you run straight to the social architects when you have questions, and quote their answers from their textbooks, which you mistake as your own response;  and you go on GUT instinct that is founded on the aforementioned. You don't use your own heads, because you have been taught that you are not smart enough to think through 'scientific' matters without the direction of the intelligent people placed before you as the authority - yes that is right, you are not permitted to be smart enough to think for yourself, that you have to check your conclusions by the conclusions of other men . . . even though not all scientists agree with each other. . . but you can't disagree because you're not a scientist, even though being a scientists permits one to disagree with the official narrative. You - Are - Owned!)

Meanwhile, some members here have been researching this for YEARS! I wrote my first web article on the fraud of relativity in 2011, almost five years ago, and it took a scientific digest article on Lene Hau back in 2001 (15 years ago) to get me to see that there's something wrong with the scientific method, and that we're being taught lies - and I've been researching the subject and collecting official peer review articles ever since. I'd guess I have a good 400 gigabytes of files on this and related/connected subjects. I have a friend and YouTuber who's been researching this for TWENTY FIVE YEARS. It actually takes a lot of research to come to a real well informed conclusion.

But apparently he's so intelligent that it only takes him a couple minutes over a cup of coffee to make a well informed decision - and then back up his coffee-decision with a few hours of "research."

I needed a screenshot because this is such a definitive testimonial to his entire method of drawing to split-second conclusions with zero research, and then researching with the goal of backing up his conclusion (I swear he should be a real scientist, he has the scientific method down so well!)

“When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears it, that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation.” —Proverbs 18:13

(Notice the foolishness comes first, and the humiliation. . . later.)

"Pride is before a crash, And a haughty spirit before stumbling." —Proverbs 16:18

Let it be known to the trolls, and whatever real shills there are here - take it from someone who actually PERSONALLY KNOWS someone who is acting identical to yourself. . .  it's clear you all use the same method:

a) without doing any research come to a conclusion based on your school indoctrination;

b) do not dare question the official narrative and automatically reject anything that goes against your authoritative masters;

c) make fun of what you do not understand and join in the mindless bully mob mentality of mocking those who think differently than you;

d) run directly to their textbooks and give a textbook response to back up your sarcasm and mockery;

e) call yourself a free thinker and speaker of truth.

f) WIN!

I only wish I was as smart as some of you. I was taught about the globe earth when I was a toddler without the cognitive skills to question what they were telling me in my mentally formative years. If only I was a brain-child with super abilities when I entered preschool, like you. :(

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Horizon
« on: April 23, 2016, 10:31:20 PM »
All I'm saying is that you can express yourself with a lot less verbiage and still be concise.

So far I see a lot of filler designed to look like a coherent, original thought.

Explain why perspective is flawed.

Explain why you think atmospheric conditions aren't a reasonable explanation for viewing distance.

Also tell me why you think cognitive dissonance only affects flat earthers and not round earthers.

Not trying to just be rude, but I think it's rude to assume someone has 30 minutes to carefully read a post that should be at least half as long and twice as easy to follow.

And to call me a flat earther is you're attempt at discrediting me, even though nowhere in my post did I even make an inclination of my stance.

LOL! You so NAILED that rabinoz. You would almost think you know Giants Orbiting personally.  ;D

Flat Earth Media / Re: Illustrations for Education Purposes
« on: April 23, 2016, 07:31:53 AM »
Well congratulations ball head! You actually did legitimate research. I never thought I'd see the day! And just think, all you needed was a little hatred to motivate you.

Thank you for setting me straight on something I didn't research thoroughly enough. I will change my view [on this point].

So you found one solitary weak link amidst all my legitimate research and air-tight arguments. And just as I would expect from you, you capitalized on it. Good for you!

So as I do with the shills on this and other websites, I thank you, because in setting me straight in pointing out a flaw in my reasoning, you only succeed in making my arguments stronger - because I only want to speak the truth, and there was an untruth in my understanding, you have helped me weed it out. Ultimately what remains is pure truth, and thanks to the refinement, ultimately there remains no valid counterargument because you and the shills have made my arguments water-tight.

However, the facts still remain. See my main reply over here. . .

The fact of the matter is that the entire belief in the spherical earth came from a Philosopher named Pythagoras who: a) worshipped Greek gods; b) worshipped the very same false Egyptian gods humiliated by God before the exodus; c) admitted to being a sorcerer who studied magic under the Egyptians, having learned the ways of the magic practicing priests used by the Pharaoh to attempt to disprove God's powers; d) and he admitted that he got the idea about the spheres from strange voices that whispered him what to think. Let's see - man practices magic, and hears voices telling him about the spheres (1 Tim. 4:1) . . .

Meanwhile, while God's enemies were developing theories about the nature and origins of things, which theories precluded the creator. . . meanwhile God's word states that he drew a circle upon the face of the deep, upon an earth that is four-squared. . .

But you choose to believe the words of God's enemies rather than trust God's word. . .

You choose to believe an idea that came directly from "inspired utterances" . . .

If what I believe were found to be wrong, at least I erred in favor of the creator, and I trusted in his word without "going beyond what is written." You, however, should you be found wrong, erred in favor of his enemies. Most people who believe this ball earth lie are not guilty of lying, because lying demands that one know the difference, and still chose to deceive; whereas most people don't know that it's a lie they're repeating. You, however, are choosing only to prove what you already believe - and you're pushing the line into the realm of purposeful ignorance and deception - and while being enlightened of [the truth], you are going above and beyond in the pursuit of mocking the creation - the works of God's hand. I feel better about my decision; and I fear for you. And your hatred of me is bound to lead you down a dark path and an even deeper hole in the name of constant (failed) attempts to humiliate me for your own pleasure. Fortunately, the God of truth will not permit you to succeed - and should you do so temporarily, it will not be lasting; and at what cost to you?

But I have taken precautions because I see what's coming.

Your god of science, to which this world gives glory for the explanation of all things, including praising it for the creation of all things, is nothing but a paradigm and a delusion.

"They traded God’s truth for a lie, and they worshipped and served the creation instead of the creator." —Romans 1:25 (Common English Bible)

"Here I am on my knees collecting photons of the universe that created me" —Dylan O'Donnell, Preacher of the secular religion of Scientism

"You are all star-dust. You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded. . . because all the things that matter, for evolution, weren't created at 'the beginning' of time, they were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode. SO FORGET JESUS. . . THE STARS died so that you can be here today!" —Lawrence Krauss, Prophet of Scientism

(only two of so many quotes I could run off in evidence that science takes the place of God for atheists - a god you are ignorantly and unwittingly giving undo honor to.)

It's so sad that you've become nothing more than an internet troll who has made himself into my sworn enemy who follows me around from website to website whenever you learn of my whereabouts (you wasted absolutely zero time to attack me after discovering my activity here), and an emmisary of Satan, who loves to torment speakers of truth. This is the third website you have followed me on (that I know of), and the other sites had nothing whatsoever to do with this subject - long before I learned of this. Seriously! You're like one of those angry possessive ex girlfriends who can't let go! Really man, you're just a stalker.

You watched me quietly from the darkness for two whole years, holding tightly to your grudge for all that time, swearing the revenge you promised me in writing, making a file of all the things you intended to use against me (I found it on the old computer), waiting for me to slip enough to pounce on me, to make accusations and spew vial words with the intent to hurt and destroy - carefully laying your trap and patiently waiting, just like an owl perched above the hole of a rabbit - cunning like a wolf, cautious as a viper, and viscous "like a roaring lion seeking to devour someone" - just like the one who's attitude you emulate. I have no doubt you still add to your file, waiting for THE BIG SCORE. . . accusing me of the worst (spiritual) crimes imaginable, I wonder what that could be? You've already spoken to the effect, and I expect it. But it's not your place to pass such judgements, and the payment for you for merely speaking it in open accusation would be high. Don't attempt to tell me you wouldn't, when you've already spoken as much, and proven your intentions. But I expect it, because you already wrongly and haughtily view yourself as God's instrument being used to put me in my place, and so you have written - why would you not also wrongly view yourself in the place to pass a condemnatory judgement.

You sit there thinking "Hahaha, I don't have to worry about that. I would never go so far"; and yet you can't even control yourself - you've nursed your hatred for six years (and longer), and you CAN'T simply  LET  IT  GO.  (Genesis 4:6-7)

You've learned nothing about agape and forgiveness, about letting bygones be bygones, about moving on, moving forward, moving upward, or minding your own business - you're just an angry busybody with an axe to grind. . . so sad. (smh) Every single thing you wrote above could have been said without making accusations of my mistake being intentional and intended to deceive others—and had you any love at all, it would have been presented without the sarcasm and mockery with the intent of humiliation in an undignifying way. But because it comes from someone who is so calculatively conniving, your accusations say nothing about me, and everything about you and your heart condition.

Your accusations here are not against what I believe, they are against my person - it's personal. And they will be recorded in case I need to prove later that you still have malice and foul intentions. With every act of hatred, you only dig your own hole deeper. Meanwhile, I will keep practicing peace. Don't hate me because that sounds self-righteous, hate me because it's the truth - evidenced in my own actions in that I leave you be - I don't even give you in return what you dish out.

The sad thing is that you capitalize on my error in the same manner and spirit an apostate capitalizes on past mistakes. I remember once long ago, in 1987, a friend of mine named Ben asked me: “Do you know what the difference is between an apostate and a brother?” I waited intently for him to continue. . . “An apostate tares down; and a brother builds up in love. That's how you know the difference – by how they treat their brothers.”

None of what I've said here would be valid if you made a single comment on another person's posts. But it's transparent that this is directed at me - you're not here for the purpose of setting things straight about the flat earth belief, and to speak truth; you're here only replying to my posts.

You are nothing more than a bully with issues.  Your hatred of me does not come from the God of love and peace. Period.

Just think - you are here attacking me for one reason - because I trusted you - and this is where trust in you leads.

Think deeply about that (if you even have a conscience; because you haven't any love). And think about how those looking on from above view your abuse of power - the power I handed you by speaking to you about this subject, despite knowing where it may likely lead (but that's called giving someone one last chance to prove himself) - which you wasted no time in abusing to the full. This is the last time I will trust you with anything more than the time of day. Forgiveness does not demand gullible misplaced trust. That only comes to those who are sorry for their wrongdoings - and you've proven that you simply do not care.

The overly possessive ex-girlfriend syndrome. It's sad. It's pathetic. It's destructive. It's kinda like. . .

Flat Earth Media / Re: Salar de Uyuni (Salt Flats)
« on: April 23, 2016, 01:19:14 AM »
Wow, you're still following me on websites like a jealous girlfriend? Don't learn your lessons, do you.

This was one of my first posts on this subject, so you choose the very worst thread to bash on, because I didn't have my arguments worked out to the full yet. Other posts I've submitted on the salt flats provide better reasonings.

What is going to be so sad is when the truth comes out to the full, and you have to face the fact that you were MOCKING God's very creation, while PRAISING his enemy's version of the creation - praising a lie that stood in the place of truth - even among us. In the end, you will have to face that you mocked the truth and praised the liar. Then you will understand the full impact of the deception, and why it is so important to understand. There will come a day when people will look back at this and say "Wow, we were all completely fooled into believing in a Satanic illusion. And understanding this, we will not be so quick to question God's Word in the future." The ultimate lesson to be learned from this will be a) to fully trust in the things yet to be written; b) and not to underestimate the deceiver, and his ability to trick us. Those who fail to learn this lesson will be unprepared for the final test, because they are too self confident, cocky, and IGNORANT of his methods, which proved so thoroughly effective in times past. . . so thorough that they got all of us to believe in a fairy tale. The story I will tell in the future will be about how I was even mocked by believers, who chose to mock God's word and trust in men. The story you will tell will be a warning of how well you were deceived, and that you were too prideful to look into the matter, open your eyes, and speak the truth. . . and you will use this to try to help others become aware of what is to come - a new deception.

The problem is that when I show you proof, you say you already know the truth, after having admitted to me that you NEVER LOOKED INTO IT. Thus you have drawn to your conclusion with zero evidence. Then you go off to do research, but you only do just enough research to find confirmation to support what you already believed. Thus you only set out to prove yourself right, and that is as far as you will look, no farther, because you found precisely what you set out to find (you would make a good scientist, you have their method down pat).

It's kind of like someone who poisons himself by cooking a frozen turkey that has only been thawing for less than 24 hours, when he was told to "let it thaw for three or four days." An acquaintance of his who works in the medical profession talks to others who have many more years experience in the medical field than herself, and they conclude that the turkey wasn't thawed properly, and it was Salmonella poisoning. The professional medic tries futilely to tell him this; but he brushes it off and believes what he wants to. Then he goes off to procure for himself people to tickle his ears by telling him what he wants to believe. He actually goes off to other people who are not medical professionals and gets their opinion. . . and the man is more willing to believe his friends' conclusions, than to believe the professionals, and the theory that perfectly fits all the facts (a large frozen turkey can not possibly thaw and be cooked in less than 24 hours); but he treats this evidence the same way he treats all evidence he doesn't like and doesn't want to hear. Why does he do this? Because he isn't humble enough to admit that HE is responsible for his own near death experience - he would rather choose to believe it was botulism (food poisoning) and shift the blame from himself to someone or something else. The sad consequence of this kind of justification and rationalization is that he never learns the lesson, that failing to listen, be humble, and change your thinking can cost you your life. A wise and humble man would admit "I'm wrong" and buy a meat thermometer, and avoid disaster in the future. A stupid man won't learn anything, and won't benefit himself. This man will be far more likely to be foolish again in the future, because he lacks the ability to make changes to himself - but rather, he tailors his truth to his own reasoning. . .  which he mistakenly thinks is to his benefit.

This story personifies this man's entire method of doing research. And I believe this example proves beyond the shadow of doubt that such a man sets out only to prove what he initially believed - he does not do true research, he merely justifies his preconceived understanding. It's prideful.

Now you may commence with the soul purpose of following me to every website you find me on, and trolling me with your hatred. You would have been better off just doing research, coming to your own conclusion, and leaving me out of this—then we could be friends to some degree. You could have made comments on anyone and everyone else's post, and left mine alone, for the sake of keeping the peace. . . IF that was what you wanted.

But clearly peace is not what you WANT. You came in here with the intention of mocking me, and you have. You choose to make it PERSONAL and attack me. You haven't learned, or changed, or improved. But your thinking will change when all truth becomes known. In the meantime, just go on doing your from of research with the intent to prove your preconceptions. THIS is the thinking process of such a man, and he applies it whenever he does research, and to whatever he doesn't like - especially if he dislikes the source the information is coming from.

Your post above is nothing more than mockery, jest, and jibes. Sadly, mockery in the absence of proof is exactly the same method ball earth proponents and evolutionists use. You stand in good company as 'birds of a feather.'

P.S. "Do not go beyond the things that are written."

Isaiah is the only person to have ever used the word for sphere in the Bible. And he also wrote that God drew a circle upon the earth. Isaiah knew the difference between a circle and a ball. And yet he used the word circle. This means that all Israelites knew the difference between the two simple shapes. And yet although they all knew the two words, the word for circle was always chosen as a description of the shape God drew, and the word for sphere was written zero times as a descriptor. In the book of Proverbs, the pre-human Jesus said in the first person: "When God drew a circle upon the face of the deep, I was there." It's curious how he felt the need to state "I WAS THERE" as if he wanted us to know that he stood as an eyewitness to the circle that was not a sphere. Think of ALL the aspects of the creation process he could have spoken about. Yet he chose only one - regarding the shape of the earth. . . almost as if he was told that, later, God's enemy was going to twist this very thing, and he felt he needed to make a statement that would one day set the matter right in the minds of true believers.

The word chugh means "to drawn around, make a circle" or "a circle as drawn by hand." I challenge you to take a piece of paper right now, and draw a sphere. You can not do it, because it's impossible to draw a three dimensional object. You do not draw a sphere, you form it, and using clay would be a better way to describe a sphere that is formed (The impossibility of drawing a true three dimensional object illustrates the equal impossibility that it was a sphere that he drew - on a surface) . . . Yet God chooses not to use such a description, while choosing over and over again to use chug which means "to draw a circle by hand." So what did God do? He "drew" a circle upon a surface - he did not form a sphere.

(I love how I told you about my deep research into the original Hebrew, and how I thoroughly and exhaustively dissected it and tore it apart before coming to my conclusion  -  And you counteracted it by saying later: "I looked into words like chugh and raquia, and the conclusion I came to is completely different than yours." Then when I asked you to elaborate and tell me about your research, you responded by cutting the conversation short and saying you don't want to get into it. In other words, if you had anything more than a flimsy response that is nothing more than your initial opinion, you would have offered it. . . but you don't, so you didn't. Your conclusion is not based on thorough research, and you have nothing to show to "give a reason for the faith within you." This too is indicative of the way you draw to conclusions based on just enough research to confirm what you already believed before doing "research." So when you try to tell me that I draw to conclusions with a veil over my eyes, I consider it as nothing. I always give you hard evidence, names, people, places, multiple sources, and you always give me nothing but that you don't agree, before doing research of your own to either confirm or prove false my research - you simply state that you don't like the story, so you reject it. Of the things you accuse me, you have no basis, and you accuse yourself ten fold.)

So here we have the Biblical witnesses. (Mt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1; Deut. 19:15)

1) We have multiple writers.

2) We have the testimony of the most high creator himself. (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21)

3) And we have the eyewitness of Jesus.

And we would choose to call them liars, or claim that they got their words mixed up? Or maybe we would say "God chose to say circle because a spherical earth would have been too complex for the Israelites understand." Maybe we would claim that although little children know the difference between a ball and a circle, the full grown Israelites would not. Or maybe truth comes from man, and we should discard what God says in favor of philosophy. Perhaps you teach people that some parts of the Bible can be discarded and interpreted according to modern views - and in doing so call into question which is the authority, and how trustworthy the Bible is when we can choose what to dismiss and what is valid. If you think God avoided telling us the earth is a sphere because the ancient Israelites would not have understood such a concept. . .  then I recommend you go read Ezekiel which explains the heavens, which they would never see, in terms that are far more abstract than a simple spherical earth, which they lived upon. . .  and then tell me God chose not to explain a sphere because it was too complex. . .  and yet "he is hanging the earth upon nothing" was not too much for them to grasp? Foolishness.

"Let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, just as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”"—Romans 3:4

At the end of the day, you are forced to "go beyond what is written" in order to dismiss God's words in favor of your upbringing.

Speaking of upbringing. So let me get this straight. . .

Where was I?

Oh yeah. . .

So let me get this straight. YOU graduated from a system where those who run it admit that its purpose is to turn out people who know nothing but lies. . . And you believe that somehow YOU were so smart that YOU beat the system at their own game?

Are you trying to tell me that you graduated from a system designed to teach you lies and made it out of that system knowing the truth?

And then to COMBAT God's Word you are going to run straight to their textbook reasoning?

Maybe you would rather believe the words of men like this:

Maybe you will try to make William Casey look like a know-nothing pencil pusher who works down in the mail room, rather than the DIRECTOR of the entire CIA, who might just know a little something about the inner workings of the country - and may even know a little more than you do. . . or maybe you have it in mind to set his thinking straight. Or maybe you think that lies spoken in America are truth spoken elsewhere - therefor the same lies coming from a school system in other countries become truth when they re-enter America - therefor we're OK because the lies here that became truth elsewhere turned to truth upon reentering America. I have no clue how far you take your reasoning proccesses. All the signs are there, you just refuse to LOOK at them.

So let us talk about who is spreading disinformation and lies, shall we? If you believe you were educated in a system designed to teach you lies, and that quoting them spreads truth, then you can not be helped. Humble yourself, and change your thinking. You think you are fighting against ME. And you are so BENT on proving ME wrong, that you're "going beyond what is written" to do it. It's not me you're fighting, in the end, it is truth.|

When the truth becomes known, you will look back on my OP above and realize that even though this was not one of my better reasonings, that it is truth - because when the lie is exposed, you will see that NONE of the counter evidence was ever real; it was merely false witness. Trials are not decided by single pieces of evidence, they are decided by a body of evidence - and this one, when added to the whole body, adds to the mountain of evidence. . . which you choose to be dismissive of.

One more thing. The reasoning in the OP is designed to counteract an argument in favor of the earth being a ball. Proponents of the globe earth argue that you can see a curve. Yes that is right, THEY claim you can see a curve, when the fact is that a ruler on a piece of paper proves there is none. We keep trying to tell them this reasoning is foolish, but like you, they refuse to listen to the facts.

So you think my reasoning is foolish? You think it's foolish to argue that there is no visual curve on large bodies of water? WELL THAT'S WONDERFUL! because reasoning that you CAN see a curve that isn't there was spread by the people you are choosing to believe. So in calling my reasoning stupid, when the people YOU believe, came up with it, is admitting that the people you believe, come up with stupid reasonings, and that you are being stupid in believing in them. Stop being stupid.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: others stars every six months
« on: October 08, 2015, 05:12:48 AM »
According to the current scientific model (philosophy), some of the things that look like stars in the sky are other galaxies and stars outside of the milky way.

According to the laws of parallax (which modern science breaks all the time) all the stars outside of the galaxy should move different than those inside. . .   but THEY DO NOT.  ALL the stars move around in perfect synchronicity, and the moon moves wight in harmony with them, even though the moon is said to be far closer than the stars that they tell us are trillions of lightyears away.

This paradox only exists because it's all a lie that does not reflect the truth.

Take a look at the tea cup ride.

The other cups outside of your cup are moving, but you can just about make out the people inside them. Yet all objects completely outside of the whole ride are going past at a completely different rate—hence you can not make out the detail of any objects outside of the ride.

So here we are "on a spinning earth." Everything outside of the galaxy should be moving differently than the things inside the galaxy—this is how parallax works. . .  But this is not the case, rather, all things move together in harmony, as if they were interconnected or something. . .  because they are.

Furthermore, because they say that galaxies move through space, every year we should be seeing new galaxies and stars outside of the milky way—to say otherwise would be like saying "we don't move 5,094,842,280 miles through space in one year," and now you would be disagreeing with Satan, sorry I meant NASA.

According to their system, we and the galaxy have traveled 5,094,842,280 miles in one year. . .  And yet, when we get back to our starting point at the end of the year, all the stars magically reset themselves right back to where they were at the beginning of the year - yet we’re 5,094,842,280 miles away from our starting point.

We really need to acknowledge how ludicrous this claim is, and how foolish and gullible we would be to continue buying into this level of foolishness.

The philosophical model of the universe breaks all the laws of parallax, and we do not SEE what they tell us we see.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Direct flights in southern hemisphere
« on: October 08, 2015, 04:02:03 AM »
I know that the Bible is inspired by God and that He is the source of all truth. I do however also believe that God has to communicate to us in a way that we can understand because His thoughts and ways are beyond our understanding. i have questions about both the flat earth and the globe model and even other dimentions, for every thing people can prove on one side, there are others that claims to prove the opposite. I will still search for the truth and pray for discernment. I also think people can be civilised in discussing opposite views and not being rude when someone disagrees. Everybody has to make up his own mind according to his beliefs.

And in the same way it would be pointless to communicate with humans in a way they can understand by using terms contrary to understanding. If God's word is true, and he can not lie, he would not tell us one thing and yet mean something completely opposite.

For instance, the word "circle" mentioned at Isaiah 40:22 is the Hebrew word ḥūḡ or chugh (חוּג). A literal translation of the word is "a circle, as drawn by hand." We could say to ourselves "well God conveyed the word "circle" to Isaiah because Isaiah would have understood a circle better than a sphere. Isaiah would't have known what a sphere is, and that would have confused him." That reasoning works... until we learn that Isaiah wrote the word for ball (sphere) at Isaiah 22:18. The words ball and sphere are just shapes, they are not impossible concepts—so God would have had no reason to think "I can't let them know I mean ball, because they wouldn't be able to understand it." Isaiah and God were both very familiar with both words, and yet the word "chugh" is used four times in the Bible—and sphere ws put in there to make sure we know that they knew the difference.

Have you ever tried to draw a sphere? Please give it a try and tell me how it world out. Chuch means "a circle, as drawn by hand." It's literally impossible to draw by hand a three dimensional ball. And that's the point, just as impossible as it is to draw a sphere, it is equally impossible that he meant that he drew a sphere.

So yes, God had his word written in a way we humans can understand. And the Israelites and we today can understood both a ball and a circle, and it was written according to what the author wanted to convey.

It says "Conspiracy topics belong here" so I'm posting this here.

I don't take sides in politics, so I'm not posting this to take one side or another. I'm just passing on information. Frankly I don't care what men do with their governments, because man's system of government has just about run it's course to the finish, and good riddance.

But you can probably say goodbye to this website and others like it. So all the shills here ought to be happy... that they will be losing all their freedom along with everyone else—oh, and they'll also be out of a job, lol, so I hope you got paid good for selling your soul. And maybe when this site is gone the people who let the shills run amuck will think back on how they should have grown bigger balls... before they got cut off. Well that's my two cents.

BOMBSHELL The Tyrannical TPP Deal Has Officially Been Reached

Infowars Blows The Lid Off TPP Agreement


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Direct flights in southern hemisphere
« on: October 07, 2015, 06:31:33 AM »
I recommend going on YouTube and looking up the "long haul" argument. You can also do a search for "flights flat earth."

Although the videos won't cover Antarctica, they cover a principle. That principle is that just because a flight is advertised does not mean it exists. The videos will explain it better. It does't take anything for them to [make up] a standard flight, and then write a little storyline around it. But booking one yourself may prove to be a completely different story. Suddenly your flight has been canceled and you're asked to rebook... that sort of thing.

I recommend to anyone to go one one of those websites where you can make flights and start playing flight-point roulette.

As far as what the Bible says.

If you're a man of faith then perhaps you're familiar with 1 Timothy 3:16. It says that "All scripture is inspired of God...." That means that although men wrote it, it was divinely authored. So yes men wrote the words; but when it comes to accuracy it does't rely on the perspectives of the humans secretaries who penned God's thoughts.

And no, your salvation does not depend on whether or not you believe in the flat earth. But whether it's true or not makes a difference between whether or not God is a liar, or men are liars.

"let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar" —Romans 3:4

"Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish" —Romans 1:22

My only word of caution to you would be, do you really want to go down this rabbit hole?

Ephesians 4:25 tells us that we are under obligation to speak the truth to one another. What happens once you dig into this matter and find it to be true, is that you're locked in a position where you either have to shut your mouth about science, or speak the truth about it, and look like a fool—which is pretty much 100% guaranteed under the present world-mentality. I used to love talking about science, but now I find myself keeping my mouth shut most of the time.

You have to know how to pick your battles with this thing. Myself I tend to stick to proving that relativity and gravity is wrong, and thanks to some prominent scientists who are promoting geocentricism, now that's a safe subject to discuss with people and present evidence. But saying "flat earth" is a good way to lose respect fast.

So do you really want to look into it? Because salvation is not reliant upon knowing the truth about the flat earth, this may be a matter in which ignorance is bliss. But the good thing is that when God's name is vindicated, those who knowingly spread the lie will not be in existence, and the truth will be revealed one way or another. I tend to believe it's going to be revealed in the last hour—as indicated by scripture.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Direct flights in southern hemisphere
« on: October 06, 2015, 10:29:45 AM »
So WHAT people told you they took the flight over Antarctica?

I found a video on YouTube where the man shot video of himself flying over Antarctica where he ought not.

I decided to look into the man who uploaded the video, and he turned out to be one of the lead scientists in the space program who tours the world indoctrinating people through schools and museums. So the man who posted a video of himself going over the south pole, just so happens to be connected to NASA and the space division with connections to military... yeah, whada coincidence.

And it's funny that BEFORE flat-earthers started noticing that flights don't go over Antarctica, there was curiously no flights and no evidence. Flat earth supporters started noticing this, and talking about it, and posting videos about it, and... SUDDENLY SHIZAM!!! articles started popping up all over the interwebs! GO FIGURE

You see this is how they play the game, they can write new history all they want. They can even post an article about how a bunch of explorers hiked across Antartica in the 50s if they want, and all they would need is to have some old photos of men walking in the snow. How would anyone know the difference—especially considering how featureless most of Antarctica is. Would you know it from certain parts of Alaska in the winter if no one told you different?

And then there's just the fact that the very first person who greets you on this site wants you to give up and go away. I see you've met your first SHILL! His very presence here attests to the fact that YOU are onto the truth.

But don't worry, half the flat-earthers on this site are also shills. If they were't, they would boot the ass-hat above off the site. But he's allowed to be here because they all play the same game... they don't want you to learn the truth. They'd be quicker to ban me, a believer, than they would to ban the shills.

So WHO said they took that flight across Antarctica? People you know personally? People from the airport? People on TV? Who? You gotta be careful, "who" can make all the difference in the world. Why would people even feel it necessary to advertise it, unless they just want to make sure people hear it.

The reason I'm asking is that I've noticed certain comments made by some of the people in the modern forefront (limelight) of the flat earth belief, among those pushing it forward on YouTube. So to be frank and honest, most of the people who are really pushing the whole flat earth understanding to the people today, either they already believed in a creator, or they have been won over to it by the fact that the Bible detailed it first.

I've heard others make similar comment before I started making note of it.

So I started seeing a trend that some people who were atheists or agnostic are being led to believe there is a creator by way of the FE evidence. Then I got to wondering how many others there are.

“I don’t have a problem with atheists because I used to be one - And I’m more certain the Bible is the truth, more certain of that, based on the evidence, than I am of my own name!” —TigerDan925

“What if… the very anatomy of the earth proved creation? completely blowing the anhilistic Big Bang evolutionist lie out of the water, and the powers that have worked hard to keep this Truth PROOF from from you, because they want to keep their power and authority over us, and if the TRUTH be known … that there definitely IS a Higher Power, their power structures would crumble and fall … like the Jericho Walls.”  (I had a computer issue that forced a reboot before I could write down the video-maker who made this statement.)

Mark Sargent says that he started looking into flat earth clues just because he could see that it was truthful. But he says that he avoided admitting that it pointed to God for as long as he could skirt around it. But finally he came to terms with the fact that the same evidence pointed to a creator, because it was written first in the Bible.

"I need to to thank all the people who have sent me stacks and stacks of Biblical scripture, asking me to stop dancing around the title of the flat model, and call the structure what it really is. And you know, they have a point. I have put myself at a distance because I wanted to reach people who are outside of religious faith, and even who are outside of general conspiracies. But for all those spiritual groups who have contacted me, I can however say with conviction that… this third statement is this: They are hiding GOD. Despite what labels I put on the flat model structure, the oldest names are from the oldest texts - one of those being called “the firmament.” If the firmament was discovered in 1956, and it was deliberately hidden, then the ruling authority not only hid the structure, but evidence of the builders. And when I say builders, I mean creators, and by that, I mean what people define as God.

Hiding God could be one of the worst ideas of all time. And if you are a person os great, or small faith, you have a vested interest in any evidence that would vindicate and solidify your years of dedicated service. If a structure were found that for all intents and purposes, the hand-print of God on it, then the ruling authority has no right to keep it from you.” —Mark Sargent

How many (flat-earthers) here have come to believe that there must be a creator, based on the fact that the flat geocentric earth was stated first in the Bible written some 3000 years ago?

(Considering Isaiah, and Moses who wrote who wrote the book of Job, lived that far back)

It does't matter to me which god you believe (regarding the flat earth). I would just like to hear how you came to the realization that there's an intelligent being behind it all. :)

I appreciate your comments.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question About Star Constellations
« on: September 30, 2015, 06:58:28 PM »
The point of warnings is precisely to prevent that outcome (a banning).

Or to bring up the warning count.

Because forums are just like any other game, and operate under the same rules. You can either be put out: a) by fault, or cheating);  b) by interference;  c) by the number of strikes.

In this case it could be both interference and strikes. The evidence above speaks for itself, I addressed no one, and insulted no one, therefor the warning was unwarranted and without reason... hence it accomplishes one thing - it brought up my warning count. I can think of at least one person who would have personal reason to use their power to "interfere" to the end of seeing me off the playing field.

P.S. No reason was given. Just a quote and a warning. No reason given = no reason had ... Reason = bring up the warning count.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question About Star Constellations
« on: September 30, 2015, 12:42:43 AM »
Someone tell me how my last comment got me a warning.

I insulted no one.

This really makes me believe this site is run by controlled opposition. It would appear Eric may be right.

Yes it would appear that posting truth will get one banned from a site like this.

Personally I haven't found enough reason to put stock in the book of Enoch.

First off, if we accept the Bible as God's word, as 2 Timothy 3:15 states, then he has the power to make sure that ONLY what he inspired would make it into the final canon. Otherwise we may as well say that he is powerless to direct his own book.

Then there's the fact that the book mentions angels and demons by name. In the Bible only two or three angels are mentioned by name, and one who was inquired of his name made it clear that he would not give it, so that he would not be worshipped. This is how angels think. And as for the fallen angels? ...NO demon's name was ever mentioned in the Bible. As most of us know, Satan and Devil are not the original rebel's name, they are titles which mean accuser/slanderer and deceiver. Satan wanted to be elevated above God, and so God took his name away so that no one on earth would ever know it. And no demon was ever mentioned by name in God's word.

The idea that the book of Enoch mentions so many demon's names says, if anything, that whoever wrote it had a blast with making up names—and perhaps the writer was inspired by the demons, seeing it breaks so many major principles within the Bible.

In my research I found that the book only appeared in Ethiopia many years after the Bible was completed. Some people try to say that Moses was inspired by Enoch; but I find the opposite to be true. There is more evidence that Moses' writings existed long before the book of Enoch—hence, it was Enoch that would have borrowed ideas from Moses' writings. What people want to say is "inferred," is up to pure speculation. It would be just like Satan and his followers to write a book and then try to validate it by inferring that Moses got ideas from it.

I believe it was John who wrote about how the Bible would be complete at his death. And so the idea of adding to the canon this book that showed up long after his death... it just does't fit the guidelines—it comes in too late in the race to be considered a running candidate.

As to NASA's doctrine that the moon broke off from the earth? We (FE believers) here should all be shrewd and awake enough now to know better than to listen to the bantering of proven liars and sexual perverts. That teaching is designed for their own purposes, and it is designed to contradict the Bible. The whole idea that the moon broke off the earth is a way of explaining its existence devoid of creation—it created itself. And yet again, science claims that a giant asteroid struck the earth... and a big explosion caused something to be created... just like the explosion of the Big Bang caused all the order and laws in the universe. The two stories have the same M.O. - that of the same crazy and deluded mad-scientists.

But no matter what people's thoughts are on the Bible, let's just stick with what all of us know - that NASA are chronic liars and sexual perverts. The science-clergy is no better than the religious-clergy. Let's treat their word with as much weight and merit as they deserve.

If any shills disagree with my thoughts on the big bang, please respond to me by blowing up your computer. I'm sure it will construct itself into coherent sentences far better than anything you could write. Please, go ahead, I promise you in the name of science that it won't damage your computer, in fact it will give it an upgrade! Don't argue with science, just listen and believe.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question About Star Constellations
« on: September 29, 2015, 05:36:08 PM »
It was called Rahu and Ketu by Indians, even several thousand years ago. Although I don't ascribe to astrology because the Bible warns agains divination any mysticism (the occult), there's one important thing to consider regarding Rahu and Ketu. Astrologers use real stellar bodies in all their practices. All the stars are real physical things, as well as the sun and moon which they use. Hence, they would not make up an imaginary body in the sky to work out their own sciences.

Today, modern science knows of at least one of these dark bodies in the sky (at least there's one that they've admitted to).

3753 Cruithne has been known by science since 1983, and as can be seen on wikipedia's illustrations, it passes so close to earth (even in their fake model of the solar system) that it's literally impossible for it not to pass in-between earth and sun at least once a year.

It has also been known as "the second moon" and "the black sun."

If the moon passing in-between the sun and earth was the cause of eclipses, then there would be an eclipse somewhere on earth almost every single night, considering that the moon is usually opposite the sun at night, and therefor the moon would be inside earth's cast shadow. That we only experience eclipses a few times a year is evidence that it's not caused by earth's or the moon's shadow. Coriolis effect is also an evidence that the body blocking the sun in a solar eclipse is not earth's shadow. But science pulls out "the messiah card" of relativity and gravity to magically explain this away where logic, reason, and observation would state otherwise... and kind of screw up their model.

The most modern name given to the dark body that causes eclipses is Nibiru—but this name was designed as a doppelgänger to make the truth appear ridiculous. It also scares people with modern myths (peddled off as ancient myths) which speak about apocalyptic events. In this way, rather than investigate it, the public brushes it off as foolish. And rather than embrace God's creation, people are conditioned to be in dreadful fear of it.

All anyone needs to do to accept this explanation over the "official" theory is read up on "the axis of evil." Thousands of scientists are being won over to the geocentric model because of it—and the axis of "evil" is obliterating their current heliocentric model. This shows that our present model is a [flat] out lie. The truth is being revealed, and every time they are FORCED to acknowledge the truth, ironically, their model of the earth resemble the flat earth model a little more. It's hilarious to watch their system not only to be destroyed, but to watch them be forced to change their model, bit by bit, into ours—into the truth.

Flat Earth Theory / Looking for more books
« on: September 21, 2015, 08:06:29 PM »
Anyone here ever read the books by Alexander Gleason: Is the Bible from Heaven (1890) and Is the Earth a Globe? (1893).

Supposedly Gleason, a civil engineer from Buffalo, NY, tested the flatness of the surface of lake Erie and published his findings in these books.

Sure would be nice to have these in the F.E. library here.

Quite frankly, we need some solid modern water measurements, using modern state of the art surveying tools and lasers, with good video documentation and field notes. It would appear there aren't enough professional engineers interested in this subject, or willing to put their names on the line.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?
« on: September 18, 2015, 08:57:50 PM »
When you ask a question and then answer your own question you haven't actually asked a question—maybe you'd know that if you asked questions. Seems you already know everything, so there's no need to educate you.

Flat Earth Theory / something was here. . .
« on: September 18, 2015, 07:59:56 PM »
. . . It was pretty innocent and truthful, but enemies will literally use anything against you.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Balloon and Camera?
« on: September 18, 2015, 01:23:38 PM »
People have sent balloons up with cameras.

The trick is to equip it with a camera lens that is not fisheye (No-GoPro). In the videos where they use GoPro (fisheye) notice that when the camera levels out there's also no curve. In videos where they used a standard 55mm or longer lens there's just no curve, period.

With GPS there should be no problem finding the balloon once it lands.

Here's one or two videos ;)

Red Bull Jump = Flat Horizon

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« on: September 18, 2015, 01:13:55 PM »
Hey Tom. I just need someone to point me to where in one of the old books it says that people can see polaris in the south.

I've collected photos of star trails in the far north, and in star tail photography in California Polaris is off-center, whereas in Alaska it's nearly dead-center.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >