Is Our Earth FLAT and Motionless, Not a Spinning Globe?

[Winston]

Michael Tsarion on his FB page explains why he thinks Eric Dubay is wrong about the flat earth being part of the elite's war on consciousness:

Unslaved FLAT EARTH THEORY REFUTED

A contrived set of theories which don't stand up on close examination, particularly from a philosophical perspective.

For me the flaw is evident from Dubay's concluding remarks about the REASONS for the so-called "Masonic" deception. Dubay wishes us to take for granted that Masonic conspiracy exists. It believe it does exist, but that it has nothing whatever to do with altering man's perception of the planet in relation to the universe. I believe that the idea that this is the Masonic agenda is ludicrous.

The conspiratorial elite aim at controlling MINDS. Everything else is subservient to that process. It follows that once they achieve this goal, they have no reason whatsoever to continue wasting time and resources on highly elaborate and relatively easily refuted conspiracies. They know that once a program of this sort is refuted and exposed (as it is sure to be), their entire agenda is universally undermined. And they are far too smart to leave themselves open to counter-strikes of this kind.

In other words, their primary agenda is to affect minds in ways that minds are highly UNLIKELY to discern. It is in this work that they excel, and anyone who knows anything about "Masonic" conspiracy knows that this is their focus, genius and triumph. The elites do not, and would not, waste time contriving illusions that are easily discerned by those under the spell. There's is too much to lose. The mind-controlled must never be alerted to the fact that he is mind-controlled. Once behavior is controlled, their job is done. And we can be sure that man's thought and behavior has indeed been subject to remote control. However, the project falls apart if the subject awakens to discover that he and his fellows have been victimized by an external fallacy. To find out that one has been duped about a flat earth is a far easier revelation that to find out that one has been psychologically controlled. And to find out that one has been duped as to a physical factor serves to UNDERMINE the agenda of the arch-conspirator. (All competent film editors know they have failed to create a captivating movie if the audience is aware of the techniques employed to make that movie.)

But now to convey the most serious criticism. Around 1:55:00, when summarizing, Dubay gives us the supposed REASONS for the conspirator's elaborate artifice. However, his "philosophical" presumptions or speculations are valueless, and in no way reinforce or prove the apparently science-based remarks throughout the bulk of his monologue. The idea that the Masons have fooled humankind into believing it lives on a globe in order to to "materialize" or despiritualize it is simply preposterous. The reasons why man has spiritual aspirations in the first place are not addressed by Dubay. If they were addressed, his own theory would fall flat on its face.

For example, one of the main reasons for man's spiritual ardor is the beauty that surrounds him - the beauty of nature. Now the phenomenon of beauty exists regardless of whether man lives on a globe, cube or flat plane. Another source of spirituality is man's own ability to convert nature's beauty into art, song and music. Again, this propensity does not change based on whether or not the earth is a globe. Another key underlying reason for man's spiritual or religious sensibility is his innate sense of humanity, a consequence of his living among other humans in tribes and communities. This phenomenon stands whether the earth is a globe or not. Moreover, man's spirituality is partly a consequence of his dream life, that is his inner life or imagination. However, again, the natural activity of man's psyche remains constant regardless of whether the earth is a globe or not.

So given that these roots of spirituality are unaffected by the earth's shape, we see that Dubay cannot turn to spirituality, or its lack, as a proof for flat earth. We see that Dubay's attempt to give a philosophical account of why the "Masons" have gone to the ridiculous lengths to deceive the entire human race - namely, to despiritualize and control them - is extremely weak and spurious when offered as proof for the flat-earth theory. What is more, Dubay tells us nothing about man's own love of enslavement and falsity.

The forces that enslave and dehumanize are not solely from without. They do not solely rain down from the hidden elite. That is a widely held fiction, and is demonstrably false. Man's sorry condition is largely the consequence of his own aberrant relationship WITH HIMSELF. And it is man's own penchant for delusion, violence and self-sadism that leaves him open to control from without. Indeed, man cannot be controlled by any external force unless he has first psychologically and emotionally disempowered himself. Dubay, like so many others with little to no psychological knowledge, has things the wrong way around.

If it was as he says, then the case for humankind would be entirely hopeless. Man would be an will-less automaton unable to awaken and change his state. But bad as things are in our world, this is simply not the case. This means that volition remains a key factor. Sure man can find himself controlled and manipulated, but he is at all times and stages quite capable of freeing himself from that state. If it were, as Dubay contends, a matter of external tyranny only, then there would be no question of man saving himself and turning against the forces of control.

So in short, in my opinion, Dubay's theory of WHY the conspirators have hidden the truth about a "flat earth" (given that such a thing exists) is utterly wrongheaded and inadequate, at least from a philosophical perspective. And once we see that no external force, no matter how factual and tyrannical, would undertake such a bizarre and costly conspiracy, only to be at high risk from being exposed, shows us that we can rightly or logically conclude that the flat earth theory has not been hidden by way of an artful and prolonged conspiracy, and is not plausible.

Indeed, using Dubay’s own statements, false as they are, we can say that Masons are more likely to disorient people by positing FLAT EARTH THEORY. It is this theory that confounds sense and leads man to doubt his position in the universe. It is this theory that perplexes and leads to feelings of meaninglessness. Yes, of the two positions, Masons are more likely to have contrived and disseminated the FLAT EARTH THEORY to bring about a desired despiritualization of humankind

- MTSAR

[gsjackson]

This just seems like word salad -- I can't get any point out of it. It takes no account of momentum that has been building for 400 years. Some people back then, for whatever reasons -- probably religious -- wanted the earth to revolve around the sun. But to account for night and day, the earth couldn't be flat, so it became a revolving globe. But how do you keep water from spinning off a globe? Well, here's Brother Newton with something he calls gravity that magically makes the water stick. So why are the stars in the same place when the earth has traveled to the other side of the sun? Well, the sun must be tens of millions of miles away, and the stars quadrillions of miles away (though perfectly visible), and at those distances everything looks the same wherever earth is in its journey around the sun. Can't demonstrate the earth's motion? Here's Einstein with relativity showing that motion can't be perceived.

The whole thing was jerry-built in this manner, and managed to get itself widely accepted without any proof. Now entire professions and fields of inquiry depend upon its acceptance, which is guaranteed by hundreds of millions of indoctrinated useful idiots who shout down any dissent.

The next flat earth conference is in Denver in mid-November. I may go. It features several people whom Dubay thinks are controlled opposition, but I'm not sure I'm with him on that.

[Adama]

So it has been about three years since I first started this thread. Someone had made a comment on another forum, which piqued my curiosity. Then I began my research.

However, I wish I had not made this thread. If I had it to do over again, I would not make any threads like this. Not because I am afraid of controversy, but now I realize, it is rather pointless to try to awaken people to simple truths such as this. Some people cannot believe what is in front of their eyes, regardless how many proofs they are shown, those proofs will always be rejected.

And another reason is, it doesn't truly matter what other people think or believe. Whether they agree or disagree, it doesn't really matter. I don't really need other people to sign on to this.

As an aside, I have gotten to see the nature of how the human mind works; the nature of deception; the nature of people who cannot believe what is right in front of their eyes; the nature of people who use insults simply because others disagree with them, all of which shows me that conversation is pointless.

For me, this really was for purposes of light-hearted discussion amongst people whom I thought were my comrades, but quickly, the insults made discussion not worth it. Not everything in life is meant to be war or a life and death struggle. It's not that important to make enemies out of other posters.

[Winston]

In response to Adama's question to me:

I am thinking of another proof. The clouds. As far as you can see, whether there is a mountain in the way or not, the clouds are all perfectly even as far as you can see. The bottoms of the clouds are flat. There is some invisible barrier below which clouds can't go. I think the clouds are flat at the bottom and on an even level at the lowest level as far as we can see, because it is a mirror image of the ground. The ground beneath the clouds is relatively flat, and even the clouds are flat, despite having nothing visible which might shape them on the bottom to be flat, and nothing visible which would prevent them from being uneven with each other, and nothing visible beneath them which prevents them from sinking lower in the sky than they are.

The lower most level of clouds all hit a lower ceiling beneath which they can't penetrate, which makes them all flattened out, like pancake batter when it hits a pan. And this invisible lower ceiling for the clouds extends everywhere.

If the bottoms of the clouds are flat when there doesn't seem to be a reason why they should be, shouldn't the earth beneath it also be flat? Why not have a bunch of rocky, jagged, uneven, haphazard clouds, with one here and there, but no pancake batter flatness to the lower limit?

And since we can see with our eyes that there is a lower limit, what in the blazes could it be made up? What substance could stop and shape the clouds in the sky? While allowing air, planes, birds are the rest penetrate? How's that possible?

Well the ball earthers would say that you can't see the curvature from ground level or even from a plane. You have to go very high in space to see curvature. Because it's very gradual. Also on a plane I have seen some curvature on clouds before, but it's very slight. I took a photo of it too. You can see a slight curve or dip. I don't think it's due to the window being curved because when the plane is on the runway the ground level looks normal.

I've been studying both sides of the debate. Both have good arguments. So I don't think it's certain what the shape of the earth is. Both the globe and flat earth models have problems. And NASA refuses to take a real photo of earth from space to settle the issue. So we just don't know. See the Brazilian documentary I just posted in this thread above, where a team of scientists test for curvature. It's very interesting.

[Winston]

This just seems like word salad -- I can't get any point out of it. It takes no account of momentum that has been building for 400 years. Some people back then, for whatever reasons -- probably religious -- wanted the earth to revolve around the sun. But to account for night and day, the earth couldn't be flat, so it became a revolving globe. But how do you keep water from spinning off a globe? Well, here's Brother Newton with something he calls gravity that magically makes the water stick. So why are the stars in the same place when the earth has traveled to the other side of the sun? Well, the sun must be tens of millions of miles away, and the stars quadrillions of miles away (though perfectly visible), and at those distances everything looks the same wherever earth is in its journey around the sun. Can't demonstrate the earth's motion? Here's Einstein with relativity showing that motion can't be perceived.

The whole thing was jerry-built in this manner, and managed to get itself widely accepted without any proof. Now entire professions and fields of inquiry depend upon its acceptance, which is guaranteed by hundreds of millions of indoctrinated useful idiots who shout down any dissent.

The next flat earth conference is in Denver in mid-November. I may go. It features several people whom Dubay thinks are controlled opposition, but I'm not sure I'm with him on that.

What are you referring to? You should quote it next time. The copernican principle of heliocentricity wasn't adopted out of religious purposes. It was adopted because it fit the motion of the sun and planets at the time in their elliptical orbit. But what they didn't tell you was that Tychone also proved that the Geocentric model could also explain the sun and planets in orbit too. Even Einstein and Edwin Hubble and many other top astronomers have admitted that BOTH the heliocentric model and geocentric model are EQUALLY valid in explaining the movement of the sun and planets. So the earth doesn't have to be moving.

The theory behind heliocentrism was that smaller objects rotate around larger ones, so the earth had to rotate around the sun, because the sun was bigger. Galileo saw moons moving around Jupiter and concluded that smaller objects move around larger objects. That was the logic behind it. Also, it helps turn people away from religion and God too, so atheists adopted the heliocentric model to prove that we are nothing special and just an accident, so everyone can rely on science and materialism to provide them with all the answers.

See the movie "The Principle" which goes over all this in detail. I started a geocentrism thread about it too.

viewtopic.php?t=28772

Water doesn't spin off the globe because in space there is no up or down, so water would just float without gravity.

Actually the western world believed the world was a globe since the time of Aristotle in ancient Greece. That wasn't the issue in the 1600's. The issue was geocentrism vs heliocentrism, or Ptolemy vs Copernicus.

Btw the globe earthers have an argument that's hard to refute. When you are in Australia in the southern hemisphere, you see different star constellations than you do in the northern hemisphere. On a flat earth, everyone should see the same stars and constellations. But they don't, not even with a telescope. So that supports the globe model. Like I said, both sides have compelling arguments.

You should attend the flat earth conference if you can. I'm sure it'd be interesting. Try to meet Mark Sargent too. He seems like a nice guy. I don't like that Eric Dubay claims he's a shill as though it were a certainty. Dubay should just say "I suspect Mark may be a shill" not state it arrogantly as if it were a fact. That makes him too arrogant and self-righteous to claim he knows something he can't possibly know.

[Winston]

So it has been about three years since I first started this thread. Someone had made a comment on another forum, which piqued my curiosity. Then I began my research.

However, I wish I had not made this thread. If I had it to do over again, I would not make any threads like this. Not because I am afraid of controversy, but now I realize, it is rather pointless to try to awaken people to simple truths such as this. Some people cannot believe what is in front of their eyes, regardless how many proofs they are shown, those proofs will always be rejected.

And another reason is, it doesn't truly matter what other people think or believe. Whether they agree or disagree, it doesn't really matter. I don't really need other people to sign on to this.

As an aside, I have gotten to see the nature of how the human mind works; the nature of deception; the nature of people who cannot believe what is right in front of their eyes; the nature of people who use insults simply because others disagree with them, all of which shows me that conversation is pointless.

For me, this really was for purposes of light-hearted discussion amongst people whom I thought were my comrades, but quickly, the insults made discussion not worth it. Not everything in life is meant to be war or a life and death struggle. It's not that important to make enemies out of other posters.

Well this topic is sort of important. If one concludes that the earth is flat and/or geocentric, then one cannot be an atheist anymore and will be forced to change their beliefs. In fact, the guys that run the podcast on YouTube called ball earth skeptic roundtable, said they've received many emails thanking them from people who were atheists, but came to believe in God again due to the flat earth movement. So it does change people's religious beliefs. The flat earth model and geocentric model means that we were created by a creator and have a purpose here. So it makes one view life and the universe in a totally different way, and more meaningful way as well. It gives life more meaning as well. So it matters in that sense.

[gsjackson]

This just seems like word salad -- I can't get any point out of it. It takes no account of momentum that has been building for 400 years. Some people back then, for whatever reasons -- probably religious -- wanted the earth to revolve around the sun. But to account for night and day, the earth couldn't be flat, so it became a revolving globe. But how do you keep water from spinning off a globe? Well, here's Brother Newton with something he calls gravity that magically makes the water stick. So why are the stars in the same place when the earth has traveled to the other side of the sun? Well, the sun must be tens of millions of miles away, and the stars quadrillions of miles away (though perfectly visible), and at those distances everything looks the same wherever earth is in its journey around the sun. Can't demonstrate the earth's motion? Here's Einstein with relativity showing that motion can't be perceived.

The whole thing was jerry-built in this manner, and managed to get itself widely accepted without any proof. Now entire professions and fields of inquiry depend upon its acceptance, which is guaranteed by hundreds of millions of indoctrinated useful idiots who shout down any dissent.

The next flat earth conference is in Denver in mid-November. I may go. It features several people whom Dubay thinks are controlled opposition, but I'm not sure I'm with him on that.

What are you referring to? You should quote it next time. The copernican principle of heliocentricity wasn't adopted out of religious purposes. It was adopted because it fit the motion of the sun and planets at the time in their elliptical orbit. But what they didn't tell you was that Tychone also proved that the Geocentric model could also explain the sun and planets in orbit too. Even Einstein and Edwin Hubble and many other top astronomers have admitted that BOTH the heliocentric model and geocentric model are EQUALLY valid in explaining the movement of the sun and planets. So the earth doesn't have to be moving.

The theory behind heliocentrism was that smaller objects rotate around larger ones, so the earth had to rotate around the sun, because the sun was bigger. Galileo saw moons moving around Jupiter and concluded that smaller objects move around larger objects. That was the logic behind it. Also, it helps turn people away from religion and God too, so atheists adopted the heliocentric model to prove that we are nothing special and just an accident, so everyone can rely on science and materialism to provide them with all the answers.

See the movie "The Principle" which goes over all this in detail. I started a geocentrism thread about it too.

viewtopic.php?t=28772

Water doesn't spin off the globe because in space there is no up or down, so water would just float without gravity.

Actually the western world believed the world was a globe since the time of Aristotle in ancient Greece. That wasn't the issue in the 1600's. The issue was geocentrism vs heliocentrism, or Ptolemy vs Copernicus.

Btw the globe earthers have an argument that's hard to refute. When you are in Australia in the southern hemisphere, you see different star constellations than you do in the northern hemisphere. On a flat earth, everyone should see the same stars and constellations. But they don't, not even with a telescope. So that supports the globe model. Like I said, both sides have compelling arguments.

You should attend the flat earth conference if you can. I'm sure it'd be interesting. Try to meet Mark Sargent too. He seems like a nice guy. I don't like that Eric Dubay claims he's a shill as though it were a certainty. Dubay should just say "I suspect Mark may be a shill" not state it arrogantly as if it were a fact. That makes him too arrogant and self-righteous to claim he knows something he can't possibly know.

I was referencing the article you linked directly above my post -- the word salad by Chef Tsarion. Maybe if I had said "irreligious purpose" you would get the point. Most flat earthers believe that helio-centrism was in large measure an effort to de-throne God and move man out of his central place in the universe. I don't think any of them accept that the only agenda was objective science.

I believe you're flatly wrong (pun intended) about helio-centrism being widely accepted in the West going back to ancient Greece. See Dubay's lengthy video on the history of flat earth.

Now that the millions to quadrillions of miles away for astral bodies is rejected, it's time for flat earthers to give some thought to just what the limits of human vision are, with and without magnification, and just how far away the sun, moon and stars really are. I think it's likely that they are hundreds, not thousands of miles away. That's certainly what it looks like. Thus as you move away from the center of the earth towards the southern hemisphere you are less likely to see constellations over the center, such as northern polaris. Just like the sun and moon, they move out of your field of vision because of distance, not sloping away on a ball.

I agree with you that Dubay has gotten out of line with the shill calling out. In some cases he's accusing people who are professed devout admirers of his, such as Jeran Camponella. Jeranism does yeoman work, both with the Globebusters panel and by himself with his wife. I expect to go to the conference, and am looking forward to it. I believe these people are genuine truth seekers.

[Winston]

gsjackson,
You misunderstood me. I said the idea that the earth is round or a globe goes back to ancient greece. You can look that up on Wikipedia even. The idea of heliocentricity though, that the earth goes around the sun, is the concept that's relatively new and only goes back 400 years. You got those two mixed up.

How do you find out about the flat earth convention schedule? Is there a link that announces when and where it will be? If so can you post it?

Yeah I suspect the stars may be closer than they claim too. There are now many videos on YouTube where they zoom in on the stars and show them to be translucent and like plasma balls in water. Nothing like suns at all. See here for a list of many videos of stars being zoomed in.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... e+not+suns

Also, some of the videos show how stars can be created in a water tank, using sound waves. They've done it at UCLA already and have shown it on video. You can see clips of it at the videos above. This means that somehow, sound waves could be creating the stars above in the firmament, and the stars could be inside water above the dome firmament too, just as the Bible and many ancient texts say.

[Cornfed]

Pretty sure the idea that the earth orbits the sun goes back to Ancient Greece as well.

[gsjackson]

gsjackson,
You misunderstood me. I said the idea that the earth is round or a globe goes back to ancient greece. You can look that up on Wikipedia even. The idea of heliocentricity though, that the earth goes around the sun, is the concept that's relatively new and only goes back 400 years. You got those two mixed up.

How do you find out about the flat earth convention schedule? Is there a link that announces when and where it will be? If so can you post it?

Yeah I suspect the stars may be closer than they claim too. There are now many videos on YouTube where they zoom in on the stars and show them to be translucent and like plasma balls in water. Nothing like suns at all. See here for a list of many videos of stars being zoomed in.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... e+not+suns

Also, some of the videos show how stars can be created in a water tank, using sound waves. They've done it at UCLA already and have shown it on video. You can see clips of it at the videos above. This means that somehow, sound waves could be creating the stars above in the firmament, and the stars could be inside water above the dome firmament too, just as the Bible and many ancient texts say.

You're right, I misspoke. I think you're wrong that the globe earth was generally accepted in the West from the time of the ancient Greeks. See Dubay.

Interesting about the sound waves. I'm about to listen to a very strange Jewish woman in Israel who is saying something similar. She might know something.

Flat earth conference 2018:
http://fe2018.com/

[Winston]

gsjackson,
You misunderstood me. I said the idea that the earth is round or a globe goes back to ancient greece. You can look that up on Wikipedia even. The idea of heliocentricity though, that the earth goes around the sun, is the concept that's relatively new and only goes back 400 years. You got those two mixed up.

How do you find out about the flat earth convention schedule? Is there a link that announces when and where it will be? If so can you post it?

Yeah I suspect the stars may be closer than they claim too. There are now many videos on YouTube where they zoom in on the stars and show them to be translucent and like plasma balls in water. Nothing like suns at all. See here for a list of many videos of stars being zoomed in.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... e+not+suns

Also, some of the videos show how stars can be created in a water tank, using sound waves. They've done it at UCLA already and have shown it on video. You can see clips of it at the videos above. This means that somehow, sound waves could be creating the stars above in the firmament, and the stars could be inside water above the dome firmament too, just as the Bible and many ancient texts say.

You're right, I misspoke. I think you're wrong that the globe earth was generally accepted in the West from the time of the ancient Greeks. See Dubay.

Interesting about the sound waves. I'm about to listen to a very strange Jewish woman in Israel who is saying something similar. She might know something.

Flat earth conference 2018:
http://fe2018.com/

Dubay cherry picks a lot. I've seen his videos and presentations. Yes, some ancient cultures believed in flat earth with dome. But we are talking about ancient greece here. They believed the earth was a sphere. You can look it up on wikipedia. But that doesn't mean all ancient cultures believed the earth was a sphere too. Some didn't. Dubay cherry picks the ones that believed in the flat earth model with dome firmament. He doesn't tell you that ancient greece wasn't one of them. He cherry picks and so his views are not balanced, that's what most people do.

So every year the flat earth conference has to change their URL? That's stupid and inefficient. Why not have a URL that doesn't need to be changed every year?

What's the cost to attend the conference? Did they invite Dubay to be there too? Well he lives in Thailand so he may not be able to go anyway.

[Winston]

@gsjackson
Hey maybe we can go to the next flat earth conference together and meet some nice open minded freethinking new ageish type of girls there? lol. It would be fun and interesting. Such events definitely attract the most open minded types who are not afraid of what people think, and such types usually vibe best with us HAers and freethinkers. lol

Btw, I checked their site and the fee to get into the conference is $250. Dang. That's a bit more steep than I thought. Why did they pick such a luxurious hotel to hold the conference at?

http://fe2018.com/

Btw, if we go, we should check out the infamous Illuminati paintings at the Denver airport. lol. Maybe we can look for signs of a vast underground base there too, which has been alleged to exist under the Denver airport. lol

[gsjackson]

I'll be driving up from Tucson. Happy to pick you up at the airport and jitney around as needed, if I get there first. I believe I have spotted such women as you speak of, while youtubing around in the flat earth world, and would not be averse to meeting such a specimen. I'm so outside the U.S. mainstream now that completely unsocialized women are what I'm looking for.

Speaking of New Age and Denver, I have had quite a lot of synchronicity coincidences involving the car radio, some of them absolutely incredible. Back in the mid-90s, I decided that a sequence of them was telling me that I should go to Denver. So I went for a week. and nothing remarkable happened, unless it was on the last day, when I went to a Rockies game and saw an old teammate and fraternity brother who was scouting the game for the Twins. We had a few beers and his parting words to me were, "Remember, Great Expectations." He was recommending a dating service through which he had met his wife. I had no interest in the dating service, so decided to take the suggestion metaphorically, on the assumption that you get what you really expect. Never have quite mustered up the discipline to make those expectations great, though.

My friend's own great expectations were met 11 years down the road, when he became general manager of a major league team. But then the ugly real world intruded and he was fired two years later, unfairly I thought.

BTW, I'm thinking they sold the first conference out last year in Raleigh, so maybe best to make a decision as soon as possible. I need to wait another month or so to make sure I'm going to be in Tucson.

[Winston]

I'll be driving up from Tucson. Happy to pick you up at the airport and jitney around as needed, if I get there first. I believe I have spotted such women as you speak of, while youtubing around in the flat earth world, and would not be averse to meeting such a specimen. I'm so outside the U.S. mainstream now that completely unsocialized women are what I'm looking for.

Speaking of New Age and Denver, I have had quite a lot of synchronicity coincidences involving the car radio, some of them absolutely incredible. Back in the mid-90s, I decided that a sequence of them was telling me that I should go to Denver. So I went for a week. and nothing remarkable happened, unless it was on the last day, when I went to a Rockies game and saw an old teammate and fraternity brother who was scouting the game for the Twins. We had a few beers and his parting words to me were, "Remember, Great Expectations." He was recommending a dating service through which he had met his wife. I had no interest in the dating service, so decided to take the suggestion metaphorically, on the assumption that you get what you really expect. Never have quite mustered up the discipline to make those expectations great, though.

My friend's own great expectations were met 11 years down the road, when he became general manager of a major league team. But then the ugly real world intruded and he was fired two years later, unfairly I thought.

BTW, I'm thinking they sold the first conference out last year in Raleigh, so maybe best to make a decision as soon as possible. I need to wait another month or so to make sure I'm going to be in Tucson.

I've had a lot of synchronistic experiences too. Too bad some here do not believe in them. Nowadays they happen everyday. I could be reading the most obscure word, and the podcast I'm listening to utters the same word at the same time. That happens practically everyday, sometimes multiple times a day. Why didn't you try out the Great Expectations dating thing? I remember that was a service in the newspaper. You had to pay a hefty fee though for the matchmaking.

So you know what I mean about new age women. Yeah they are much nicer to talk to because they like to be on higher consciousness too.

If I come to the conference, I would be driving too, probably from Las Vegas. So you live in Tucson, AZ? What do you do there? Maybe on the way back from the conference, I could visit you in Tucson. Is there anything interesting to see there? I love deserts but it's very hot there, though dry heat isn't as bad as humid heat.

The flat earth conference fee is 250 dollars though. Why do they have to hold it at a high end hotel auditorium? Why not at a public library or university auditorium? That would be a lot cheaper to rent.

Plus we would have to find accommodations. I would probably stay at a Motel 6 or something like that. We could try hostels too, for a social atmosphere. The hotel it's at though, is probably very expensive to stay at.

So it's almost sold out? Holy cow. I didn't know it was that popular. If we held a HA conference, hardly anyone would show up. lol. Imagine that. The flat earth movement is way more popular than our HA movement. LOL. Go figure. We must be at the furthest end of the fringe movements. LOL

@Adama what state do you live in? Do you want to attend the conference too?

[Adama]

Just because they believe the earth is flat, it doesn't mean I want to interact or hang out with them. Besides that, I have much more interesting things to do, such as becoming extremely familiar with the King James Bible.

Probably all the interesting things that are discussed, or at least the meaty portions of them, will be posted on YT within a few days after anyhow.