*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"
« on: August 13, 2016, 03:41:58 AM »
I searched and haven't seen a topic here on it yet. I was here a few months back but quit due to only taking a passing interest in FE, and of course, I was a jerk somewhat. If you haven't seen it, there's a huge new video by a Russian (Rus) everyone is talking about. Literally. It has been mirrored over a dozen times already. My apologies if there is already a topic here about it, I didn't see one.

The original version

Globebuster's mirrior

I recommend the later as the CC (closed caption) picks up some things the original misses; though the GB version has synchronization errors at 2 points.

SPOILERS BELLOW






To summarize the video, without trying to ruin anything... SPOILERS...

He basically puts forth the idea that, for the most part, much of scientific consensus is little more than a badly repeated joke, and that 'planet earth' is little more than a quarry waste zone. There are a lot of other key central points he uses to back this claim, and it is interspersed with just enough humor to make it entertaining at very least. I am still laughing almost 2 weeks later from some of his points (take that for what you will).

Anyway it's kind of hot topic in the FE community right now, surprised there isn't a topic here already for it. If you haven't seen it yet I recommend it.

SPOILERS: He shows silicon life to form distinctive 'columns' on both small and large scale; I consider that 'the world's' tectonic plates take such appearance as well; though, only with the azimuthal equidistant overlay - to a much lesser extent on 'globe'.

That's all I've really got (that I'm willing to share) for now. Just a little curious. Knowledge is power, but power corrupts. Be safe...
« Last Edit: August 14, 2016, 02:42:17 PM by nametaken »
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2016, 07:36:55 AM »
The guy in the video makes a crazy statement about forests, insists that he has a good point, but then starts rambling about random optical illusions. I doubt many people will sit through an hour of his mindless rambling just because he promises he has a good point at the end.

Nobody is worried about spoilers. If you want to make a point, just say it.

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2016, 01:42:57 AM »
This reply got longer than I thought it would. I guess you have a good point, I should have stated something concrete to argue with. I didn't offer much substance other than 'hey guys watch this vine lol so funny cat videos xDDD'. So, thanks.

The guy in the video makes a crazy statement about forests, insists that he has a good point

You don't have to watch it if you don't want to. I thought it was a trash video myself, just more crappy clickbait but I gave it 5 minutes and his tone amused me. That's why I called spoilers; his 'crazy statements' and insisting is part of the joke. Granted, his presentation method appeals only to a certain-humored crowd.

but then starts rambling about random optical illusions.

I watched the video 3 times now, but don't remember anything about optical illusions? The 15 minute (or so) intro is a little laden with facts I admit I haven't verified (such as ocean/ice carbon levels, and how that indicates global fires of the past; 99 atmospheres of pressure lost at some point in antiquity), and by all means I wouldn't mind debating. For early opinions of the video I was expecting an argument about those points, to be honest, since the whole theory he is proposing is based entirely on this. The point about boobies vs dolphins was just how he chose to illustrate that we don't see the world as a quarry waste zone - we are distracted by 'boobies'. That's less than 2 minutes on optical illusions in a 2 hour video.

He presents the theory about 'tall trees' almost exclusively on the fact that the amount of fires indicated by the carbon dioxide levels in the ocean (and ice) could not be accounted for by the land mass we have; unless there were much larger trees ('vertical land mass'; here is a great place to stop and discredit his theory, where I expected most debate to begin... not on optical illusions haha but that's fine, hard to argue about a video you didn't watch). Of course, that part is hard to understand in the video, but many other youtubers have made attempts to 'translate' that theory. He doesn't represent the data well, though that is more due to language barrier from what I can tell.

I doubt many people will sit through an hour of his mindless rambling just because he promises he has a good point at the end. Nobody is worried about spoilers. If you want to make a point, just say it.

It's kind of a viral video RN. Rare that a viral video exceeds an hour, granted (it's a 2 hour vid). At worst (or best) it will be annoying and get facts wrong and make horrible conclusions from distorted figures. At best (or worst), it could potentially change the way you look at the world. I'm feeling a bit of both from it. Aristotle quote:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

That said I don't have much to say about it really tbh, unless someone has already seen the whole thing. Impossible to argue on equal footing with someone lacking basic understanding of a theory. I think Flat Earth pages get enough of that as it is LOL. This isn't exactly a 'new' theory, I've heard it off and on in my life, but never this suciently and compacted.

Now... I suppose I could at least provide some source pictures to demonstrate [a part of] the argument he has put forth, at very least; however, I'm just some random person who watched this video; I have no background in any of the related fields, other than the fact that I spent some time working in a quarry several years back, and was trained under MSHA. Basically [part of what] he is saying [is that] the world is an ancient quarry zone... that got flooded somehow (deluge/flood). It also posits that, since stone and precious metals are remnants of trees, these 'quarries' are merely the signs of our 'termite' nature on 'tree Earth' (taking my above extrapolation into consideration about tectonic plates).

These are just 2 examples I've found in a few minutes 'digging around', but I'm sure there are more. He lists several examples near the end of the video, if you want to find more. I will certainly be looking; for me, once I saw 'quarries' instead of 'natural monuments', there was no going back. That is all he means about his 'optical illusions' or the 'Matrix' analogy; I don't watch many movies so I don't know anything about the latter. Anyway:

A known quarry, flooded (near or at Kelly Islands, Ohio, couldn't confirm):


Isle of Wight - underwater 'basin' look


They look very similar. Isle of Wight is the best example I can think of, but I'm sure there are more ocean-based examples; what we call 'basins' may have actually been nothing more than ancient quarries from when sea levels were lower. He also mentions The Sea of Asov as displaying obvious signs of having been a quarry before the ocean took it. His point about the 'conical mountains' also really struck me in the heart.

As for what I said about tectonic plates... I merely took his theory and amplified it to 'global' scale... was Earth itself a tree at some point? The quote from Isaiah 14:8 about fir and cedar trees; I recall Gilgamesh cutting down cedar trees. Also, the bible says 'nothing new under the sun', so maybe we really have been quarrying for millennia.

Anyway it is 'highly fantastical', but it's definitely something to think about. As far as the fantastical goes, I admit I used to look at the world as 'how could I implement what I'm seeing in minecraft' for a time, but this video [revived the impulse and] changed that to 'what am I really looking at, and what is it really the remnants of'. I think anyone with any type of interest in the Flat Earth or the somewhat-prevailing debate about it, should check it out; if they think they can handle 2 hours of rambling, that is. :)
« Last Edit: August 14, 2016, 03:11:05 PM by nametaken »
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2016, 08:29:27 AM »
My curiosity got the better of me, so I watched the rest of the video. That is officially the dumbest video I've watched this year. That's an impressive accomplishment, considering I frequent a flat earth website.

Summary:

1. He doesn't know how petrified wood is created.
2. He noticed that some living things have hexagonal patterns, therefore anything with a hexagonal pattern must be made by something alive.
3. Devil's Rock has hexagonal patterns in its rocks, therefore it must be the stump of an ancient silicon-based tree.
4. He found some pictures of tree stumps that are sort of shaped like mountains, therefore all mountains are the stumps of ancient silicon-based trees.
5. If you are over 40 years old, your brain will explode if you realize the truth about the tree-mountains.
5. Something about quarries.

I saw some potatoes that were sort of shaped like submarines the other day. By his logic, submarines are actually giant metal-based potatoes.

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2016, 10:13:20 AM »
I saw some potatoes that were sort of shaped like submarines the other day. By his logic, submarines are actually giant metal-based potatoes.

So I guess you didn't like it  ;D

True you about sum it up. I wanted to hear I was crazy, to be frank. I ran with the 'pillars of the earth' (not mentioned in his video) by correlating the tectonic plates with the fiber fascia like structures, like living things. But it is true like saying legoes are living things that get hurt when you step on them too.

That's the type of opinion I hoped to hear, to be honest. Like I said, I went a little crazy with some of this theory, playing around. However, some compelling discoveries were found, like the right angles of above-mentioned IoW...

Maybe a duck is a duck, but it does seem some sea 'basins' may be ancient quarries, at very least.

The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

*

Offline Venus

  • *
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2016, 12:17:03 PM »
This reply got longer than I thought it would. I guess you have a good point, I should have stated something concrete to argue with. I didn't offer much substance other than 'hey guys watch this vine lol so funny cat videos xDDD'. So, thanks.

The guy in the video makes a crazy statement about forests, insists that he has a good point

You don't have to watch it if you don't want to. I thought it was a trash video myself, just more crappy clickbait but I gave it 5 minutes and his tone amused me. That's why I called spoilers; his 'crazy statements' and insisting is part of the joke. Granted, his presentation method appeals only to a certain-humored crowd.

but then starts rambling about random optical illusions.

I watched the video 3 times now, but don't remember anything about optical illusions? The 15 minute (or so) intro is a little laden with facts I admit I haven't verified (such as ocean/ice carbon levels, and how that indicates global fires of the past; 99 atmospheres of pressure lost at some point in antiquity), and by all means I wouldn't mind debating. For early opinions of the video I was expecting an argument about those points, to be honest, since the whole theory he is proposing is based entirely on this. The point about boobies vs dolphins was just how he chose to illustrate that we don't see the world as a quarry waste zone - we are distracted by 'boobies'. That's less than 2 minutes on optical illusions in a 2 hour video.

He presents the theory about 'tall trees' almost exclusively on the fact that the amount of fires indicated by the carbon dioxide levels in the ocean (and ice) could not be accounted for by the land mass we have; unless there were much larger trees ('vertical land mass'; here is a great place to stop and discredit his theory, where I expected most debate to begin... not on optical illusions haha but that's fine, hard to argue about a video you didn't watch). Of course, that part is hard to understand in the video, but many other youtubers have made attempts to 'translate' that theory. He doesn't represent the data well, though that is more due to language barrier from what I can tell.

I doubt many people will sit through an hour of his mindless rambling just because he promises he has a good point at the end. Nobody is worried about spoilers. If you want to make a point, just say it.

It's kind of a viral video RN. Rare that a viral video exceeds an hour, granted (it's a 2 hour vid). At worst (or best) it will be annoying and get facts wrong and make horrible conclusions from distorted figures. At best (or worst), it could potentially change the way you look at the world. I'm feeling a bit of both from it. Aristotle quote:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

That said I don't have much to say about it really tbh, unless someone has already seen the whole thing. Impossible to argue on equal footing with someone lacking basic understanding of a theory. I think Flat Earth pages get enough of that as it is LOL. This isn't exactly a 'new' theory, I've heard it off and on in my life, but never this suciently and compacted.

Now... I suppose I could at least provide some source pictures to demonstrate [a part of] the argument he has put forth, at very least; however, I'm just some random person who watched this video; I have no background in any of the related fields, other than the fact that I spent some time working in a quarry several years back, and was trained under MSHA. Basically [part of what] he is saying [is that] the world is an ancient quarry zone... that got flooded somehow (deluge/flood). It also posits that, since stone and precious metals are remnants of trees, these 'quarries' are merely the signs of our 'termite' nature on 'tree Earth' (taking my above extrapolation into consideration about tectonic plates).

These are just 2 examples I've found in a few minutes 'digging around', but I'm sure there are more. He lists several examples near the end of the video, if you want to find more. I will certainly be looking; for me, once I saw 'quarries' instead of 'natural monuments', there was no going back. That is all he means about his 'optical illusions' or the 'Matrix' analogy; I don't watch many movies so I don't know anything about the latter. Anyway:

A known quarry, flooded (near or at Kelly Islands, Ohio, couldn't confirm):


Isle of Wight - underwater 'basin' look


They look very similar. Isle of Wight is the best example I can think of, but I'm sure there are more ocean-based examples; what we call 'basins' may have actually been nothing more than ancient quarries from when sea levels were lower. He also mentions The Sea of Asov as displaying obvious signs of having been a quarry before the ocean took it. His point about the 'conical mountains' also really struck me in the heart.

As for what I said about tectonic plates... I merely took his theory and amplified it to 'global' scale... was Earth itself a tree at some point? The quote from Isaiah 14:8 about fir and cedar trees; I recall Gilgamesh cutting down cedar trees. Also, the bible says 'nothing new under the sun', so maybe we really have been quarrying for millennia.

Anyway it is 'highly fantastical', but it's definitely something to think about. As far as the fantastical goes, I admit I used to look at the world as 'how could I implement what I'm seeing in minecraft' for a time, but this video [revived the impulse and] changed that to 'what am I really looking at, and what is it really the remnants of'. I think anyone with any type of interest in the Flat Earth or the somewhat-prevailing debate about it, should check it out; if they think they can handle 2 hours of rambling, that is. :)

Wrong ... stone and precious metals are NOT remnants of trees !!!
Usually trees are broken down by fungi etc and their matter is returned to the soil. However under the right conditions trees sometimes break down over time to form coal (primarily made of carbon) ... and I guess that eventually some of that coal can form diamonds ... but that is incredibly rare, and requires massive amounts of pressure and time. That's only because diamonds are virtually pure carbon, and carbon is one of the 3 basic elements of life forms.
Precious metals... gold, silver etc do not come from trees duh !! In fact the atoms of gold and silver are not even found in trees.
Many stones are based on quartz, or silicon, also not found in life forms such as trees.
So easy for these 1D10T5 to make a (false) sweeping statement and then to base everything else on that statement. Few people will investigate the original statement, and if the rest sounds logical... they are convinced !!

What the world needs now is better science and maths education ... !!!
Because I live on the 'bottom' of a spinning spherical earth ...
*I cannot see Polaris, but I can see the Southern Cross
*When I look at the stars they appear to rotate clockwise, not anti-clockwise
*I see the moon 'upside down'
I've travelled to the Northern Hemisphere numerous times ... and seen how different the stars and the moon are 'up' there!
Come on down and check it out FE believers... !!

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2016, 02:57:05 AM »
Wrong ... stone and precious metals are NOT remnants of trees !!!

There are a lot of petrified trees, even [remnants of] entire petrified forests. Wood can become stone. You got me on the metal. Wasn't really me personal claim, he mentions it in the video though  :o which I don't know how to defend.

Usually trees are broken down by fungi etc and their matter is returned to the soil.

For the 'big trees', there must have been some big fungi back in the day.  ::) Don't think I've ever seen any 'ancient shrooms' on top of a messa, so this is a VERY good point against 'big trees' theory.

However under the right conditions trees sometimes break down over time to form coal (primarily made of carbon) ... and I guess that eventually some of that coal can form diamonds ... but that is incredibly rare, and requires massive amounts of pressure and time. That's only because diamonds are virtually pure carbon, and carbon is one of the 3 basic elements of life forms.

Periodic table, gotcha. No idea what types of 'trees' may have been around in the world, if his theory is correct. Though, it is a good explanation for the fine particles of gold in the ocean, I suppose. I don't have much more right now about [t]his theory.

By no means am I saying I believe [t]his theory. I'm just curious about any criticism of it! Like bellow...

What the world needs now is better science and maths education ... !!!

I agree. But it's each generation's responsibility to make such advancements to actually have to hand down to the next gen. It doesn't happen without such conflict! Understand silly theory to know how to defend against future ones. If silly theory accidentally proves new things, that's just new 'groundbreaking' science either way. No need to afraid of it.
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2016, 05:43:10 AM »
What the world needs now is better science and maths education ... !!!

I agree. But it's each generation's responsibility to make such advancements to actually have to hand down to the next gen. It doesn't happen without such conflict! Understand silly theory to know how to defend against future ones. If silly theory accidentally proves new things, that's just new 'groundbreaking' science either way. No need to afraid of it.

Here's the thing: "advancements" are made by people that have studied really hard for a really long time, and have dedicated their lives to understanding a particular subject inside and out. They generally are NOT made by Youtubers categorically rejecting all theories that they don't understand, and then replacing said theories with blind guesses. The only thing this Youtuber is advancing is ignorance.

If you are serious about understanding how the world works, but are having trouble recognizing the truly ridiculous theories (like the one in this video), I recommend taking some basic science courses from a local community college. Physics, geometry, geology, biology, would all be helpful. You may not become a world renowned scientist, but at least you will be able to recognize when a theory is completely off base. *cough* flat earth *cough*.

*

Offline Venus

  • *
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2016, 11:48:18 AM »
Wrong ... stone and precious metals are NOT remnants of trees !!!

There are a lot of petrified trees, even [remnants of] entire petrified forests. Wood can become stone. You got me on the metal. Wasn't really me personal claim, he mentions it in the video though  :o which I don't know how to defend.

Usually trees are broken down by fungi etc and their matter is returned to the soil.

For the 'big trees', there must have been some big fungi back in the day.  ::) Don't think I've ever seen any 'ancient shrooms' on top of a messa, so this is a VERY good point against 'big trees' theory.

However under the right conditions trees sometimes break down over time to form coal (primarily made of carbon) ... and I guess that eventually some of that coal can form diamonds ... but that is incredibly rare, and requires massive amounts of pressure and time. That's only because diamonds are virtually pure carbon, and carbon is one of the 3 basic elements of life forms.

Periodic table, gotcha. No idea what types of 'trees' may have been around in the world, if his theory is correct. Though, it is a good explanation for the fine particles of gold in the ocean, I suppose. I don't have much more right now about [t]his theory.

By no means am I saying I believe [t]his theory. I'm just curious about any criticism of it! Like bellow...

What the world needs now is better science and maths education ... !!!

I agree. But it's each generation's responsibility to make such advancements to actually have to hand down to the next gen. It doesn't happen without such conflict! Understand silly theory to know how to defend against future ones. If silly theory accidentally proves new things, that's just new 'groundbreaking' science either way. No need to afraid of it.

Petrified wood is not trees that have turned into stone... it is where the organic remains of the tree have been replaced by minerals over a long period of time. The tree has not "turned into stone" but where the organic matter has decayed and left "gaps" these gaps have then been filled with minerals which have become stone... This petrification process usually takes place a aqueous environments and generally results in a quartz mineralization.

Over periods of time every living organism will decay ... by bacteria, fungi, moulds, etc You don't need "giant" mushrooms to decay a fallen tree ... ants and termites and other insects such as borers will eat much of it, and fungi and bacteria will use the nutrients in whatever is left over... over a few hundred years (which is a tiny amount of geological time) a massive tree trunk can be completely decayed by other organisms. But no...the tree will NOT turn into stone... stone has a completely different elemental makeup (silicon, aluminium, iron, magnesium, calcium, potassium and magnesium)  compared to the organic nature of a tree trunk , which is mainly composed of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen.

As for gold in the oceans... no  ... it does not come from any living thing ... gold and silver are not elements which exist in living things ... well maybe apart from gold tooth fillings lol

As I said... make a broad sweeping statement as a matter of fact... uneducated people do not question your original statement ... then go on to claim or "prove" whatever you want based on your original (incorrect) statement.
I believe this is called a logical fallacy!!!
Because I live on the 'bottom' of a spinning spherical earth ...
*I cannot see Polaris, but I can see the Southern Cross
*When I look at the stars they appear to rotate clockwise, not anti-clockwise
*I see the moon 'upside down'
I've travelled to the Northern Hemisphere numerous times ... and seen how different the stars and the moon are 'up' there!
Come on down and check it out FE believers... !!

Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2016, 05:33:33 PM »
Wrong ... stone and precious metals are NOT remnants of trees !!!
Usually trees are broken down by fungi etc and their matter is returned to the soil. However under the right conditions trees sometimes break down over time to form coal (primarily made of carbon) ... and I guess that eventually some of that coal can form diamonds ... but that is incredibly rare, and requires massive amounts of pressure and time.
Wrong ... forest fires are NOT rare !!!

What the world needs now is better science and maths education ... !!!
What the world needs now is less disinfo trolls ... !!!
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2016, 06:01:41 PM »
Wrong ... stone and precious metals are NOT remnants of trees !!!
Usually trees are broken down by fungi etc and their matter is returned to the soil. However under the right conditions trees sometimes break down over time to form coal (primarily made of carbon) ... and I guess that eventually some of that coal can form diamonds ... but that is incredibly rare, and requires massive amounts of pressure and time.
Wrong ... forest fires are NOT rare !!!

Venus isn't claiming that forest fires are rare. Coal turning into diamond is rare.  Which is why diamonds are expensive, because they are rare.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2016, 11:27:34 PM »
Wrong ... stone and precious metals are NOT remnants of trees !!!
Usually trees are broken down by fungi etc and their matter is returned to the soil. However under the right conditions trees sometimes break down over time to form coal (primarily made of carbon) ... and I guess that eventually some of that coal can form diamonds ... but that is incredibly rare, and requires massive amounts of pressure and time.
Wrong ... forest fires are NOT rare !!!

What the world needs now is better science and maths education ... !!!
What the world needs now is less disinfo trolls ... !!!
Where did you learn to read?

Wrong, Venus never claimed that "forest fires are rare".  "Fire" is only mentioned in describing what is in the video (and not by Venus), not in relation to the formation of coal and diamonds.

But, now you are onto something with your
"What the world needs now is less disinfo trolls ... !!!" and the biggest "disinfo troll" around here is the "Charming Anarchist".
Every post of yours seems to contain pure guesswork, without any support, and here you add to it with your misquotes.

Keep it up, it does make arguing against the Flat Earth so much easier.

I guess I now know where you learnt to read. You played hookey from school those days! Still, your reading skills are a good match for your knowledge of science.