1301

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 20, 2021, 06:30:50 AM »

@stack

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

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

Communion (1987) :

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

I recognized the book cover and yes a very widely popularized depiction of the Grays. But at the macro level, I still don't see a big distinction between that and 77's CEotTK depiction: Big head, big dark eyes, small nose, mouth, and chin, grayish in skin tone. Pretty stereotypically popularized Gray all around whether it be 1977 or 1987.

CEotTK depiction:


versus

Communion depiction:


Maybe you're hung up on the more sinister qualities of some of the later Grays depictions; CEotTK's somewhat benevolent versus Communion's somewhat more sinister. But you can't forget that CEotTK's grays were kind of sinister and scary in many ways. For one they terrorized the mom and they abducted her little kid. They kind of drove everyone mad if they had an encounter. So much so that some along with the Dreyfus and kid's mom drop everything and maddeningly are drawn to Devil's Tower. And where Dreyfus is so transfixed that he abandons his wife and kids and runs off with the Grays forever more. Pretty dark and twisted when you think about it.

Communion published in the late 80's (not the 90's) was a #1 on the NYT list for a bit. So a big hit. The movie however, released in late 89 (not the 90's) bombed at the box office amid crap reviews. It only made $2m at the box office. So not super popular.

Intruders (1992) :

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

Never heard of it. And there were only 2 episodes so pretty much a bomb, no one saw it. So I wouldn't put it in the category of popularizing 90's Grays as you claim.

Fire in the Sky (1993) :

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

At first look I had never heard of the movie. But when I read the plot synopsis I definitely remember the story from somewhere in my past. The movie released in 1993 made some money, about $4m (on a budget of $15m, box office return of $19m). Not a big hit by any means, but more people saw it than the previous ones above. Based upon Travis Walton's book (The abductee) " The Walton Experience" published in 1978 (Not the 90's) a year after CEofTK was released. The only real reference I could find of a depiction of his Grays is, "Walton claimed that he awoke in a hospital-like room, being observed by three short, bald creatures." Kinda sounds like the short, bald creatures in CEofTK.

Lastly, picking on CEofTK (1977) again, it was a colossal hit (Production budget of $20m, Box office return of a whopping $340m!) eclipsing all three references you bring up from your research by a massive margin even though you claimed, "The gray that we know and love was first depicted in the 90's." So no, very popularized Grays were around in our culture long before the 90's as proof from even just CEofTK alone. I don't know why you're hung up on this 90's thing, but it doesn't hold water. Especially considering, with the possible exception of the Communion book, that the your findings from your "I have studied more about "aliens" and the belief therein than most other people." claim along with the 90's only bit is really, really weak research evidence. If you have really studied more than most, you wouldn't have made the strange 90's claim and would at least have better evidence to back up your weird 90's claim.

As a consequence I question what you consider studied more than most and the resulting depth and breadth, or lack thereof, of your "research findings" you so often bring up in your ever present soliloquies regarding any and all subject matter.

1302

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 19, 2021, 09:02:55 PM »

Yep. It's remarkable this conversation even exists.

1303

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 19, 2021, 08:04:44 PM »

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

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

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

It seems you do have some interest after all!

I already agreed that the Betty and Barney aliens were very different. For one, they had hair. Her description that I posted ("They appeared nearly human, with black hair, dark eyes, prominent noses and bluish lips. Their skin was a greyish colour.") was allegedly written down by her after her dreams a couple of months after the "encounter", not years later. But again, skin color whatevs, everything else is different.

Can you share any depictions of 90's scary grays from your research. I can't find any.

1304

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

« on: March 19, 2021, 07:56:23 PM »

if I was being too sensitive I could learn to live with it.

Learn to live with it. You are being too sensitive.

Maybe just like you should learn to live with getting DM's from noobs and just delete them instead asking the system to do something about it for you?

1305

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 19, 2021, 07:44:30 PM »

From the guy weilding the big fuzzy gray mic:

"Steve Herman, the White House correspondent for Voice of America, was the one holding the large fuzzy gray microphone that Biden’s hand appears to go through. On Twitter, he shut down the claims as “nonsense.”



Alternate angle:



CGI claim is bullshit.

Additionally, just for reference, old man walking:

1306

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 19, 2021, 07:12:28 PM »

@stack

And look at that, it was wasted on you.

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

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

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

What do the 1990's grays look like then that's significantly different from the proto-grays? From everything I see grays all seem to have the big head, big eyes more diminutive nose, mouth, and chin, spindly body, mostly shorter than humans, regardless of era/decade and not exclusive to the 90's. I'm not seeing any real glaring differences.

And yeah, Betty Hill's description is vastly different than more modern depictions of grays: "They appeared nearly human, with black hair, dark eyes, prominent noses and bluish lips. Their skin was a greyish colour."

The only big thing I remember from the 90's regarding aliens/grays was the hilarious "Alien Autopsy".



Still looks very similar, to me anyway, to my guy in CEotTK.

1307

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 19, 2021, 06:09:50 AM »

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

I agree, it's yet another interesting arena with all the hallmarks of conspiracy theory, pseudoscience, fantastical stories, all rolled into one.

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

Though "scourge" seems to be needlessly applied, a wee bit strong, I do agree it's been heavily advertised/propagated for decades and long before the 90's. The UFO/alien belief system doesn't impact my life which I think a scourge would. Scourge I would apply more to, for example, indoctrinated organized religious belief that does impact my life through political policy and the like. Belief by others in little green or gray men with big heads and big eyes does not.

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

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

I'm unclear what the bone is? So perhaps it is wasted on me. But maybe you could be more exacting in what said bone may be. If I poke the "Screenused" filter, the little guy on the right sure seems to fit neatly into the gray (grey) stereotype:

Kind of a funny story from production:

"12. THERE WERE SOME UNORTHODOX IDEAS FOR CREATING THE ALIENS.
Spielberg wanted the aliens to be non-human beings that glided instead of walked, and he had a weird idea to pull it off: An orangutan dressed in a specially-made suit. For a screen test, the production team outfitted an orangutan in grey spandex and strapped it into roller skates. The orangutan immediately took off the skates and crawled to its owner, so a full test couldn’t be completed, and the team scrapped the idea. The majority of the small aliens in the final movie were played by local elementary school girls from Mobile in specially made grey suits and masks who were heavily backlit to create the final alien silhouette effect."
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/63198/15-things-you-may-not-know-about-close-encounters-third-kind

1308

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Post limit on DMs

« on: March 19, 2021, 04:48:02 AM »

u are clearly uneducated if you make your moneny from only fans so it makes sense why you are dumb enugh to belive in that flat earth

HAIL NASA

i'm suprised your not an anti-vaxxer

Hurry up! 

As much as it pains me to admit this, you may have a valid point.

I vote <10 posts, no DMs.

1309

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

« on: March 19, 2021, 04:43:53 AM »

The way I've seen it is kinda how I described it previously.

If you're typing a response and hit Post or Preview and a brand new post has been added in the interim, you get:
'Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.'

If you're typing a response and hit Post or Preview and someone has edited their post in the interim, you get:
'Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.'

Same thing, no distinction between the two scenarios.

I guess that's the question - how can you tell the post was edited, versus whether it was deleted and an "edited" version was just posted as a new post? I'm trying to wrap my head around this because I've got an SMF instance of my own that, if this is a bug to track down, I want to go track it down. But I also don't want to embark on a wild goose chase.

Edit to clarify, and even more explicitly state: this is an actual question that I have, I'm not presupposing an answer. I'd love to actually catch this happening at a site where I can witness the issue real time, and then also be able to check to see if a post was just deleted and then basically copy-pasta'd into a "new" post, or if an actual bona fide edit is really causing this to happen.

After a post is edited it says so at the bottom of the post.

Sometimes. But that's tangential.

If you want we can test it out on your site. Just set up a time and you and I can DM back and forth, you tell me when you post and I can run through the different scenarios with you in real time with you editing, reposting, etc.

There might be a difference between here and the other site and if so, I may have confused the functionality differences between the two. It would be interesting to find out. Even though it's just really an annoyance I do think, in the minimum interest in terms of user flow and at a maximum of cutting down on sort of egregious over-editing that can dramatically alter the trajectory of another response, I think it's worth examining. And perhaps adjusting some things accordingly.

1310

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: March 19, 2021, 04:35:08 AM »

Please look at this attentively, because this is very strong arguments for a new model of the Universe.
Two traces on the surface of the Earth.
1) Ratio of diameters approximately 3 to 1.
2) Both have an eastern direction.
3) Both have an eastern position relative to their PreContinents (PreAmerica and PreEurasia).
4) Both have diametrically opposite locations on the surface of the Earth.


In the image below, the sizes of the traces are almost the same due to the projection of the surface of the sphere onto a rectangular plane.

What in the world would those undersea features have to do with a "new model of the universe"? Not to mention they are not even close to "diametrically opposite locations on the surface of the Earth":



Antipode map, check it out - https://www.antipodesmap.com/

1311

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 19, 2021, 12:07:04 AM »

@stack

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

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

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

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

You seemed to miss the reference to the 3rd highest grossing film of 1977 - Sure seems like Close Encounters depicted the grays - Very popular - A movie I have seen pre-90's. And I had heard about the Hill abduction case when I was a kid. I think it was an episode of In Search Of with good ole Spock. Probably the most famous abduction case out there. The description there was gray as well, though I think they had hair, but definitely the big crazy eye thing which is a common feature.

So yeah, that's my regurgitation. Or as you so often put it, "the findings of my research".

What's the extent of your research?

1312

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

« on: March 18, 2021, 10:07:43 PM »

The way I've seen it is kinda how I described it previously.

If you're typing a response and hit Post or Preview and a brand new post has been added in the interim, you get:
'Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.'

If you're typing a response and hit Post or Preview and someone has edited their post in the interim, you get:
'Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.'

Same thing, no distinction between the two scenarios.

1313

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 18, 2021, 10:43:05 AM »

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

If you're a ufologist and have studied more than most people, you would know that the first depiction of grays (or greys) far predates the 90's. Seemingly HG Wells mentions them at the turn of the last century, a Swedish novelist in the 30's, I think Rosewell in the 40's, probably most famously the Hill's "abduction" in the 60's. And who could forget the depiction in Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind in 1977:



Unlike you I do not have a background in ufology and I haven't studied more than most on the subject, but even I know common stereotypical depictions of aliens as "grays" goes way back before the 90's. Why, with your self-proclaimed extensive knowledge, would you make such an erroneous claim? It definitely gives one pause in considering many of your other claims.

1314

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

« on: March 17, 2021, 09:34:25 PM »

Here's what I run into all the time:

- I'm writing a response to a Tom post, hit Preview
- I get the red message saying someone else has posted
- I open a new tab, navigate all the way over to the newest response in the thread to see if someone else posted something I should be aware of
- Then I see it's just Tom has edited his post so I look to see what the edit is
- 50% of the time, no change has been made

I don't get it. Why edit and re-save a post that you haven't changed?

1315

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Post limit on DMs

« on: March 17, 2021, 01:53:45 AM »

Seems sensible to me. I see no reason why someone with, say, <10 posts should have PM privileges at all. They're either spammers or naggers trying to solicit Thork's services without going through appropriate channels.

I get a fair number of similar PMs, and while I've never been bothered by them, I can certainly see how they'd get annoying to some.

From the SM wiki:

Post count under which users must enter code when sending personal messages. - This setting will force users to enter a code shown on a verification image each time they are sending a personal message. Only users with a post count below the number set will need to enter the code - this should help combat automated spamming scripts.
https://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/SMF2.0:Security_and_Moderation

I wonder if this could be easily modified/extended to instead of making a user under a certain number of posts enter a code to just block them from sending a DM when under a certain number of posts.

1316

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Post limit on DMs

« on: March 16, 2021, 09:13:44 PM »

Fortnite doesn't have DLCs.  Git gud, scrub.

I've never played it. It is a game for children.

Sooooo, anyone want to wade in and stop me getting abused by noobs?

Why not just ignore or delete them? Why do you feel the need to respond?

1317

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: March 15, 2021, 06:04:47 PM »

The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not. Matching directions alone is meaningless.

What do cones have to do with spheres?

1318

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Line

« on: March 14, 2021, 11:45:06 PM »

You don't need to account for the earth's curve when building roads or railways, they will naturally follow the curve of the earth.

Oooh, ok. Let's keep that quote. You'll be eating those words with a side of humble pie at some time in the future.


... you understand that if you build over a great circle rather than a map point to point on a round earth ... you build in a different place? I mean, imagine if the Saudis build their flat earth city in a dead straight line ... and round earth lunatic Elon Musk builds the hyperloop for it on a great circle ... at the centre point of the city, its going to be a hell of a walk from your house to the nearest station.

As an aside ... does this hypersonic rail connection stop every 500 yards to allow people to get on in this carless city, or are you expected to walk 30+ miles to a station so that the fast train isn't spending all its time starting stopping and waiting? This is such a stupid idea. All they did was clumsily reveal earth's shape as flat. I expect the Biden administration to order them to make changes to their literature very soon to include great circles.

I don't understand why you're even bringing up Great Circles for such a short distance. Those are used to define the shortest long haul distance/path between two points. As AATW mentioned, they are used all of the time in long-haul air travel/transport for again, long-hauls, e.g. trans-continentals, trans-oceans, long hops and such. You don't really get into Great Circle necessity until about 500 miles or so, give or take. If you want to bore a straight shot tunnel over a measly 100 miles (170KM) from point A to B, start at A and bore your way to B. And if you had to bore a lot longer distance, say London to LA, same thing, and you would be doing so defacto in a Great Circle.

Here's what a London to LA Great Circle looks like on a Mercator Globe Projection:



Here's what a London to LA Great Circle looks like on a Globe - A good ole straight line:



If you really want to see what the Great Circle route looks like over such a short distance, here you go:

1319

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 12, 2021, 05:22:10 AM »

It's painfully clear you have simply ignored what anyone has written. And you should be embarrassed.

What basically everyone has been saying over and over again is, "I don't find that embarrassing, period."

Actions speak louder than words. If you have to argue "But Trump" you are conceding that your opponent's accusations have merit. No one justifies anything if they didn't think there was merit of the opposite.

I mean c'mon, what's more cringe-worthy embarrassing than the leader of the free world begging a State official in Georgia to find 11k+ votes for him? And you think having a stutter and stumbling over a word or forgetting a General's name is "embarrassing"? We obviously have different criteria for the application of the word.

If I were arguing this I wouldn't argue "But Biden". That would be conceding that there might be something to be embarrassed about. I would probably call into question your competency in determining context, because it was "There is clearly significant evidence of fraud. You only need to legally establish xx number of votes. You must be either incompetent or compromised because you are not doing your job."

The only reason Trump came up was in pointing out your hypocrisy. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. 

And you can spare us your lack of competency when it comes to the context that Biden won and Trump lost. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. 

1320

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 11, 2021, 07:36:21 PM »

You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.

That's literally what many of us have been saying.

Where was it argued that I was mistaken about what Biden did?

That they aren't embarrassing. Nobody is conceding that.

If you guys didn't think that it was embarrassing enough to justify with "But Trump" then you would not have done a "But Trump," as there would be nothing embarrassing to try and justify.

The next time Biden does something embarrassing you will also "But Trump", simply because Joe Biden is an embarrassment and you have no good defense.

It's painfully clear you have simply ignored what anyone has written. And you should be embarrassed.

What basically everyone has been saying over and over again is, "I don't find that embarrassing, period. But holy heck I did find an innumerable amount of embarrassing gaffes, events, statements, etc., with our former President. And as a consequence of your hypocrisy, Tom, why do you find something embarrassing for Biden, but nothing for Trump when there are four years of what anyone would consider embarrassments?"

I mean c'mon, what's more cringe-worthy embarrassing than the leader of the free world begging a State official in Georgia to find 11k+ votes for him? And you think having a stutter and stumbling over a word or forgetting a General's name is "embarrassing"? We obviously have different criteria for the application of the word.