Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes.

The quote has been shown to you but now you're not acknowledging it because you've got yourself tangled in your lies again.

You definitely said you'd done superfluid expriements and now you'll try and distract by not acknowledging it.

Still waiting.

I suspect I may be on ignore. Imagine a flat earth conspiracy nutjob actively avoiding facts when gifted to them on a platter. With gold sprinkles.

No, you're not.

 

[payne]

Same ones I've already explained to you in this thread.

Look at the sky, notice how what you see 'appears' to move. Notice how those 'apparent' movements appear to change throughout the year. Learn to find the Pole Star. Look at sunrise and sunset and compare the 'apparent' motion of the Sun with that of the stars. Look at shadows, before, during and after an equinox.

Those are all things you 'could' do if you were really looking for the truth rather than simply clinging to the idea that the whole world is lying to you to stop you finding that river of gold and a few magic gems.

There's another equinox coming up soon, get started. I expect you still have your bowl and cocktail sticks from yesterdays demonstration of perpendicular towers, that's all you need.

He might just really like sonic

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Same ones I've already explained to you in this thread.

Look at the sky, notice how what you see 'appears' to move. Notice how those 'apparent' movements appear to change throughout the year. Learn to find the Pole Star. Look at sunrise and sunset and compare the 'apparent' motion of the Sun with that of the stars. Look at shadows, before, during and after an equinox.

They appear to move because they do move. The Earth does not.

Those are all things you 'could' do if you were really looking for the truth rather than simply clinging to the idea that the whole world is lying to you to stop you finding that river of gold and a few magic gems.

I've done plenty that shows Earth is absolutely 100%, not a globe we supposedly walk upon.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

They appear to move because they do move. The Earth does not.

I've done plenty that shows Earth is absolutely 100%, not a globe we supposedly walk upon.

Ok, I've told you what to do to demonstrate that Earth is moving, but you're not even going to try.
What have you got that proves it doesn't?

 

[Nobby]

I've done many experiments and I've watched people do many experiments.

By your logic other people doing experiments doesn't count.

But you say you have done many experiments yourself so:

Please share details of one of those experiments in sufficient detail to allow others to replicate it. Please also share your conclusions to see if they can be agreed.

To make it easier you can pick any one of your many experiments (but preferably one relating to the issue of the shape of the world, since that is what is being discussed)

They appear to move because they do move. The Earth does not.

I've done plenty that shows Earth is absolutely 100%, not a globe we supposedly walk upon.

 

[BigPete]

Hitting new lows flat out denying that he said he has done experiments when its there for everyone to see.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I've done plenty that shows Earth is absolutely 100%, not a globe we supposedly walk upon.

I can confidently say that you've done absolutely NOTHING that proves this. Not one thing.

You wont do anything that proves it either way because you're not looking for proof or the truth.

You have a theory full of holes, with zero proof and nothing to support it other than your absolute conviction that the mainstream theory is a lie. You have no proof of that either.

 

[nahwee]

I've provided plenty.

You most definitely have not.

 

[3.142]

To be fair we can all argue along those lines because I believe your belief system is akin to religion.
With me, it's more a case of me questioning the original religion (global Earth) and trying to actually start to look for potential alternatives to it, whether they're thought of as right, wrong, or downright nuts by whoever...or into another religion.

I believe the biggest stories in life, of fiction, are religion and the spinning globe.
The issue is in who places them on what shelf. Fact or fiction or on the fence.

I fully expect to be criticised. Don't think for a second that I don't accept being criticised or dug at in all ways, shapes and forms. I expect it and I leave it all up to whoever wants to think about whatever it is they deem worthy of taking in.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. All I say is, if you want to think outside the box then do so. If not, then carry on with what you accept and believe from the mainstream.

I have no issues with anyone who thinks whatever they think in terms of what's on offer to the wider public. I just question the set narratives and have my own theories based on what I do and come up with whether that's dismissed by a few or by the majority.

If we define science based evidence as religion, then yes, that's right.

Essentially, anything that cannot be proven with a basic experiment anyone can do on their own or see is not true, which means that for your belief system you have to reverse all learnings of the past couple of hundred years because they required some level of scientific progress to understand. Anything else cannot be 'proven' in your definition otherwise it would already have been known hundreds or thousands of years ago.

 

[DaveH]

Page 360, myself and @Kevj Have both showed you quotes where you have said you have done experiments with superfluids.
It's here right in front of you
Must be digging out his years of research......
Getting his spirit level oot

This is true to form. He denies everything and there are plenty of times in this thread I have both copied direct quote from himself and linked to them, and he denies that. When someone's level of denial is that they completely deny clear evidence of what they have just said (once was on the previous page) when right in front of their face for all to see, it shows why literally anything can be dismissed as no evidence. Probably thinks it is a conspiracy and one of the mods is part of this "higher controlling group", and has been instructed to edit his posts.

There's a story and that's all it is. There are no facts and you know it.
#

Lies

There is no evidence of 65 million-year-old meteor strikes, only what you're told by the storytellers who claim it without evidence.

Lies. There is masses of evidence, covering many branches of science, all pointing to a massive meteor strike. You just deny it all.

The word angle tells you enough.

Yes, an angle can be anything, you are just being obtuse about it and assuming it is a very tight 'skimming' angle. Why not one of the others, close to perpenducular to the surface?

So you regularly see meteors hit the moon, right?
Or do amateurs supposedly do?
Or is it the big wigs that only see them and tell us about it?

I posted this earlier when I said "recorded by many amateurs". My meaning of that is that many amateurs have witnessed it and have records. I literally said this in the post you are quoting, what is wrong with you? The moon is a popular study and imaging target for amateur astronomers. Go to any astronomy forum and there are regular posts where someone has been imaging away and captured a strike. These are sometimes followed up with images of new craters. I have not personally seen one, but did image one area, a week before someone recorded a strike and a small new crater, which I then went back and looked at. "only big wigs that tell us", shows your level of paranoia.

I haven't fully studied the image, have you?

So you fully admit you have never spent time at a telescope studying the moon, yet you claim no new craters appear. How do you know this? This is a classic example, you assume no new craters appear then cling to it as a desperate truth, yet you base this on nothing but an assumption you made without any evidence. This is what you do with everything and hence live in a paranoid fantasy land. Any in answer to the second part, yes I spend many hours outside doing astronomy (as I have posted many times before), studying craters and other features on the moon, imaging many of them.

From where?
The 8 inches per mile squared is from your global setup that you believe in.

No 8 inches squared is from a flat earth fantasy trying to disprove the globe. I have posted many times that this rule is wrong, and even produced a short paper doing a mathematical analysis of why it is wrong, so please don't credit your moronic chantings to me.

You still fail to provide any evidence of the experiments you have done that you say prove all your drivel. This is because you have lied about them, if not then why do you not share this ground breaking research?

It's there in an image are you thick?
Scroll up a few messages and @Kevj Posted a link to it

There are times I've thought, "oh for a decent session face to face with a wipe board and some patient physicists, perhaps we could explain something to him", but jesus, this is a whole new level of stupidity.

Show me
here
Show me
here
Show me
here, are you stupid
Show me

Paranoid denial beyond all hope

A glossary for this thread would be a great read. Proper funny.

I was wondering if there were web services where you can host odd pages of text. I can stick any image in imgBB and put any video on YouTube, but not sure where I can knock up a document, other than wikipedia who would instantly throw it away as a waste of space. I was thinking a couple of days ago of drawing up a conspiracy theorist play book. If you look through the thread there are around 7 standard responses along the lines of:
1 - Flat denial, witnessed by the "show me a quote" nonsense today. "There is no evidence" being the most common phrase
2 - Do some homework - "Prove it to me", "Explain in your own words"
3 - Dismiss because it is handed on a plate - Somehow an accumulation of human knowledge is invalid, even if can be proven.
4 - Ignore - Just don't reply to those bits when backed into a corner
5 - Attack. Stop trying to explain or convince about your shaky argument and just attack the accepted norm, thus turning the conversation
6 - Deflect. Similar to attack, but miss the point and change the subject. E.g. when talking about the size of the moon, reply "But that doesn't show the distance to the so called stars",
7 - Play dumb - Ask the same question again while quoting the person who gives the answer in your quote

There are more than 7, but because these things repeat on a loop, I was thinking it is useful to have a common frame of reference "Ah, you have gone for CT response 5, well....."

 

[Kevj]

This is true to form. He denies everything and there are plenty of times in this thread I have both copied direct quote from himself and linked to them, and he denies that. When someone's level of denial is that they completely deny clear evidence of what they have just said (once was on the previous page) when right in front of their face for all to see, it shows why literally anything can be dismissed as no evidence. Probably thinks it is a conspiracy and one of the mods is part of this "higher controlling group", and has been instructed to edit his posts.

Lies

Lies. There is masses of evidence, covering many branches of science, all pointing to a massive meteor strike. You just deny it all.

Yes, an angle can be anything, you are just being obtuse about it and assuming it is a very tight 'skimming' angle. Why not one of the others, close to perpenducular to the surface?

I posted this earlier when I said "recorded by many amateurs". My meaning of that is that many amateurs have witnessed it and have records. I literally said this in the post you are quoting, what is wrong with you? The moon is a popular study and imaging target for amateur astronomers. Go to any astronomy forum and there are regular posts where someone has been imaging away and captured a strike. These are sometimes followed up with images of new craters. I have not personally seen one, but did image one area, a week before someone recorded a strike and a small new crater, which I then went back and looked at. "only big wigs that tell us", shows your level of paranoia.

So you fully admit you have never spent time at a telescope studying the moon, yet you claim no new craters appear. How do you know this? This is a classic example, you assume no new craters appear then cling to it as a desperate truth, yet you base this on nothing but an assumption you made without any evidence. This is what you do with everything and hence live in a paranoid fantasy land. Any in answer to the second part, yes I spend many hours outside doing astronomy (as I have posted many times before), studying craters and other features on the moon, imaging many of them.

No 8 inches squared is from a flat earth fantasy trying to disprove the globe. I have posted many times that this rule is wrong, and even produced a short paper doing a mathematical analysis of why it is wrong, so please don't credit your moronic chantings to me.

You still fail to provide any evidence of the experiments you have done that you say prove all your drivel. This is because you have lied about them, if not then why do you not share this ground breaking research?

There are times I've thought, "oh for a decent session face to face with a wipe board and some patient physicists, perhaps we could explain something to him", but jesus, this is a whole new level of stupidity.

Show me
here
Show me
here
Show me
here, are you stupid
Show me

Paranoid denial beyond all hope

You must be logged on to see external links

It maybe that I’m becoming more interested in astronomy or there’s a general increased interest, but the quality of amateur astronomy is increasing noticeably.

And in relation to your last point, I’m sure I suggested a ‘sound board’ of standard responses some three hundred pages ago

 

[GingerNick]

You must be logged on to see external links

flat earther proves earth is round and moving

 

[Kevj]

I was tempted to get one of those online sound board generators and put the standard responses from him onto the buttons then post the image on here. Then thought he isn’t worth the hassle.

 

[DaveH]

You must be logged on to see external links

It maybe that I’m becoming more interested in astronomy or there’s a general increased interest, but the quality of amateur astronomy is increasing noticeably.

And in relation to your last point, I’m sure I suggested a ‘sound board’ of standard responses some three hundred pages ago

probably

 

[BigPete]

Wonder if he had a bit too much to drink/smoke when mentioned the superfluids

 

[fyl2u]

They're all good stories for those who wish to go along with them but that's all they are. Nobody is in possession of facts.

As I said earlier, Earth should be a cratered mess if the moon is what we are told, a meteor-cratered rock.
Not to mention the craters of the moon would not look like we see if angled so-called space rock came into it.
Remember we wouldn't be talking about lobbing a rock onto the beach we would be talking about angling a rock throw in a straight trajectory that would not leave a perfectly circular crater. It would leave a skim and then a pushed-up mound to one part, like digging an angled tunnel in a small hill.


It's debatable as to what they are but they are few anyway and if we're told the moon has been peppered with rocks then you'd expect Earth to be peppered, not just a few random indentations.

As we're told but these ones will be too minuscule to see...right?
It's so convenient.
Scare people about meteors on course for Earth and then make out they hit all kinds of planets but only the storytellers can observe this.
I love the stories but to me they're fictional.

I don't cling to any flat Earth bible.
As for wanting to know the truth. I won't get it from mainstream libraries in terms of what I'm arguing against but I will get more stories trying to coax me into a belief in fiction.

It's invalid anyway.
I provided one when it was handed out the first time to show them in a straight and level line. I'm sure you remember.

To be fair, only one place is required, because it only needs one in the limelight to disprove a curvature over the ocean.
But the panic crew immediately goes to it's a mirage, a mirage.
There will always be some kind of answer to anything that goes against the global stories but they do get more and more desperate. IMO.

To who? You?

Ok.

Of course, it's wrong, for you, because you go with the other offer of change and you're welcome to it but the reality is there in anyone's face if they choose to take the time out to see past the global fiction.IMO.

What I've done anyone can do with a simple evacuation chamber. A simple bell jar will suffice with a simple pump.

No. You can make up anything you want to and I'm fine with it but it does not make what you say become a truth. But you carry on.

Such as?

And you're absolutely welcome to that.

Nothing wrong with studying the sky and what is reflected from it.
I bet it's amazing what those remote telescopes show compared to what our telescopes show.


Nobody has shown me anything of the sort. They've told me I do and offered to regurgitate the storyline. I'm sure you understand I can't accept that for obvious reasons when it's clear to see we do not live on a spinning globe.

Not once have I been proven wrong.

In your mind and you're welcome to it.

Humankind is doomed anyway, without my help.

No.

 

[Nobby]

. I just question the set narratives

You don't question, that would involve giving them reasoned consideration, you simply reject out of hand and ignore any evidence

The global evidence does not stand up to reality. It simply does not.

Why don't you flesh out your reasons why none of the evidence stands up. That would be informative

The global model is a belief system by the majority public.

It's not it's evidence based with the evidence there for anyone to examine and question

. I do not offer it as fact

You do you say you have proved it with water level

 

[fyl2u]

There's a story and that's all it is. There are no facts and you know it.

I can level that back to you.

It is what it really is and until you can back that up as fact then you are reading a story based on what you're told as factual and nothing more.
You're more than welcome to reel it off to me and claim it as fact but you also should understand that I will not take it as that.

There is no evidence of 65 million-year-old meteor strikes, only what you're told by the storytellers who claim it without evidence.

I dismiss lots of stuff and I accept lots of stuff. I believe certain stuff, so it's not all one way, it just seems it because you think not believing in a globe and the stuff that supposedly offers some kind of fact is me not believing anything or accepting anything, which is wide of the mark.

The word angle tells you enough.

Nahhh, not at all.

There are plenty of indentations in the ground but there's no factual evidence for them being space meteors.

So you regularly see meteors hit the moon, right?
Or do amateurs supposedly do?
Or is it the big wigs that only see them and tell us about it?


I haven't fully studied the image, have you?

From where?
The 8 inches per mile squared is from your global setup that you believe in.

I don't dismiss all evidence for anything else. I look at the evidence and decide if it pertains to fact and I conclude from there what the evidence shows.
The global evidence does not stand up to reality. It simply does not.
What I believe Earth to be is like I always say. It's my theory or musing or whatever people want to think. I do not offer it as fact but plenty of people claim that I do. I can't help with that and it's up to people to decide what they wish. It's not my issue.

I believe it is workable. What you think of it is irrelevant to me but relevant to you.

Maybe, maybe not.
I think that can be aimed at anyone who follows a path that offers no provable facts to another path seeker.

Actually, the Earth may well be much much more than we're told. It may be a paradise away from our physical presence and prying eyes.
Get told it's a ball and you kill off an exploration of the mind for it because we're told it's all mapped and we require passes to visit areas and are forbidden to travel aside from that to other land areas without a pass.
I think there's a lot more to this Earth and many Earths like it.

Only what you get as I go along and you can basically take from it whatever you want to.

You feel free to decide anything you wish and I'm absolutely ok with it.

I'll offer what I think is worth offering as and when.
You are not compelled to take part in discussions if this is not acceptable.


I could offer the very same back to you. This goes nowhere to be fair.

A small arc to the drink but told to all that it's going to space.
I can't help people with that. It's up to each individual to see it for what it is or what they're told.

You seem reluctant to point me to the page. Why?

Wrong.

 

[payne]

You don't question, that would involve giving them reasoned consideration, you simply reject out of hand and ignore any evidence

Why don't you flesh out your reasons why none of the evidence stands up. That would be informative

It's not it's evidence based with the evidence there for anyone to examine and question

You do you say you have proved it with water level

He's not allowed so consider any of the information as all information not gained personally and for the first time is not allowed. In theory he shouldn't be allowed any of his flat earth views as they existed before him and therefore he wasn't the first person to postulate them. Also, his views are therefore no evidence for anyone else as that would be second hand information. The second person would have to make up their own story with no prior knowledge of the first to be valid. Then his knowledge can't be passes onto the 3rd person and so on.

 

[Kevj]

He's not allowed so consider any of the information as all information not gained personally and for the first time is not allowed. In theory he shouldn't be allowed any of his flat earth views as they existed before him and therefore he wasn't the first person to postulate them. Also, his views are therefore no evidence for anyone else as that would be second hand information. The second person would have to make up their own story with no prior knowledge of the first to be valid. Then his knowledge can't be passes onto the 3rd person and so on.

There’s only so many beds in the asylum.