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 - Theorist

Pages: < Back  1 [2]
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Falsification of RET
« on: March 30, 2015, 06:20:40 PM »
I agree, it is a matter of scale.

For all we know the Earth is a petri dish sized experiment done by beings that see it all as a 3" wide disc and they could have thousands of them on the go, or millions even. Talk about nano-tech! This is organic nano-tech, ironically the exact thing humans are aiming for right now on Earth. Tech first, then nano-tech, then "organic nano-tech". In other words the actual creation of life (as we know it) but on a tiny scale.

Let's face it, if our scientists knew how to make a 3" wide replica of the Earth, perfect in every single way - they would be doing it. We are of course nowhere near that level of technology right now, despite what most people think.

Perhaps a year here passes in one day "up the scale". So for the beings creating us it would only be a year in their life to cover 1650 AD to 2015 AD. One month for us would be two hours for them and so on.

If we were created like that then there's no way in hell billions of years are passing by 1:1 to the beings that created us. What on earth would they set it up like that for, they wouldn't be able to observe Jack Schmiddley! To me this can only mean one thing, we are fricken tiny.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Falsification of RET
« on: March 30, 2015, 05:35:58 PM »
Because you can only observe Earth as a flat plane. It takes more "mental gymnastics" to think it is round than to just think it is flat.
What kind of "mental gymnastics" are required to explain a sunset on a flat earth?

There aren't any mental gymnastics required to think Earth is flat - that's what I am saying.

To think it is round (if we assume you weren't pre-programmed to think this) doesn't make as much sense to me as it does to assume it is flat based on general observations.

No one has proven things weigh slightly less at the equator, which could prove we are on a spinning ball but no one ever does it. I mean you could actually jump higher at the equator than you could at the North pole as well, but you can't hence there isn't any centrifugal force at play. Plus the fact that we "stick" to the Earth - the exact opposite of what would happen if gravity worked the way we are told.

Also all the planets would just get sucked into the sun anyway and never do. The round Earth model starts to sound pretty whacked out when you look into it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Falsification of RET
« on: March 30, 2015, 05:22:57 PM »
Because you can only observe Earth as a flat plane. It takes more "mental gymnastics" to think it is round than to just think it is flat.

Flat Earth Media / Re: flat Earth "clues" ...... the movie!
« on: March 30, 2015, 05:09:37 PM »
This documentary beats any other I have seen about Flat Earth.

No planes over the oceans anywhere near Antarctica is the most damning thing.

You can just open FlightRadar any time and see it.

ARG1852 is there right now flying south over Argentina towards the Ice Wall, lets see what happens...

18:08 GMT:

18:13 GMT:

My bad, its landing in Ushuaia.  ::)

Supposing NASA sent guys high up in their rocket in 1969 and they faked how far away they are from Earth (see "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon") OK right I can believe it could happen, but how did they have lengthy footage of them floating around in the spacecraft if they were still in a low orbit?

This destroys flat earth theory unless you can prove how they faked weightlessness, whilst in low orbit.

Then again if they were a lot closer to the earth than they said how are they weightless anyway?!

Earth filled the whole window and they supposedly used a paper cutout to make earth seem further away and of course this enforces the idea earth is a ball, not a disc.

To fake zero gravity in that way means they had some sort of machine in 1969 that could fly above earth as a plane does and yet have zero gravity inside. So, zero gravity inside, normal atmosphere outside. For flat earth to be true, they couldn't really be weightless where they were.  :P

This proves they were indeed miles and miles up. Its just that yeah they weren't anywhere near the moon and never went. Faking the distance from the earth was imperative. I can accept all of that and the Bart Sibrel stuff, but what about them floating around inside the craft?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Falsification of RET
« on: March 30, 2015, 04:28:28 PM »
It all comes down to a matter of trust.

- The earth appears flat
- There are experiments conducted by different people which suggest that the earth is not convex
- The government says that the earth is round
- The government is known to lie for their own benefit
- The people conducting the convexity experiments are not known liars

Therefore, the only trustworthy evidence states that the earth is flat.

I pretty much agree with this myself.

My reasons are similar - there's more evidence to suggest Earth is flat than to suggest it is a ball.

Once you learn a lot about flat earth you can see it is "odd" or whatever to think it is a ball because it is nigh on impossible to actually demonstrate why that would be, thus it is flat.

If people can't handle that level of deception, I can understand that. It covers centuries and we're all born into it.

Do any scientists study the subject of why is the bible still around after all this time?

They don't even care about that, or look into it. Doesn't enter their heads.

Do they have any answer for that apart from "because people are gullible" which isn't the answer?

Gullible people are often simply people that assume others are gullible and thus that is the way things are. In psychology its called projecting - offloading what you don't like about yourself onto others etc.

People calling other people "gullible" seem to only do it because they have to and they have to because they are worried about their own assuredness and having to be "right" and so on, but all you have to do is notice it. You can actually end up laughing at yourself for never realizing it before, its liberating.

They are referencing both icebergs (the ice wall) and building something in the one word.

Is the "Bilderberg Group" hinting that they know the Earth was originally a "built" thing?

I only ask because they are using a play on words (most people would assume is coincidental) and it sounds like "build a berg" as if they are trying to signal to people in the know. If they are, its working, it worked on me anyway.

Or the more sinister one is we were all only ever put here to see which genetic code ends up running the show. Now we are there with people like the Bilderberg Group (whose members change but are always the top industrialists and politicians) maybe its a signal to the original builders?

Then they come along and take those "royal" people (the rulers) off somewhere to inflict pain and misery on some other planet. Maybe the Earth we live on is some sort of acceleration device where they don't want to wait one hundred thousand years for the genetics to come around and do it to pluck people like that away to be used in some other project.

Theorist by name theorist by nature.  :P I'm not saying I think any of this, its a what if... but the topic title, yeah, I'm being serious.

Pages: < Back  1 [2]