• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


The silly thing is, no matter whether someone is regarded as a CT or whatever, we do get lied to.
Is everything a lie? Obviously not because we can verify a lot of stuff for ourselves.

From that point it comes down to acceptance of anything we cannot prove for ourselves.
This is where a gain in mass acceptance and belief can gain a majority if he stuff told and sold becomes the widespread norm.

The same thing with religion.
The second anyone in a crowd starts to question accepted beliefs they are immediately set aside as an outcast and basically grilled on why they do not accept certain stuff.
Any answer given will never be valid to those whose mindset is firmly entrenched into the mainstream norm.

That's just the nature of the beast.

In terms of arguing for anything that goes against a global spinning Earth, many people will take a sort of offence that their upbringing and schooling being questioned and some will immediately go into verbal attack mode, using their trusted off the shelf books and what not to lend them credence against someone who has questions and even alternate thoughts to that accepted norm.

The strangest thing is, the arguments from people who follow this global train of thought, is based entirely on acceptance of it being what they were told...without any real proof of it being so and yet some will argue till they're blue in the face that they know for sure yet can never offer the proof.

It's easy to offer up a video or pictures or as many books as is on offer as their evidence but it carries no proof for the person offering this, except appeals to that authority when in argument/debate.

Once a person realises they can't offer real proof they then start to go into psychology mode, telling all and sundry how the person they're arguing with likely lives in a basement wearing a tin foil hat and white gravy stained vest and Y fronts, being subsidised by the mother/father and have no education to speak of....and so on and so on and so on.

The amusing thing about this is, it puts that picture into the minds of many and that's how they see anyone who questions the norm.
It's much easier to just follow the norm even if you don;t agree with some of it, for many, because....well.....why would anyone want to be cast out as a CT nutter on the basis of having questions against certain things? Most won't so it's pretty easy to just follow the pied pipers of the world.

Then some will go that little bit further and cite all of their own life's certificates as if it lends massive credence to the argument.

When it becomes hard to batter down the doors to the mind of an alternate thinker, all the guns start blazing and everything and anything is used to still try to change that person's thought process to get in line with the accepted norm.

Someone told me they know star distances because they use trigonometry. I asked how and they didn't offer the result in how they did it.

If anyone knows how you calculate a star distance using trigonometry and knows this to be a truth, I'm all internet ears.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
The silly thing is, no matter whether someone is regarded as a CT or whatever, we do get lied to.
Is everything a lie? Obviously not because we can verify a lot of stuff for ourselves.

From that point it comes down to acceptance of anything we cannot prove for ourselves.
This is where a gain in mass acceptance and belief can gain a majority if he stuff told and sold becomes the widespread norm.

The same thing with religion.
The second anyone in a crowd starts to question accepted beliefs they are immediately set aside as an outcast and basically grilled on why they do not accept certain stuff.
Any answer given will never be valid to those whose mindset is firmly entrenched into the mainstream norm.

That's just the nature of the beast.

In terms of arguing for anything that goes against a global spinning Earth, many people will take a sort of offence that their upbringing and schooling being questioned and some will immediately go into verbal attack mode, using their trusted off the shelf books and what not to lend them credence against someone who has questions and even alternate thoughts to that accepted norm.

The strangest thing is, the arguments from people who follow this global train of thought, is based entirely on acceptance of it being what they were told...without any real proof of it being so and yet some will argue till they're blue in the face that they know for sure yet can never offer the proof.

It's easy to offer up a video or pictures or as many books as is on offer as their evidence but it carries no proof for the person offering this, except appeals to that authority when in argument/debate.

Once a person realises they can't offer real proof they then start to go into psychology mode, telling all and sundry how the person they're arguing with likely lives in a basement wearing a tin foil hat and white gravy stained vest and Y fronts, being subsidised by the mother/father and have no education to speak of....and so on and so on and so on.

The amusing thing about this is, it puts that picture into the minds of many and that's how they see anyone who questions the norm.
It's much easier to just follow the norm even if you don;t agree with some of it, for many, because....well.....why would anyone want to be cast out as a CT nutter on the basis of having questions against certain things? Most won't so it's pretty easy to just follow the pied pipers of the world.

Then some will go that little bit further and cite all of their own life's certificates as if it lends massive credence to the argument.

When it becomes hard to batter down the doors to the mind of an alternate thinker, all the guns start blazing and everything and anything is used to still try to change that person's thought process to get in line with the accepted norm.

Someone told me they know star distances because they use trigonometry. I asked how and they didn't offer the result in how they did it.

If anyone knows how you calculate a star distance using trigonometry and knows this to be a truth, I'm all internet ears.
Click to expand...
😂
 
Ambivalent Squirrel said:
😂
Click to expand...

Pot, kettle and black springs to mind reading his drivel. He could always detail his many experiments
Ambivalent Squirrel said:
😂
Click to expand...
Nukehasslefan said:
The silly thing is, no matter whether someone is regarded as a CT or whatever, we do get lied to.
Is everything a lie? Obviously not because we can verify a lot of stuff for ourselves.

From that point it comes down to acceptance of anything we cannot prove for ourselves.
This is where a gain in mass acceptance and belief can gain a majority if he stuff told and sold becomes the widespread norm.

The same thing with religion.
The second anyone in a crowd starts to question accepted beliefs they are immediately set aside as an outcast and basically grilled on why they do not accept certain stuff.
Any answer given will never be valid to those whose mindset is firmly entrenched into the mainstream norm.

That's just the nature of the beast.

In terms of arguing for anything that goes against a global spinning Earth, many people will take a sort of offence that their upbringing and schooling being questioned and some will immediately go into verbal attack mode, using their trusted off the shelf books and what not to lend them credence against someone who has questions and even alternate thoughts to that accepted norm.

The strangest thing is, the arguments from people who follow this global train of thought, is based entirely on acceptance of it being what they were told...without any real proof of it being so and yet some will argue till they're blue in the face that they know for sure yet can never offer the proof.

It's easy to offer up a video or pictures or as many books as is on offer as their evidence but it carries no proof for the person offering this, except appeals to that authority when in argument/debate.

Once a person realises they can't offer real proof they then start to go into psychology mode, telling all and sundry how the person they're arguing with likely lives in a basement wearing a tin foil hat and white gravy stained vest and Y fronts, being subsidised by the mother/father and have no education to speak of....and so on and so on and so on.

The amusing thing about this is, it puts that picture into the minds of many and that's how they see anyone who questions the norm.
It's much easier to just follow the norm even if you don;t agree with some of it, for many, because....well.....why would anyone want to be cast out as a CT nutter on the basis of having questions against certain things? Most won't so it's pretty easy to just follow the pied pipers of the world.

Then some will go that little bit further and cite all of their own life's certificates as if it lends massive credence to the argument.

When it becomes hard to batter down the doors to the mind of an alternate thinker, all the guns start blazing and everything and anything is used to still try to change that person's thought process to get in line with the accepted norm.

Someone told me they know star distances because they use trigonometry. I asked how and they didn't offer the result in how they did it.

If anyone knows how you calculate a star distance using trigonometry and knows this to be a truth, I'm all internet ears.
Click to expand...
Utter crap
 
Nukehasslefan said:
The silly thing is, no matter whether someone is regarded as a CT or whatever, we do get lied to.
Is everything a lie? Obviously not because we can verify a lot of stuff for ourselves.

From that point it comes down to acceptance of anything we cannot prove for ourselves.


The strangest thing is, the arguments from people who follow this global train of thought, is based entirely on acceptance of it being what they were told...without any real proof of it being so and yet some will argue till they're blue in the face that they know for sure yet can never offer the proof.

It's easy to offer up a video or pictures or as many books as is on offer as their evidence but it carries no proof for the person offering this, except appeals to that authority when in argument/debate.

If anyone knows how you calculate a star distance using trigonometry and knows this to be a truth, I'm all internet ears.
Click to expand...
Hold your finger six inches in front of your nose and blink alternating eyes, you see slightly different views of the same finger. Using much the same principal you can observe a couple of stars from two different locations and use the slight difference in their apparent position to calculate the distance. But the difference will be very slight, even more slight than the curvature of your bathwater so it probably doesn't exist.

You can indeed verify a lot of stuff for yourself. You could look at the sky and learn to recognise the constellations and how they appear to move across the sky over the course of a night, then over a season and a whole year. Do that and then muse on it for a bit and you will come to realise that the globe model not only makes sense, but is in fact the most simple explanation for what you are seeing.
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Hold your finger six inches in front of your nose and blink alternating eyes, you see slightly different views of the same finger. Using much the same principal you can observe a couple of stars from two different locations and use the slight difference in their apparent position to calculate the distance. But the difference will be very slight, even more slight than the curvature of your bathwater so it probably doesn't exist.

You can indeed verify a lot of stuff for yourself. You could look at the sky and learn to recognise the constellations and how they appear to move across the sky over the course of a night, then over a season and a whole year. Do that and then muse on it for a bit and you will come to realise that the globe model not only makes sense, but is in fact the most simple explanation for what you are seeing.
Click to expand...
Prove you have eyes etc. Piece of piss this. :cool:
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Hold your finger six inches in front of your nose and blink alternating eyes, you see slightly different views of the same finger. Using much the same principal you can observe a couple of stars from two different locations and use the slight difference in their apparent position to calculate the distance. But the difference will be very slight, even more slight than the curvature of your bathwater so it probably doesn't exist.

You can indeed verify a lot of stuff for yourself. You could look at the sky and learn to recognise the constellations and how they appear to move across the sky over the course of a night, then over a season and a whole year. Do that and then muse on it for a bit and you will come to realise that the globe model not only makes sense, but is in fact the most simple explanation for what you are seeing.
Click to expand...

he now can't follow that piece of advice as it will have been from 'your authority'
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Hold your finger six inches in front of your nose and blink alternating eyes, you see slightly different views of the same finger. Using much the same principal you can observe a couple of stars from two different locations and use the slight difference in their apparent position to calculate the distance. But the difference will be very slight, even more slight than the curvature of your bathwater so it probably doesn't exist.

You can indeed verify a lot of stuff for yourself. You could look at the sky and learn to recognise the constellations and how they appear to move across the sky over the course of a night, then over a season and a whole year. Do that and then muse on it for a bit and you will come to realise that the globe model not only makes sense, but is in fact the most simple explanation for what you are seeing.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that, i can picture clownshoes response
 
Nukehasslefan said:
The silly thing is, no matter whether someone is regarded as a CT or whatever, we do get lied to.
Is everything a lie? Obviously not because we can verify a lot of stuff for ourselves.

From that point it comes down to acceptance of anything we cannot prove for ourselves.
This is where a gain in mass acceptance and belief can gain a majority if he stuff told and sold becomes the widespread norm.

The same thing with religion.
The second anyone in a crowd starts to question accepted beliefs they are immediately set aside as an outcast and basically grilled on why they do not accept certain stuff.
Any answer given will never be valid to those whose mindset is firmly entrenched into the mainstream norm.

That's just the nature of the beast.

In terms of arguing for anything that goes against a global spinning Earth, many people will take a sort of offence that their upbringing and schooling being questioned and some will immediately go into verbal attack mode, using their trusted off the shelf books and what not to lend them credence against someone who has questions and even alternate thoughts to that accepted norm.

The strangest thing is, the arguments from people who follow this global train of thought, is based entirely on acceptance of it being what they were told...without any real proof of it being so and yet some will argue till they're blue in the face that they know for sure yet can never offer the proof.

It's easy to offer up a video or pictures or as many books as is on offer as their evidence but it carries no proof for the person offering this, except appeals to that authority when in argument/debate.

Once a person realises they can't offer real proof they then start to go into psychology mode, telling all and sundry how the person they're arguing with likely lives in a basement wearing a tin foil hat and white gravy stained vest and Y fronts, being subsidised by the mother/father and have no education to speak of....and so on and so on and so on.

The amusing thing about this is, it puts that picture into the minds of many and that's how they see anyone who questions the norm.
It's much easier to just follow the norm even if you don;t agree with some of it, for many, because....well.....why would anyone want to be cast out as a CT nutter on the basis of having questions against certain things? Most won't so it's pretty easy to just follow the pied pipers of the world.

Then some will go that little bit further and cite all of their own life's certificates as if it lends massive credence to the argument.

When it becomes hard to batter down the doors to the mind of an alternate thinker, all the guns start blazing and everything and anything is used to still try to change that person's thought process to get in line with the accepted norm.

Someone told me they know star distances because they use trigonometry. I asked how and they didn't offer the result in how they did it.

If anyone knows how you calculate a star distance using trigonometry and knows this to be a truth, I'm all internet ears.
Click to expand...
The thing is, you again claim that people can't work things out for themselves, appeal to authority, but time and time again people provide evidence of working these out for themselves, for their own observations, for working it through or for some working in the various fields. But your reaction to that is just to claim bollocks. It is fair enough to appeal for thinking things through and requiring evidence, but you can't then go on to shrug away all evidence because you don't understand it then preach about an alternate when you have said yourself there is zero proof.

That is why people laugh at CTs. Not so much because of their ideas, but the way they dismiss all sorts of stuff as bollocks then don't put their own ideas under the same scrutiny and swear about it.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
The silly thing is, no matter whether someone is regarded as a CT or whatever, we do get lied to.
Is everything a lie? Obviously not because we can verify a lot of stuff for ourselves.

From that point it comes down to acceptance of anything we cannot prove for ourselves.
This is where a gain in mass acceptance and belief can gain a majority if he stuff told and sold becomes the widespread norm.

The same thing with religion.
The second anyone in a crowd starts to question accepted beliefs they are immediately set aside as an outcast and basically grilled on why they do not accept certain stuff.
Any answer given will never be valid to those whose mindset is firmly entrenched into the mainstream norm.

That's just the nature of the beast.

In terms of arguing for anything that goes against a global spinning Earth, many people will take a sort of offence that their upbringing and schooling being questioned and some will immediately go into verbal attack mode, using their trusted off the shelf books and what not to lend them credence against someone who has questions and even alternate thoughts to that accepted norm.

The strangest thing is, the arguments from people who follow this global train of thought, is based entirely on acceptance of it being what they were told...without any real proof of it being so and yet some will argue till they're blue in the face that they know for sure yet can never offer the proof.

It's easy to offer up a video or pictures or as many books as is on offer as their evidence but it carries no proof for the person offering this, except appeals to that authority when in argument/debate.

Once a person realises they can't offer real proof they then start to go into psychology mode, telling all and sundry how the person they're arguing with likely lives in a basement wearing a tin foil hat and white gravy stained vest and Y fronts, being subsidised by the mother/father and have no education to speak of....and so on and so on and so on.

The amusing thing about this is, it puts that picture into the minds of many and that's how they see anyone who questions the norm.
It's much easier to just follow the norm even if you don;t agree with some of it, for many, because....well.....why would anyone want to be cast out as a CT nutter on the basis of having questions against certain things? Most won't so it's pretty easy to just follow the pied pipers of the world.

Then some will go that little bit further and cite all of their own life's certificates as if it lends massive credence to the argument.

When it becomes hard to batter down the doors to the mind of an alternate thinker, all the guns start blazing and everything and anything is used to still try to change that person's thought process to get in line with the accepted norm.

Someone told me they know star distances because they use trigonometry. I asked how and they didn't offer the result in how they did it.

If anyone knows how you calculate a star distance using trigonometry and knows this to be a truth, I'm all internet ears.
Click to expand...

Good effort 🎣
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Hold your finger six inches in front of your nose and blink alternating eyes, you see slightly different views of the same finger. Using much the same principal you can observe a couple of stars from two different locations and use the slight difference in their apparent position to calculate the distance. But the difference will be very slight.
Click to expand...
So seeing a star from two different positions will give you the distance to that star.

Can you tell me how you would calculate that?
The Snockerty Friddle said:
You can indeed verify a lot of stuff for yourself.
Click to expand...
I agree and I have and it does not point to the global spinning nonsense we are told.

The Snockerty Friddle said:
You could look at the sky and learn to recognise the constellations and how they appear to move across the sky over the course of a night, then over a season and a whole year.
Click to expand...
Looking at points of light in the sky shows nothing other than moving points of light.
The fact that they're moving shows it's not the Earth that is moving.


The Snockerty Friddle said:
Do that and then muse on it for a bit and you will come to realise that the globe model not only makes sense, but is in fact the most simple explanation for what you are seeing.
Click to expand...
The global model makes absolutely no sense.
It's deemed to make sense because of all the absolute utter gobbledygook thrown in to cater for the silliness of what it's supposed to do.
 
DaveH said:
The thing is, you again claim that people can't work things out for themselves, appeal to authority, but time and time again people provide evidence of working these out for themselves, for their own observations, for working it through or for some working in the various fields. But your reaction to that is just to claim bollocks.
Click to expand...

Providing evidence of something means what?
It certainly does not mean valid facts, unless that evidence leads to that.
In the cases we are arguing it is exactly this scenario.
So called evidence with no validation of facts.

You've provided zero facts and neither has anyone else when relating to this.
If you think you have then I'm sure you could show me your facts.
DaveH said:
It is fair enough to appeal for thinking things through and requiring evidence, but you can't then go on to shrug away all evidence because you don't understand it then preach about an alternate when you have said yourself there is zero proof.
Click to expand...
It's irrelevant what I'm putting forward because I put it forward with a clear indication to anyone that is it not backed up by facts and is clearly my own thought process based on what I deduce.
People can be interested in it or simply ridicule it or totally blank it out altogether....but it's not put forward as factual, unlike the spinning globe model that you and other argue in favour of, as being factual, yet have no proof for, only circumstantial evidence.

DaveH said:
That is why people laugh at CTs. Not so much because of their ideas, but the way they dismiss all sorts of stuff as bollocks then don't put their own ideas under the same scrutiny and swear about it.
Click to expand...
If you question one thing that goes against mainstream media/government ideals/scientific....etc....ideals, you immediately become a CT.
I'd say that lumps everyone into that category.

However, it comes down to the lie situation.
When is a lie not a lie?
When does a question become a dismissive?

You mention alternate thinkers not putting their own ideas under scrutiny.
Scrutiny of what?
If people can't offer you a reality for something they do not pass of as factual then there's a reason for that. It's because proof is hard to come by just as it is for the spinning global Earth carry on. Yet the spinning global Earth is told and sold as factual and people buy into it without knowing that, but accepting it must me because of majority influence by officialdom.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Providing evidence of something means what?
Click to expand...
:D :D Best line on here so far. Hats off to you this morning. Evidence, what the hell does evidence mean? It is along the lines of Gove's "We are all fed up of listening to experts, lets listen to morons".
Nukehasslefan said:
If you think you have then I'm sure you could show me your facts.
Click to expand...
I've tried, and tried to break it down as slowly and simply as possible. But you struggle to understand, so it goes nowhere. Nobody else on the thread has complained, so either you are the only one who doesn't understand or they just don't care enough and find me tedious. Quite possibly both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top