Put a flat earthier into space

[PTR]

13 thousand posts man

 

[chrismisterx]

Maybe the idea is that the Earth is explored and there's little left to explore.
Maybe humans do not actually run the show.
There's a myriad of answers that anyone could go with and all may be wrong but maybe one may be right.


We have star trek and star wars and Buck Rodgers in the 25th century, plus flash Gordon and moonraker, plus space 1999 and so many more to choose from.

What would cost a fortune to fake any more than what it costs to offer us a film of fiction?


Good question.
Maybe real paradise is out there on this Earth and we don't get to be part of it and our paradise is an expensive holiday in another area that offers more warmth or sand or a different variation of culinary cultures that people have to work hard for to get a week or two, sampling what they think is their paradise.

Let's be fair. How many of us gasp at the beauty of a ground-out canyon?
How many of us gasp at a dug-up common of mud and rock?

Imagine if there was stuff out there that would make us see our lives as being nothing more than caged animals scratting and fighting over scraps of land.

Nuts, right?

Interesting views, thank you for sharing.
I suppose if funds where unlimited, faking this stuff could be done, maybe even reinforced by having the films you mention show the globe theory.

Also interesting the views on why, maybe this is where the idea of gods comes from, if there is another race of beings sharing the planet or where the stories of the garden of Eden come from, also it could already be said we are "wage slaves" to keep us in our place, maybe its to help keep us too busy to find out the truth?

But why not go one step further and silence the people who are revealing the truth, surely it would be easy to do and more likely with such a big secret, do you ever worry that you being so vocal could causes issues for you or your family, could be quite dangerous speaking out?

Or maybe the truth is the differing theories are used by the elite to keep the working masses who generate the wealth for them entertained so we dont notice the fact we are wage slaves, so we are feed theories on Ghosts, aliens, flat earth and many other conspiracies to keep us distracted, in the past maybe it was the threat of gods that kept us in line?

I do have a passing interest in this subject due to the changing views of the population, we once believed the world was different to now, I try not to say flat earth as that is a western term, but many different peoples at many differing times did think the world was not of the globe shape. My history is a little fuzzy, but I think it was the Greeks 4 or 500 BC that came up with the globe theory, the idea that the middle ages was a time of wildly accepted flat earth theory is wrong, the theory did exist but not as common as some people would think. Its interesting that the theory is back in this new form after such a long time, it begs the question, has this view survived from before the Greeks, an under current of views that never went away? Or does it return to the forefront of thinking now and again and its just the time for it to return?

Some of the ideas from the past. ( with help from google as I couldn't remember them all )

Ancient Indian common conceptions, the earth being comprised of four continents surrounding a mountain.
Ancient Norse thought postulated a circular flat Earth surrounded by a sea inhabited by a giant serpent.
Greek views had some parallels with that of early Egyptian and Mesopotamian ideas, with them thinking that the Earth was a large disc surrounded by a gigantic body of water.
The ancient Chinese were also virtually unanimous in their view of the Earth’s flatness, although – in this system – the heavens were spherical and the Earth was square.
The Mountain Arapesh people of Papua New Guinea, envisage a world which ends at the horizon, the place where giant clouds gather.
To complicate matters, to these we must add cultures and intellectual traditions for whom the shape of Earth is of no interest whatsoever. Many tribal or pre-state societies, for instance, have little concern for what might be considered cosmography.

As we can see was very common in the ancient past to have some kind of flat earth theory, but it really does seem to fall out of favour a few hundred years BC and has stayed a fringe theory which only the last couple of decades seems to have found its way back into our thinking.

Can I ask when your view changed from what you were taught at school, how long have you held your current beliefs, was it a slow change over from globe to flat earth or was it a light bulb moment?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Checked out, as in how?

Mainly using my eyes and my ability to look, think and reason.

 

[DaveH]

Gravity does not exist to do anything.


And this is always happening in the stacking system.

No, it won't. It may appear to but it will never happen.
If you want to bring up that big supposed vacuum chamber with the big lifting boom as your proof then don't expect me to see it as being legitimate because I don't.

In a low-pressure environment, it will certainly offer much much less resistance to any object whether it's a feather or a ball but it'll never offer any exact fall.


Objects cannot fall unless energy is applied to place an object into a stacking. That energy reply from that dense object cannot be achieved unless the applied energy that placed it in that stacking, is removed. It then has a push-on-push fight with its own dense mass pushing it into the stacking above and that stack pushing it back to overcome the resistance of each stack below.

Stacking is always maintained, it's just never uniform. It's always under vibration due to expansion and contraction.



Pressure works against anything placed into whatever environment as an object's displacement of the atmosphere.

I'm far from ignoring it.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Maybe it's not just down to my fantasy, maybe the fantasy is already in play and shown as a reality from a story whilst hidden behind a cloak.

No need to worry. It's not hard to see why anyone would question stuff when you consider the people out there who do the stuff they do to the general public.

So when I say the pressure is equal at the top of the room to the bottom, am I wrong or am I telling lies?

This is the bit you continually ignore. You tell people to look for evidence of things, but only seem to want them to look for evidence against all known science. When people present evidence against your fantasy science, you ignore it.

Your explanation does add a fantastic new light on things. Objects are forced down because of stacked atmosphere creating different pressure layers and it is in effect squeezed down. But these layers are all thrown into chaos by turbulence and that stops them existing as different pressure layers, but they still exist as different pressure layers.

There is no stack. You are wrong and this is an example of a simple proof. But your religious ideas do not allow you to accept it.

 

[Nobby]

So when I say the pressure is equal at the top of the room to the bottom, am I wrong or am I telling lies?

This is the bit you continually ignore. You tell people to look for evidence of things, but only seem to want them to look for evidence against all known science. When people present evidence against your fantasy science, you ignore it.

Your explanation does add a fantastic new light on things. Objects are forced down because of stacked atmosphere creating different pressure layers and it is in effect squeezed down. But these layers are all thrown into chaos by turbulence and that stops them existing as different pressure layers, but they still exist as different pressure layers.

There is no stack. You are wrong and this is an example of a simple proof. But your religious ideas do not allow you to accept it.

Now I get why he was arguing there was no pull only push at the weekend. Accepting an attraction force ruins his stacking gibberish

 

[fyl2u]

That's basically what they are to me. Just stories without proof and it's the same for you but you accept them as proof without actually knowing the truth.

A stacked atmosphere compared to a room is massively different.
Why do you think a room can offer you the same setup as a stacked atmosphere, I don't know but maybe that's because you failed to get what I was saying.


I'll make this simple.
You can accept the atmosphere is denser at sea level than atop a mountain, fair enough?
You can massively measure this by the body alone but gauges of varying setups can do a visual job.

In your room, you can also understand that any heat generated in that room will rise to the top of it, fair enough.
This means you should be able to get that at floor level it's going to be denser. Still stacked but hardly noticeable due to the small area and height.

No matter what happens your atmosphere is always stacked. It has to be.
Offering turbulence to that room obviously shakes up any stack but then again the stack is always under movement by expansion and contraction and neither can work without the other.


Not at all.
As for revising, I think lots of stuff requires that. Not every answer will be correct and finding that happy medium may never be fully known.

As I said above.
Offering a force to the stack creates a shake-up but this has to happen in all things and ways for anything to actually function.

No, I didn't. I failed to see your argument because there wasn't one and I told you so. Just like I'm telling you now.

I never called you a liar. It seems you want to use this as some kind of dig to gain some kind of advantage. It means nothing but you carry on using it if you feel it suits your argument.

I have no more reason to trust you than you have of me or anyone in this forum or anyone, anywhere.
Trust is what?
Trust doesn't offer someone a truth, it simply offers someone a comfort blanket from someone they believe is truthful, not necessarily that they are or are always truthful.

I always take in what's said. Agreeing with it when I have alternate theories is not something that is going to be readily accepted just as I do not accept your religious beliefs you do not accept what you think are mine. This is why the debate rumbles on and the majority against the minority does not offer an end product to a debate unless one side can accept the potential and even then it still begs questions until there is a real end product of proof.
We are at loggerheads with this, hence why this is ongoing.

There's no debate. There's the status quo, and there's you failing to disprove it.

That isn't a debate. It's just you being wrong.

I know I'm just repeating myself every post, but you're ignoring all my posts again and repeating yourself, so...

 

[DaveH]

Now I get why he was arguing there was no pull only push at the weekend. Accepting an attraction force ruins his stacking gibberish

It all unravels down to that, and at least it shows he knows the connections and has thought through the fantasy. The best TV SciFi is consistent with their "expanded science" to explain things that either just don't work in reality or we have not developed technology for. For example an avid Star Trek fan will know that detecting a tachyon surge means some sort of time wormhole is opening up and it can be sealed with a neutrino beam from the primary deflector. If it was suddenly something different, loads of Trekkies would be very upset. The fantasy land shows the same and going on for many years it does continue the more or less same theme.

Push pull argument probably relates to stacking as you say. Stacking is a replacement for gravity and gravity is denied as the effects of the sun and moon can be observed, planes don't need to constantly death dive towards the earth and a whole load of other gibberish. Basically denying that gravity exists it conveniently waves away many explanations and observations that support reality. It is an inconvenience for them and so they needed to invent something new. Atmospheric stacking is the go-to explanation for many conspiracy theorists (note this is not unique) but it is so easily dismissed.

Of course one awkward thing this explanation does is means the atmosphere is no longer a mixed homogeneous gas and pressure becomes a vector not a scalar. So if you have a gas bottle for example, the compressed gas will not be pushing with equal pressure in all directions. It also means that if your container is flexible, say a balloon, you will not get a nice round shape. This of course doesn't happen. A bubble is a better example, where the equilibrium of forces inside and out, along with the surface tension of the soap/water mix creates perfect spheres.

It is interesting to watch and it relates to what I have said about WUMs and hard core conspiracy theorists. You have people who throw in the odd one or two liner but don't really try, don't engage and never explain what they claim or more often allude to. Once you start scraping the surface arguments tend to break down and you get to things that can be proven at home. This is then replaced by the CT with fantasy physics and all is well. Until you scratch the surface on that and now you are presented with two things, both reality to prove and fantasy to dismiss. Sometimes, especially the fantasy, this can be disproved with basic experiments that most of us did at school.

No problem, rather than say "Oh shit yeah, silly me", they double down, pick at that scratch and invent a new bit of fantasy physics. This suffers the same problem, where you scratch the surface of that and can both prove reality and disprove fantasy with the most basic scientific knowledge and examples.

Still no problem, double down again, and it goes down and down and down until you hit the most basics. In many cases this resorts down to the simplest maths and geometry. All of a sudden you find yourself in a land where not all right angles are equal and you can't use Pythagoras or trigonometry because that is just "an appeal to authority". You can prove these equations are entirely accurate and they indeed underpin everything ever achieved using geometry, such as engineering, navigation, cartography, etc.

It ends up in a mindset of:
- Deny all proof. Don't give reasons for denying it, just deny and put it down as a story or and appeal to authority, then that is nicely waved away as zero proof.
- Put forward fantasy with zero proof, assume the two things are equal and insist yours is correct while the rest of humanity is wrong.

What you will mostly likely observe is that this post will be quoted, perhaps each paragraph at a time saying "no proof has ever been presented", which actually means "no proof I believe, because I accept nothing that changes my mindset", and it will nicely demonstrate everything I have said above.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Interesting views, thank you for sharing.

You're more than welcome.

I suppose if funds where unlimited, faking this stuff could be done, maybe even reinforced by having the films you mention show the globe theory.

The thing is, with what we actually know and what can be done today in terms of putting out special effects and CGI and so on, it's not beyond unreasonable to think those who run the show are and have been well ahead of the setup and offering us a lot of backward technology disguised as up to date and state of the art for the time.
Do you get what I mean?

Also interesting the views on why, maybe this is where the idea of gods comes from, if there is another race of beings sharing the planet or where the stories of the garden of Eden come from, also it could already be said we are "wage slaves" to keep us in our place, maybe its to help keep us too busy to find out the truth?

It's quite possible in my opinion. I also think there's a lot of truth in what the old films put out that are cast out as fictional. I think there's a lot more to it. Giants of the time and all kinds of stuff which I think are kept from us.
And as you mention with gods.
I know it sounds mad to many....but.

But why not go one step further and silence the people who are revealing the truth, surely it would be easy to do and more likely with such a big secret, do you ever worry that you being so vocal could causes issues for you or your family, could be quite dangerous speaking out?

To be fair I'm known as a nut case and a total idiot so why would anyone feel the need to bother me?
I'm hardly going to change anything and my musing is discussed in a forum.

However, I'm not in control of what happens to me but the way I see is it, I have my thoughts and if someone feels they're too close for comfort then they're going to have to do a lot of work with all the rest of the too close for comfort people...many of who is actually in the faces of people. I leave decisions to each and my only discussion comes via simple forums like this.

Or maybe the truth is the differing theories are used by the elite to keep the working masses who generate the wealth for them entertained so we dont notice the fact we are wage slaves, so we are feed theories on Ghosts, aliens, flat earth and many other conspiracies to keep us distracted, in the past maybe it was the threat of gods that kept us in line?

There's a lot of stuff out there that can be a case of muddying the waters.
I do actually believe alternate theorists to the accepted norm are pitted against each other as well as pitted against the people who follow the accepted mainstream ideals.

I do believe we are dealing with absolute genius people or whatever they are.

I do have a passing interest in this subject due to the changing views of the population, we once believed the world was different to now, I try not to say flat earth as that is a western term, but many different peoples at many differing times did think the world was not of the globe shape.

Yes, it appears so from those times and it obviously can be argued in many ways but majority coaxing always wins the day.
Those who have the power to change can cleverly change anything and pass it off to the masses who will be coaxed into that mindset and follow it unconditionally.

My history is a little fuzzy, but I think it was the Greeks 4 or 500 BC that came up with the globe theory, the idea that the middle ages was a time of wildly accepted flat earth theory is wrong, the theory did exist but not as common as some people would think. Its interesting that the theory is back in this new form after such a long time, it begs the question, has this view survived from before the Greeks, an under current of views that never went away? Or does it return to the forefront of thinking now and again and its just the time for it to return?

I can't really answer that because we are reliant on the stories of old. Stories that offer little in terms of reason except to be told by the storytellers that the reality of those times is what's told because there are papers/scrolls and such like in secret places.
It's like a lot of stuff. We can never question and expect answers when we get told the answers are there but are locked away for 50,60,70,80 or whatever years and when everyone is all but dead from that particular point, the goalposts have been moved and maybe even the story.

Some of the ideas from the past. ( with help from google as I couldn't remember them all )

Ancient Indian common conceptions, the earth being comprised of four continents surrounding a mountain.
Ancient Norse thought postulated a circular flat Earth surrounded by a sea inhabited by a giant serpent.
Greek views had some parallels with that of early Egyptian and Mesopotamian ideas, with them thinking that the Earth was a large disc surrounded by a gigantic body of water.
The ancient Chinese were also virtually unanimous in their view of the Earth’s flatness, although – in this system – the heavens were spherical and the Earth was square.
The Mountain Arapesh people of Papua New Guinea, envisage a world which ends at the horizon, the place where giant clouds gather.
To complicate matters, to these we must add cultures and intellectual traditions for whom the shape of Earth is of no interest whatsoever. Many tribal or pre-state societies, for instance, have little concern for what might be considered cosmography.

As we can see was very common in the ancient past to have some kind of flat earth theory, but it really does seem to fall out of favour a few hundred years BC and has stayed a fringe theory which only the last couple of decades seems to have found its way back into our thinking.

The thing about the distant past is, are the stories told really the stories of old, or are they manipulated by those who can or are sanctioned to do so for us mere open-mouthed masses to be fed that narrative and follow it or be ridiculed to dare to question.

Can I ask when your view changed from what you were taught at school, how long have you held your current beliefs, was it a slow change over from globe to flat earth or was it a light bulb moment?

I'd say I was about 30 when I started to question stuff.
I actually thought those who believed in flat Earth were nuts. I believed the spinning globe and even reasoned with myself as to why the story of a 93-million-mile sun that offers 8 minutes to Earth for light and heat and all the rest of it.
It all made sense to me.
Why?
Because I decided it did because...well, those experts can't be wrong and the teachers who taught it to me can't all be wrong...and so on.

If someone came to me at that time and said " ahhh you don't live on a spinning ball."
I'd likely give a funny look and offer a few faces to whoever was in my company. I'd then likely say something like, " it's blatantly obvious it's a globe" and then I could've been asked why.

What do I say?

Look up you can see the sun and the moon and its common knowledge and most people know it. It's mainstream. And so on and so on.

How much backup did I have?

Lots. So much. But back up for what?
A story told or stories told, none of which I can back up myself except to follow the crowd and any answers the crowd offered.

Anyway, the initial start for me was the moon landing story. I believed at the time that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon with Buzz Aldrin.
That's it. I had no clue there was a third added into the mix because I took the story as an acceptance of the main characters being on the moon and the standout (Armstrong) being ingrained into my mind.

It's all amazing stuff until you start to question it.

The biggest thing for me was taking an interest in it and reading about it.
I then realised there were many supposed landings. 6 in all plus Apollo 13 and many other lift-off rockets before that.

And then I started looking at the pictures and then seeing some of them being questioned.

It took me a while before I started to see things that just didn't add up and lots of stuff offered that did not ring true.
Those simple things got me looking a bit deeper and it all spiraled from there because once the jigsaw is started the pieces do start to fit together....slowly but surely and the stories become laughable and also head-scratching at how they managed to take the utter pee out of us but quickly realised that most people took it for face value and carried on without question, so in essence, they were likely much better off because they could keep the fantasy and I get to see something a whole lot different.

Mainly using my eyes and my ability to look, think and reason.

I have no issue with that. It's what you perceive because that's what this story offers you.
But you do not possess the facts about it and this is key.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I have no issue with that. It's what you perceive because that's what this story offers you.
But you do not possess the facts about it and this is key.

Once again, no it isn't. It's what I can see with my own eyes and understand because I didn't choose deliberate ignorance. You don't even understand what visible effects to expect to see before, during and after the equinox but are willing to dismiss them and their significance based on your own appeal to a dubious authority. There are things your dome and projector can not explain or allow for but in your ignorance you are just assuming that they can.

 

[Big Jeff]

@Jon Dough posted a video this morning of that bloke doing the Red Bull Sky dive from outer space.

It clearly shows the earth is round.

May I suggest we lock this thread and stick it in GOLD.

We should then look to find another thread for all the Flat Earthers.

I suggest we start the search in the politics forum.

 

[chrismisterx]

The thing is, with what we actually know and what can be done today in terms of putting out special effects and CGI and so on, it's not beyond unreasonable to think those who run the show are and have been well ahead of the setup and offering us a lot of backward technology disguised as up to date and state of the art for the time.
Do you get what I mean?

Yes and I agree, I think with the power of hindsight we have seen how technology can be hidden from the masses, for example I think a lot of the UFO sightings were in fact the stealth bomber before it became common knowledge, so its not a stretch to think other areas could have the same effect, I do think there's tech out there we just dont know about yet for what ever reason, maybe that was the case in film, maybe film making was much more advanced and it was hidden due to its uses.
Its an interesting thought either way.

It's quite possible in my opinion. I also think there's a lot of truth in what the old films put out that are cast out as fictional. I think there's a lot more to it. Giants of the time and all kinds of stuff which I think are kept from us.
And as you mention with gods.
I know it sounds mad to many....but.

again, its an interesting train of thought, how much myth is based on some kind of real life, its also interesting how some stories seem to reappear over time, the great floods and the ark for example, the 40 days and 40 nights has appeared in many cultures in different forms, but does that prove it really happened or is it that the story was passed along trade routes and reused by different cultures?
With regards different creatures from myth and legend where do we draw the line, do orcs and fairies have a base in real life, vampires or any of the other amounts of creates that have appeared over the years in texts and books, as you say history is HIS-STORY.
I suppose it all comes down to the persons upbringing and beliefs.

There's a lot of stuff out there that can be a case of muddying the waters.
I do actually believe alternate theorists to the accepted norm are pitted against each other as well as pitted against the people who follow the accepted mainstream ideals.

I do believe we are dealing with absolute genius people or whatever they are.

This little reply speaks volumes and helps me understand more where your coming from, I think.
Seems not only you believe in "flat earth", I put it in quotation marks as I am unsure what you truly believe ( which flavour of flat earth ) but also the idea that there is some force hidden which wants to keep us in the dark and I guess you have an open mind towards these shadowy figures being off world or a different being to Human from your tone?

I suppose if you take on board the world is not as described you would then have to explain why is the truth hidden, why we have been deceived. I suppose a lot of that part of the equation has to be taken on faith, I dont suppose there's a lot of evidence that supports the hidden race of beings that is running things, it would e snippets from the past that maybe suggests it, but we are then back to believing
what someone else has told us, quite the pickle.

Yes, it appears so from those times and it obviously can be argued in many ways but majority coaxing always wins the day.
Those who have the power to change can cleverly change anything and pass it off to the masses who will be coaxed into that mindset and follow it unconditionally.

Another point I agree with we cant take history as gospel truth, the written word from ancient times has been used as PR, we have to have an open mind and be willing to change our views as more information comes to light, but some history when sourced from multiple sources can be accepted in the main imo, but its not set in stone and our understanding has changed over the years.

I also feel more now then ever the masses can tend to follow what's portrayed on social media, its easier than ever to get view points across which would never make the mainstream, but again we have to be careful, just because its online and looks real doesn't mean it is, that goes for the mainstream and the theories that are a bit left field. Remember Humans have a terrible habit of looking for patterns or stuff which isnt really there, we have this inbuilt need to try and make things fit, its called pareidolia. Its quite an interesting subject in its own right.

I can't really answer that because we are reliant on the stories of old. Stories that offer little in terms of reason except to be told by the storytellers that the reality of those times is what's told because there are papers/scrolls and such like in secret places.
It's like a lot of stuff. We can never question and expect answers when we get told the answers are there but are locked away for 50,60,70,80 or whatever years and when everyone is all but dead from that particular point, the goalposts have been moved and maybe even the story.

Again I agree, looking back its with a pinch of faith, is what was written the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I very much doubt it. Take war, the winners get the right to write the history, what did the people of tory think after the city state was sacked? We dont know as the main written accounts were from hundreds of years later in The Iliad and The Odyssey, in fact for a long time it was thought Troy didn't even exist and it was just a story.
So it is hard to know truths when looking at the past and what's been written, but is that the same in science, is that not held to a higher standard, where the science of what we understand changes as we learn more, now that doesn't account for if we are being deceived, but thats a lot of scientist that are onboard doing the deceiving if there is a way to disprove the globe theory.

I dont have the skills or the knowhow to run my own tests and so I am left with using the knowledge of others to make my choices, I always keep an open mind as facts have changed in science before, just like in history, sometimes we get stuff wrong and we change our thoughts on it. Having an open mind is very important, I dont believe in god, but I have kept an open mind and happily wait for someone to come along and prove to me I am wrong.

The thing about the distant past is, are the stories told really the stories of old, or are they manipulated by those who can or are sanctioned to do so for us mere open-mouthed masses to be fed that narrative and follow it or be ridiculed to dare to question.

recent past, distant past doesn't matter, history can be rewritten, if enough people jump on board it can become its own truth, this is very true.
But we have to be careful dont we, do we just not believe any experts moving forward, do we only trust what we ourselves can see and do, I for one dont have the equipment or training to test everything, I cant explain how a simple record works, how the groves on it make sound and how a needle running over it makes it replay the sound, but i can see it does that, just because I cant explain something doesn't mean its not so, so it comes to a point I need to trust the people that can explain it.
its like quantum physics, it blows my mind I always thought you could have something from nothing, but science has shown this is not the truth, that fluctuations in energy can spontaneously create mass not just out of thin air, but out of absolutely nothing at all.

Could the very reasons you think there's issues with the history and science behind the globe and moon landings to use your example not just be its something that hasn't been explained yet, maybe the moon landings were faked, but for a completely different reason?

anyway thank you for taking the time to reply, which version of the different world do you subscribe too, as I see there is more than one version of flat earth, be interesting to read some of the things that made you change your mind over time, full disclosure I agree we are sometimes lied too, I agree sometimes we are mislead but with regards flat earth or globe issues, I have yet to watch or read anything that would prove it, with the last thing i watched on it was a laser experiment that was done to prove the flat earth theory but instead ended up going against that, but like with everything I have an open mind.

 

[Big Jeff]

The earth is round.

 

[fyl2u]

Yes and I agree, I think with the power of hindsight we have seen how technology can be hidden from the masses, for example I think a lot of the UFO sightings were in fact the stealth bomber before it became common knowledge, so its not a stretch to think other areas could have the same effect, I do think there's tech out there we just dont know about yet for what ever reason, maybe that was the case in film, maybe film making was much more advanced and it was hidden due to its uses.
Its an interesting thought either way.


again, its an interesting train of thought, how much myth is based on some kind of real life, its also interesting how some stories seem to reappear over time, the great floods and the ark for example, the 40 days and 40 nights has appeared in many cultures in different forms, but does that prove it really happened or is it that the story was passed along trade routes and reused by different cultures?
With regards different creatures from myth and legend where do we draw the line, do orcs and fairies have a base in real life, vampires or any of the other amounts of creates that have appeared over the years in texts and books, as you say history is HIS-STORY.
I suppose it all comes down to the persons upbringing and beliefs.



This little reply speaks volumes and helps me understand more where your coming from, I think.
Seems not only you believe in "flat earth", I put it in quotation marks as I am unsure what you truly believe ( which flavour of flat earth ) but also the idea that there is some force hidden which wants to keep us in the dark and I guess you have an open mind towards these shadowy figures being off world or a different being to Human from your tone?

I suppose if you take on board the world is not as described you would then have to explain why is the truth hidden, why we have been deceived. I suppose a lot of that part of the equation has to be taken on faith, I dont suppose there's a lot of evidence that supports the hidden race of beings that is running things, it would e snippets from the past that maybe suggests it, but we are then back to believing
what someone else has told us, quite the pickle.




Another point I agree with we cant take history as gospel truth, the written word from ancient times has been used as PR, we have to have an open mind and be willing to change our views as more information comes to light, but some history when sourced from multiple sources can be accepted in the main imo, but its not set in stone and our understanding has changed over the years.

I also feel more now then ever the masses can tend to follow what's portrayed on social media, its easier than ever to get view points across which would never make the mainstream, but again we have to be careful, just because its online and looks real doesn't mean it is, that goes for the mainstream and the theories that are a bit left field. Remember Humans have a terrible habit of looking for patterns or stuff which isnt really there, we have this inbuilt need to try and make things fit, its called pareidolia. Its quite an interesting subject in its own right.


Again I agree, looking back its with a pinch of faith, is what was written the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I very much doubt it. Take war, the winners get the right to write the history, what did the people of tory think after the city state was sacked? We dont know as the main written accounts were from hundreds of years later in The Iliad and The Odyssey, in fact for a long time it was thought Troy didn't even exist and it was just a story.
So it is hard to know truths when looking at the past and what's been written, but is that the same in science, is that not held to a higher standard, where the science of what we understand changes as we learn more, now that doesn't account for if we are being deceived, but thats a lot of scientist that are onboard doing the deceiving if there is a way to disprove the globe theory.

I dont have the skills or the knowhow to run my own tests and so I am left with using the knowledge of others to make my choices, I always keep an open mind as facts have changed in science before, just like in history, sometimes we get stuff wrong and we change our thoughts on it. Having an open mind is very important, I dont believe in god, but I have kept an open mind and happily wait for someone to come along and prove to me I am wrong.


recent past, distant past doesn't matter, history can be rewritten, if enough people jump on board it can become its own truth, this is very true.
But we have to be careful dont we, do we just not believe any experts moving forward, do we only trust what we ourselves can see and do, I for one dont have the equipment or training to test everything, I cant explain how a simple record works, how the groves on it make sound and how a needle running over it makes it replay the sound, but i can see it does that, just because I cant explain something doesn't mean its not so, so it comes to a point I need to trust the people that can explain it.
its like quantum physics, it blows my mind I always thought you could have something from nothing, but science has shown this is not the truth, that fluctuations in energy can spontaneously create mass not just out of thin air, but out of absolutely nothing at all.

Could the very reasons you think there's issues with the history and science behind the globe and moon landings to use your example not just be its something that hasn't been explained yet, maybe the moon landings were faked, but for a completely different reason?

anyway thank you for taking the time to reply, which version of the different world do you subscribe too, as I see there is more than one version of flat earth, be interesting to read some of the things that made you change your mind over time, full disclosure I agree we are sometimes lied too, I agree sometimes we are mislead but with regards flat earth or globe issues, I have yet to watch or read anything that would prove it, with the last thing i watched on it was a laser experiment that was done to prove the flat earth theory but instead ended up going against that, but like with everything I have an open mind.

I recommend you read the whole thread. His wacky lemon-squeezer version of flat earth is laid out for all to see, complete with his absolute denial of every law of physics and fundamental of mathematics, redefinition of scientific words so that they mean something completely different to their actual meaning, and such quality statements of fact as "not all right angles are equal".

It's a sight to behold. You're missing out by not catching up.

Interspersed with his delusory "musings", the thread is packed full of actual science from intelligent folks who know what they're talking about. It's well worth reading.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So when I say the pressure is equal at the top of the room to the bottom, am I wrong or am I telling lies?

I believe you're wrong.

This is the bit you continually ignore. You tell people to look for evidence of things, but only seem to want them to look for evidence against all known science. When people present evidence against your fantasy science, you ignore it.

You're not presenting anything against what I said. You used a room that locked in the air one minute and then a grate throwing air in the next and said you had sensors all over the room detecting pressure.
I explained what I did to you so it's not like I didn't answer it.

Your explanation does add a fantastic new light on things. Objects are forced down because of stacked atmosphere creating different pressure layers and it is in effect squeezed down. But these layers are all thrown into chaos by turbulence and that stops them existing as different pressure layers, but they still exist as different pressure layers.

I'll make this a bit easier.
If you offer a ball to the ground that ball sits in many many layers of atmosphere and it also displaces that many layers by its own dense mass.
Those layers are pushed up into other layers and add pressure to those layers by the amount of dense mass the ball has displaced.
That pressure has to go somewhere and it does. It comes right back onto the ball and is crushing back on that ball to equalize.
The ball would be pushed down if it wasn't for the ground being much more resistant to the push from above and the squeeze from all around.

There is no stack. You are wrong and this is an example of a simple proof. But your religious ideas do not allow you to accept it.

There are stacked layers and it's the very reason why there is little air for us at height and plenty at sea level.
It's simply denser at sea level and less dense as the stacked layers go up.

It's all about thinking a bit deeper about it.

 

[fyl2u]

I believe you're wrong.

You're not presenting anything against what I said. You used a room that locked in the air one minute and then a grate throwing air in the next and said you had sensors all over the room detecting pressure.
I explained what I did to you so it's not like I didn't answer it.

I'll make this a bit easier.
If you offer a ball to the ground that ball sits in many many layers of atmosphere and it also displaces that many layers by its own dense mass.
Those layers are pushed up into other layers and add pressure to those layers by the amount of dense mass the ball has displaced.
That pressure has to go somewhere and it does. It comes right back onto the ball and is crushing back on that ball to equalize.
The ball would be pushed down if it wasn't for the ground being much more resistant to the push from above and the squeeze from all around.

There are stacked layers and it's the very reason why there is little air for us at height and plenty at sea level.
It's simply denser at sea level and less dense as the stacked layers go up.

It's all about thinking a bit deeper about it.

Status quo.

If you claim it's wrong, you have to prove it, otherwise you're just talking bollocks.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Once again, no it isn't. It's what I can see with my own eyes and understand because I didn't choose deliberate ignorance.

What you see and what you understand is a mixture of a few things.
1. What you see is all explained to you, so you see that.
2. What you understand about it all is also what's been explained and offered to you as factual, so your basic reasoning is to follow that path.
3. None of it you can prove as factual from your own arguments unless you actually use an appeal to whatever authority you use to argue for your perceived facts.

You don't even understand what visible effects to expect to see before, during and after the equinox but are willing to dismiss them and their significance based on your own appeal to a dubious authority.

And you only understand them because you were offered a spinning globe and also one that spins at an angle around a central sun that's apparently close to a million miles in diameter.
To you this makes sense.
To me, it actually beggars belief but the genius of the con has me holding my hands up to it but it doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

There are things your dome and projector can not explain or allow for but in your ignorance you are just assuming that they can.

I assume lots of stuff is based on my thought process of what Earth could well be. I can explain many things and some I'm still working on.
Just remember one thing. You got your globe and all the trimmings served on a silver platter and at your convenience. You ate it all up and you can now regurgitate it at will if you so desire.
I had to cook my own based on scraps.

So it's no surprise you can argue your side in comfort with everything at your fingertips.

 

[fyl2u]

What you see and what you understand is a mixture of a few things.
1. What you see is all explained to you, so you see that.
2. What you understand about it all is also what's been explained and offered to you as factual, so your basic reasoning is to follow that path.
3. None of it you can prove as factual from your own arguments unless you actually use an appeal to whatever authority you use to argue for your perceived facts.

And you only understand them because you were offered a spinning globe and also one that spins at an angle around a central sun that's apparently close to a million miles in diameter.
To you this makes sense.
To me, it actually beggars belief but the genius of the con has me holding my hands up to it but it doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

I assume lots of stuff is based on my thought process of what Earth could well be. I can explain many things and some I'm still working on.
Just remember one thing. You got your globe and all the trimmings served on a silver platter and at your convenience. You ate it all up and you can now regurgitate it at will if you so desire.
I had to cook my own based on scraps.

So it's no surprise you can argue your side in comfort with everything at your fingertips.

If you claim the status quo is wrong, you need to provide proof.

 

[payne]

If you claim the status quo is wrong, you need to provide proof.

He's so brainwashed it's ridiculous. How can any one person think he's an expert at everything. He's a dangerous individual who makes the world worse for the rest of us spreading his lies and falsehoods. Poisoning the minds of other gullible people.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes and I agree, I think with the power of hindsight we have seen how technology can be hidden from the masses, for example I think a lot of the UFO sightings were in fact the stealth bomber before it became common knowledge, so its not a stretch to think other areas could have the same effect, I do think there's tech out there we just dont know about yet for what ever reason, maybe that was the case in film, maybe film making was much more advanced and it was hidden due to its uses.
Its an interesting thought either way.

yep. It all comes down to whether we want to dig deeper to take a break from the party line and tread a very uncommon path or simply accept all stories that we are basically coerced into following.
It's easier to toe the line but it offers no further scope for anything.

again, its an interesting train of thought, how much myth is based on some kind of real life, its also interesting how some stories seem to reappear over time, the great floods and the ark for example, the 40 days and 40 nights has appeared in many cultures in different forms, but does that prove it really happened or is it that the story was passed along trade routes and reused by different cultures?

Yep, I'll go along with that thought.

With regards different creatures from myth and legend where do we draw the line, do orcs and fairies have a base in real life, vampires or any of the other amounts of creates that have appeared over the years in texts and books, as you say history is HIS-STORY.
I suppose it all comes down to the persons upbringing and beliefs.

Aye, it's a lot to take in and far too much to go down the alternate route for everything.

This little reply speaks volumes and helps me understand more where your coming from, I think.
Seems not only you believe in "flat earth", I put it in quotation marks as I am unsure what you truly believe ( which flavour of flat earth ) but also the idea that there is some force hidden which wants to keep us in the dark and I guess you have an open mind towards these shadowy figures being off world or a different being to Human from your tone?

First of all my Earth is a cell. We live inside of it, in my opinion.
I think it could be a cell among cells or Earths galore similar to pours but many may be in higher states of development or even lesser but all attached and separated by ice.
And yes I do think we are potentially not the only human-like creatures and certainly not the most advanced in this Earth.

I suppose if you take on board the world is not as described you would then have to explain why is the truth hidden, why we have been deceived. I suppose a lot of that part of the equation has to be taken on faith, I dont suppose there's a lot of evidence that supports the hidden race of beings that is running things, it would e snippets from the past that maybe suggests it, but we are then back to believing
what someone else has told us, quite the pickle.

I agree. It comes down to what if, basically.
But as I keep mentioning many times, I never offer anything as a fact from my musings. I leave it up to people to take something or nothing from what I give out.

And as I already said to others when I use appeals to authority. It comes down to that for and against any argument by all of us, including myself.
If I mention just one snippet of info I glean from a book of old and use it as my pointer then I have to accept I'm appealing to an authority I chose it to be.

People just get confused and say I'm telling them they can't use appeals, which I'm not. I simply say their facts are based on appeals if they offer them as facts.

Another point I agree with we cant take history as gospel truth, the written word from ancient times has been used as PR, we have to have an open mind and be willing to change our views as more information comes to light, but some history when sourced from multiple sources can be accepted in the main imo, but its not set in stone and our understanding has changed over the years.

This is also why I argue that I do accept a lot of stuff. If I can't question it for myself to any meaningful end then I'll happily accept it as a potential for a fact but I will not simply believe it to be a nailed-on fact.
It becomes open for further scope at a later time.

I also feel more now then ever the masses can tend to follow what's portrayed on social media, its easier than ever to get view points across which would never make the mainstream, but again we have to be careful, just because its online and looks real doesn't mean it is, that goes for the mainstream and the theories that are a bit left field.

I agree and is why I offer what I say as my musing and not argued as factual.

Remember Humans have a terrible habit of looking for patterns or stuff which isnt really there, we have this inbuilt need to try and make things fit, its called pareidolia. Its quite an interesting subject in its own right.

I agree.

 

[Nobby]

I assume lots of stuff is based on my thought process of what Earth could well be. I can explain many things and some I'm still working on.
Just remember one thing. You got your globe and all the trimmings served on a silver platter and at your convenience. You ate it all up and you can now regurgitate it at will if you so desire.
I had to cook my own based on scraps.

You assume without apparently any evidence.

The so called stays quo is not a status quo it is an evolving evidence based reality.

The fact you choose not to accept that doesn't invalidate it or more importantly give your assumptions any equivalence.

You can believe whatever you want but be honest with yourself that that is all you are doing, believing in something you have no evidence for