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

[droid]

Yeah, sure, you can but you won't. Sorry, but I've had too much experience with academic obfuscation to believe anything that can't be explained in comprehensible language, like Dubay's proofs. In any case, if redshift, Doppler, etc. are by way of explaining the big bang theory, i.e., speculation about how everything evolved out of nothing beginning with an explosion a gazillion years ago -- I have no interest at all in science fiction. The shape of the earth is a more tangible subject, and a relevant one indeed if it yields solid information that extraordinary lies have found their way into the common understanding.

Well, you can Google the things I suggested, but you won't. What is easier, for me to retype what is already out there or for you to browse a bit?

I know what you're saying about academia obfuscation, I've seen it, but you are extrapolating the concept to anything you don't understand.
And indeed, that's the appeal of dupe-bays '200-proofs', easy to swallow "explanations" when people can't bother putting in some effort.

[droid]

I'm not exactly a fan of Henry Makow, but here he calls the FE fad a Psy-op. I'm tempted to open a thread on that aspect alone but it will probably go nowhere.

https://www.henrymakow.com/2016/02/Flat ... Psyop.html

I think I concurr on that. Protocol #5 comes to mind lol

IN ORDER TO PUT PUBLIC OPINION INTO OUR HANDS WE MUST BRING IT INTO A STATE OF BEWILDERMENT BY GIVING EXPRESSION FROM ALL SIDES TO SO MANY CONTRADICTORY OPINIONS AND FOR SUCH LENGTH OF TIME AS WILL SUFFICE TO MAKE THE "GOYIM" LOSE THEIR HEADS IN THE LABYRINTH AND COME TO SEE THAT THE BEST THING IS TO HAVE NO OPINION OF ANY KIND IN MATTERS POLITICAL, which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. This is the first secret.

[HouseMD]

We can verify it is expanding pretty easily.

How can we verify expansion, other than red shift, which is just an unverifiable interpretation? If we accept the current view of expansion, we must accept the appearance of us being in the center of the universe. Do you believe we are literally in the center of the universe, and if not why does it seem so?

Imagine a perfectly clear balloon with 1,000 molecules of air in it that has been placed in a vacuum chamber. As yoi reduce the pressure of the chamber, all of the molecules will get further and further apart on average, but they all have individual velocities and thus without calculating the velocities of every object in the balloon it would be impossible to determine the "center" of the balloon. This is an imperfect example, but it's the best way I can dumb it down.

[Cornfed]

We can verify it is expanding pretty easily.

How can we verify expansion, other than red shift, which is just an unverifiable interpretation? If we accept the current view of expansion, we must accept the appearance of us being in the center of the universe. Do you believe we are literally in the center of the universe, and if not why does it seem so?

Imagine a perfectly clear balloon with 1,000 molecules of air in it that has been placed in a vacuum chamber. As yoi reduce the pressure of the chamber, all of the molecules will get further and further apart on average, but they all have individual velocities and thus without calculating the velocities of every object in the balloon it would be impossible to determine the "center" of the balloon. This is an imperfect example, but it's the best way I can dumb it down.

Drunk or serious?

[Adama]

Apparently to verify the nature of the universe and the big bang, a person has to dumb things down, and use visualization. This is what theory consists of. Einstein having some daydreams about the nature of light. Instead of just opening their eyes to believe what they can see, they trust in fancy explanations that defy reality and rely upon fantasy.

And they don't think God's Word is true. Instead, God only talks in parables and apparently not so many of His Words hold true meaning for these people. So just like the ancient Romans, they have a god for everything. God is the God they pay lip service to. But truly they believe in science as God. That way science will allow them to believe in other gods. So essentially they are free to do as they want without giving God the glory for His Creation.

[gsjackson]

Apparently to verify the nature of the universe and the big bang, a person has to dumb things down, and use visualization. This is what theory consists of. Einstein having some daydreams about the nature of light. Instead of just opening their eyes to believe what they can see, they trust in fancy explanations that defy reality and rely upon fantasy.

And they don't think God's Word is true. Instead, God only talks in parables and apparently not so many of His Words hold true meaning for these people. So just like the ancient Romans, they have a god for everything. God is the God they pay lip service to. But truly they believe in science as God. That way science will allow them to believe in other gods. So essentially they are free to do as they want without giving God the glory for His Creation.

I think you're giving them too much credit in saying they embrace science like a religion. It's more of a status symbol for them. They think they know more than most people about these theories, and that allows them to feel superior. Tocqueville noted about Americans in a letter to his father in France that they were always looking for some little degree of status that provides them a perch from which they can look down upon their neighbors. Nothing has changed in 175 years.

And part of the status conferred is the self-belief that they are intellectually bold by refuting traditional religious beliefs. There's an interesting letter from one of the early exponents of evolution in 19th century England that says something like regardless of how persuasive evolutionary theory is or isn't, the intellectuals will lap it up because it allows them to feel superior to the masses and their religion.

I don't think these guys really believe this shit. They don't even think about it on that level. It's part of the little status garment they put on each day, and by God nobody's going to rip a hole in it.

BTW, I just watched Neil deGrasse Tyson supposedly debate someone about whether the moon landing took place. He actually made one sort of substantive argument -- just enough fuel to go to the moon and back was put into these rockets. Not sure how he knows how much fuel was put into the rocket, so he's responding to people who are arguing that NASA lies about everything by telling them to accept something NASA has said. The rest of the 30-minute "debate" was just the gasbag's usual attitudinizing about how the culture could have produced people ignorant enough to disagree with him.

[Adama]

Apparently to verify the nature of the universe and the big bang, a person has to dumb things down, and use visualization. This is what theory consists of. Einstein having some daydreams about the nature of light. Instead of just opening their eyes to believe what they can see, they trust in fancy explanations that defy reality and rely upon fantasy.

And they don't think God's Word is true. Instead, God only talks in parables and apparently not so many of His Words hold true meaning for these people. So just like the ancient Romans, they have a god for everything. God is the God they pay lip service to. But truly they believe in science as God. That way science will allow them to believe in other gods. So essentially they are free to do as they want without giving God the glory for His Creation.

I think you're giving them too much credit in saying they embrace science like a religion. It's more of a status symbol for them. They think they know more than most people about these theories, and that allows them to feel superior. Tocqueville noted about Americans in a letter to his father in France that they were always looking for some little degree of status that provides them a perch from which they can look down upon their neighbors. Nothing has changed in 175 years.

And part of the status conferred is the self-belief that they are intellectually bold by refuting traditional religious beliefs. There's an interesting letter from one of the early exponents of evolution in 19th century England that says something like regardless of how persuasive evolutionary theory is or isn't, the intellectuals will lap it up because it allows them to feel superior to the masses and their religion.

I don't think these guys really believe this shit. They don't even think about it on that level. It's part of the little status garment they put on each day, and by God nobody's going to rip a hole in it.

BTW, I just watched Neil deGrasse Tyson supposedly debate someone about whether the moon landing took place. He actually made one sort of substantive argument -- just enough fuel to go to the moon and back was put into these rockets. Not sure how he knows how much fuel was put into the rocket, so he's responding to people who are arguing that NASA lies about everything by telling them to accept something NASA has said. The rest of the 30-minute "debate" was just the gasbag's usual attitudinizing about how the culture could have produced people ignorant enough to disagree with him.

Wise in their own conceit. Pride. Ego. Self-exaltation. Boasting themselves in mischief and spite. Swift condemnation for those who disagree. Mocking, insulting, slandering and condemning. This is self-exaltation.

I have noticed in my life, that there are a lot of people who don't even care about the facts, just as long as they get to oppose you, your point of view, your beliefs and your opinions, just so they can glory in oppression; for that feeling of victory, turning everything into a debate so they can win. Swiftly everything must be turned into a competition of words for their self glorification, and somehow winning through ridicule is a valid victory.

Some of these can't even limit themselves to the argument at hand. They attack the person, while they think they are the better person for doing the attacking. But any other time they are very wary of ad hominems (but maybe that too is just a deflection for when they begin to lose, they can accuse the other person of doing what they do best).

And as for the arguments themselves, they are pure fantasy. How is fantasy correct? Yet they think the Bible is fiction, but they trust in the fantasies of other men, which they call theories. Especially because, these fantastic theories can't even be reproduced except for inside their heads.

Their religion violates its own precepts with great frequency. Most of it can't be reproduced in any way, which is a fundamental violation of the most fundamental precepts of science. Yet somehow this goes overlooked. None of their beliefs even line up and they don't support each other. Neither is there a real foundation. It is just fantasy, built upon fantasy, mixed in with ridicule for the unbelievers. It's a snowball of lies and fantasy.

You can even look at Einstein's theories of Relatively and you can see, it's just fantastical nonsense, supported by the mathematics of the self-esteemed wise men. And whoever doesn't understand or whoever questions them or their false religion, receives more condemnation.

People don't even realize that battery is when you actually hit someone, but the assault is done with words. Everything must be turned into war or competition (debate) so they can win, even if it is an unfair victory. This also reveals the integrity of the person, when you see how low they are willing to go just to feed their egos the glory of victory.

[Adama]

I think you're giving them too much credit in saying they embrace science like a religion. It's more of a status symbol for them. They think they know more than most people about these theories, and that allows them to feel superior. Tocqueville noted about Americans in a letter to his father in France that they were always looking for some little degree of status that provides them a perch from which they can look down upon their neighbors. Nothing has changed in 175 years.

If a man in the states is alone, more than likely, other people around him who see that he is alone will automatically write him off. They will call him a loser, simply because he is alone. Because, if he were a good person, in their eyes, he would be surrounded by good people just as they are surrounded by good people. That makes it even harder in the states, because so many people will judge you, simply because you're alone. That's actually up there with being almost like a rapist or a pedophile, like a kiss of death.

However, if you go to almost any other country in the world, if you are alone, that will not provoke people to scream "loser" when they notice you out all alone. Most people outside of the states wouldn't even give a thought of you being alone, and it certainly wouldn't automatically mean the man is a loser. You might even make some friends who will help establish you.

[Winston]

Lol Winston Wu style arguments.

[Adama]

Winston, thank you for allowing this thread, and thank you for participating in this thread.

I do have a question. When this thread was first posted, there were many warnings that even entertaining this idea would threaten the existence of this forum and tear it asunder. That is, people were saying this topic being discussed would ruin this forum.

Winston, has readership or participation in your forums changed in anyway because of this thread?

[Winston]

Winston, thank you for allowing this thread, and thank you for participating in this thread.

I do have a question. When this thread was first posted, there were many warnings that even entertaining this idea would threaten the existence of this forum and tear it asunder. That is, people were saying this topic being discussed would ruin this forum.

Winston, has readership or participation in your forums changed in anyway because of this thread?

Your welcome. Well i dont know. I havent noticed overall traffic getting less. Its about the same. But some members have left and stopped posting for various reasons. This thread may have just been the straw that broke the camels back. Some are ridiculing this thread and claiming that its taking over the forum, which is psychological and not realistic since one thread cannot take over a forum. They merely dislike the topic and are using it as an excuse to ridicule. But hey, free speech includes topics like this. No one is forcing them to participate in this thread.

As Noam Chomsky said, "if you believe in free speech then you must support free speech for views you dont like, otherwise you do not support free speech."

People are hypocrites and do not understand or accept that.

[Adama]

Winston, thank you for allowing this thread, and thank you for participating in this thread.

I do have a question. When this thread was first posted, there were many warnings that even entertaining this idea would threaten the existence of this forum and tear it asunder. That is, people were saying this topic being discussed would ruin this forum.

Winston, has readership or participation in your forums changed in anyway because of this thread?

Your welcome. Well i dont know. I havent noticed overall traffic getting less. Its about the same. But some members have left and stopped posting for various reasons. This thread may have just been the straw that broke the camels back. Some are ridiculing this thread and claiming that its taking over the forum, which is psychological and not realistic since one thread cannot take over a forum. They merely dislike the topic and are using it as an excuse to ridicule. But hey, free speech includes topics like this. No one is forcing them to participate in this thread.

As Noam Chomsky said, "if you believe in free speech then you must support free speech for views you dont like, otherwise you do not support free speech."

People are hypocrites and do not understand or accept that.

Yes, and even those posters who protested so much haven't left, as they should have by their own words, but also, they participate in this thread. That is highly ironic. It seems to me how they were just trying to put a limit on discourse and knowledge.

[Adama]

Lol Winston Wu style arguments.

Those are good, Winston. For some reason people refuse to acknowledge what the Bible tells them plainly. That is that Satan is the god of this world and he is deceiving the nations. His job is to blind your eyes so that you can't see reality clearly.

He first did this to Eve. He's still doing it, with our "scientists", politicians, banksters, actors and many of the esteemed wise men of the world.

Astronauts are Freemasons, and Freemasonry is just hidden Satanic worship. Don't they have a clue?

For some reason they can't believe in the unseen. That there is occult, hidden knowledge, and they use it to invert reality. The average person is just duped. And the real foolish ones among them will fight for their own enslavement the same way men who are described as manginas fight for the honor of unruly women.

[Winston]

This video by a Christian truther below explains why the flat earth movement is a psyop created to discredit the geocentric model by associating flat earth with geocentrism, which gained strong credence when the groundbreaking documentary "The Principle" came out.

One of the film's producers, Rick Delano, noticed that right after "The Principle" was released, flat earth theories began circulating YouTube and the web almost instantaneously, which cannot be just a coincidence. It seemed timed to discredit geocentrism - a theory which argues that earth is a sphere but is stationary and lies at the center of the universe.

NASA has discovered data to confirm geocentrism from its latest space probes but is reluctant to announce it to the public because it would mean rewriting its whole scientific model of the universe based on Copernicus and Galileo's model, and thus admitting that it was wrong all this time. Furthermore it would also mean that science and NASA would have to admit that it means that there must be a God or creator too, which is a big no no for its atheistic agenda.



Here also is a roundtable discussion from the same channel about NASA's lies and deceptions.

[TruthSeeker]

If they have to fake any part of it the whole thing is fake