Jump to content

Why the extreme hostility from anti flat earthers?


Jikwan
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, peter said:

Exactly, but in your case you have only had 5 min of it.

Their debating style is brilliant , ignore all the points made by the opposition and answer nothing, fill the thread with non relative crap and sarcasm so the thread goes round and round , the opposition gives up out of frustration then they come out of the wood work and talk shit amongst themselves as to how cleaver they are and how they're doing their own research  ,which is exactly what happened in the first thread in my opinion.

I asked 3 simple questions all ignored

1 explain day and night  in a FE

2 explain the seasons

3 explain  eclipses

If they even explained night and day I would be prepared to listen

 

Found another play mate I see Peter, a bit like the other thread. For someone who's sick of this subject you can't seem to stay away. I'm still waiting for a response to my questions of why a rainbow bends and why the colours on a double rainbow are opposite. So what is it bending off and why are the colours opposite? 

 

So, I think you should stop with the incendiary rhetoric, the unnecessary sniping because I believe you're a nice guy and are better than getting involved with a poster that opens an account in April and posts nothing until this thread appears, it's suspicious to say the least. 

 

But whatever, you're free to do what you want, but I think you're being a hypocrite now. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Found another play mate I see Peter, a bit like the other thread. For someone who's sick of this subject you can't seem to stay away. I'm still waiting for a response to my questions of why a rainbow bends and why the colours on a double rainbow are opposite. So what is it bending off and why are the colours opposite? 

When you asked me that question before I was honest I hadn't looked into it and stated as such so I said I simply don't know, it is obvious you have an opinion as to why other wise you wouldn't have brought it up so how about sharing.

At least I was being honest and not just ignoring you ,and if you think my appraisal of the FE debating style was a bit harsh go read the thread in its entirety without a preconceived conclusion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, peter said:

When you asked me that question before I was honest I hadn't looked into it and stated as such so I said I simply don't know, it is obvious you have an opinion as to why other wise you wouldn't have brought it up so how about sharing.

At least I was being honest and not just ignoring you ,and if you think my appraisal of the FE debating style was a bit harsh go read the thread in its entirety without a preconceived conclusion

I have no preconceived conclusions about you at all, far from it Peter, if anything I just felt you were being disingenuous by saying what you were in your last post. 

 

As for for why a rainbow bends, I've absolutely no concrete evidence for why it does either. However, I suspect it's reflecting off the dome, hence the reason why the colours appear in opposite order on a double rainbow. However, I have no way of verifying if that is the case or not and that's the issue with this whole topic. 

 

I also think the basis of this thread needs to change because the debate on this is descending into exactly what none us wanted it to. But that's down to Jikwan, it's his thread.

 

However, I will leave you with this.......

 

Why was the US government firing nuclear weapons in Antarctica into the atmosphere and in conjunction with the Russians in the late 1950' & early 60's under operation FISHBOWL and under the umbrella Operation Dominc? By the way, it wasn't just a couple of bombs either. 

 

You see, when the authorities begin to deny something so vehemently, then I get suspicious and think one doth protest too much.

 

Whatever you believe or don't is irrelevant because something stinks here and something is being covered up. If we are truly truth seekers then we must be prepared to dig into difficult subjects without being partisan and open minded to possibilities. It's apparent to me that the world was flat until the 1500's. But somehow all that science is legit unquestionable since. Science is theory until proven otherwise and will remain a theory. 

 

Something stinks and that's my take on it. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

It's apparent to me that the world was flat until the 1500's.

 

Helio or Geocentrism with a spherical Earth was proposed at least as far back as ancient Greece. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, spideysensei said:

 

Helio or Geocentrism with a spherical Earth was proposed at least as far back as ancient Greece. 

Can you provide me with some material please? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Flat Earth theory comes from Lactantius, fake Christian Emperor Constantine's fake Christian advisor.

 

 

https://www.truthspoon.com/search/label/Church fathers

But what was the true guiding spirit of Constantine’s religious policy? Lactantius was a Christian apologist and the progenitor of the Christian church policy of a ‘flat Earth’. It is said that because he considered himself ‘Christian’ he had to automatically reject any science and philosophy which was non-Christian, which meant that he rejected all of the previous scientific discovery of the Greeks going back even to ancient Egypt who considered the Earth to be a sphere. The only thing flat about this reality is the registrable brainwaves from this brainless fake Christian idiot who perhaps helped create what is known as ‘the dark ages’ a period where scientific discovery enters a retrograde phase because somehow Church authorities considered it contrary to the word of Jesus. Jesus has nothing to say about science and certainly has no position of opposition to it. Even in the old-testament the Earth is referred to as ‘round’ so what retrograde retarded philosophy was Lactantius really promulgating? Was it some kind of primitive retrograde philosophy merely disguising itself as Christianity?

It is also said that Lactantius’ works betray a total lack of knowledge about scripture and Christian principles, it seems that his job was more in the line of public relations, trying to make Christianity appeal to and fit in with the pre-existing belief systems of the pagan elements of population. He authored a tract entitled ‘De Ira Dei’ Of the wrath of God in which he justifies and explains the idea of an angry punishing God. An 'angry' God it must be noted, which is entirely absent from the Christian New Testament and the ministry of Jesus, so what religion was Lactantius really advocating?

In the book Judaism of the second Temple period, the author David Flusser believes that Lactantius’ sources for his version of ‘Christianity’ are not Christian at all but Judaic-Hellenistic and that Constantine’s tutor and guide in all matters pertaining to Christianity, had little to no actual knowledge of the words of Jesus himself. Isn’t this an apt foreshadowing of the Catholic church? Which has historically seemed more interested in mother goddess worship and prescribing strict moral tenets on issues like homosexuality and birth control, which neither Jesus, nor indeed anyone mentioned in the New Testament ever expressed an opinion about. Simply put, Jesus had no interest on homosexuality or birth control because it wasn’t relevant to his ministry, so why were such things so central to Catholicism for so long? Perhaps because the source for Catholic religion is not Christian but Jewish. The Jewish old testament of course goes into great detail about homosexuality and the various punishments appropriate, not to mention the crimes of masturbation and birth control, as in the Old Testament tale of Onan the Barbarian.
 

Edited by Truthspoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't really care what shape the Eric Dubays of this world think the Earth is, but I'm tired of shit like this:

 

 

"Free thinking, got a world at my neck.
Hah, am I paranoid? Picture Malcolm X"

 

"Do your research on David Irving,
Stalin was way worse than Hitler,
That's why the POTUS gotta wear a kippah"

 

"Voice, voice, do I have a voice?

Do I give a fuck? Do I have a choice?

 

"There's no superior bloodline."

 

Sounds pretty based, but it will be discredited because of the topic of the track.

Edited by EnigmaticWorld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

I don't really care what shape the Eric Dubays of this world think the Earth is, but I'm tired of shit like this:

 

 

"Free thinking, got a world at my neck
Hah, am I paranoid? Picture Malcolm X"

 

"Do your research on David Irving,
Stalin was way worse than Hitler,
That's why the POTUS gotta wear a kippah"

 

"Voice, voice, do I have a voice?

Do I give a fuck? Do I have choice?

 

"There's no superior bloodline."

 

Sounds pretty based, but it will be discredited because of the topic of the track.

A perfect example of one doth protest too much from the authorities. Cool tune by the way. Looks like I've got some more research to do. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

I don't really care what shape the Eric Dubays of this world think the Earth is, but I'm tired of shit 

 

 

All Eric Dubays that exist believe they see an apple that is an endless ocean. No Eric Dubays have been told anything since the creation of intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Origin said:

All Eric Dubays that exist believe they see an apple that is an endless ocean. No Eric Dubays have been told anything since the creation of intelligence.

 

The CIA sent him a cheque for 50,000 dollars. Wikileaks found a payment from the CIA to a certain Eric Dubay for 50 big ones........  Probably impossible to find that information now but you can try. I know it's true because I remember seeing it, I can't be bothered to prove something I already know but if someone else wants to find that info then it would probably be useful.

 

 

Edited by Truthspoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human knowledge is a sea of illusions and misinterpretations of what humans are supposed to believe in. There is something for everyone. And now comes the funniest thing of all. The liars believe their own lies. The illusion of power to decide anything here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Truthspoon said:

 

The CIA sent him a cheque for 50,000 dollars. Wikileaks found a payment from the CIA to a certain Eric Dubay for 50 big ones........  Probably impossible to find that information now but you can try. I know it's true because I remember seeing it, I can't be bothered to prove something I already know but if someone else wants to find that info then it would probably be useful.

 

 

 

I think no matter what anyone believes in, 

you clearly are digging yourself a hole.....and quite deep actually..

 

Read what you just posted....and reflect on it lol

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Simple Actions said:

 

I think no matter what anyone believes in, 

you clearly are digging yourself a hole.....and quite deep actually..

 

Read what you just posted....and reflect on it lol

 

 

A hole?


I think that's you brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Simple Actions said:

 

I think no matter what anyone believes in, 

you clearly are digging yourself a hole.....and quite deep actually..

 

Read what you just posted....and reflect on it lol

 

 

I even have two articles on Dubay's Atlantean Conspiracy website. One about Freemasons http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2011/07/truth-about-freemasonry.html and the other one I can't even remember.

 

THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2011

The Truth About Freemasonry

 
Thanks to Edelweiss Pirate for posting this incredibly well-written and well-researched piece on the ugly truth about Freemasonry entitled, The Freemasons Nudge! Nudge! Wink! Wink! I've posted it in it's entirety below, but I highly recommend searching through the other excellent articles at his Happy Truther blog.

 

 

I didn't ask him to post my article. One day people on the Icke forum of the time just told me that Dubay had posted an article from my website. That's cool. Awesome in fact.

 

He used to talk a lot of sense before this flat-earth thing.

 

But a couple of years ago the Wikileaks exposure of a CIA payment of 50,000 dollars 'was a thing'. Just nobody around anymore who remembers, and all that Wikileaks stuff has gone down the memory hole.


Still, it's out there...... might be an interesting research project to someone. Why don't you take your fingers out of your ears and look into it yourself?

 

 

Edited by Truthspoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Found my other article which Eric Dubay posted of mine. From his other website:

 

https://ericdubay.blogspot.com/2011/07/search-for-beauty.html

 

SATURDAY, JULY 9, 2011

The Search For Beauty

 
Thanks to Edelweiss Pirate for writing the following article. I have felt many of the things he pointed out here, but haven't been able to put them into thought/words so eloquently:

 

 

See, I've nothing against Eric personally, he used to be top notch in our movement.

 

BUT I do not believe the flat earth thing and I did see a Wikileaks post some time ago, maybe as many as 4 years ago, claiming to show a CIA payment etc etc.

 

I'm not bullshitting anyone here, I never have. I'm not digging A HOLE I'm keeping it real. As always.

 

 

 

Edited by Truthspoon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Truthspoon said:

BUT I do not believe the flat earth thing and I did see a Wikileaks post some time ago, maybe as many as 4 years ago, claiming to show a CIA payment etc etc.

 

Ok....does that makes you feel happy, with your belief?

If so, thats great ;)

No need to keep pressing the same button in which you have already made your mind about and truly believe, as you have already stated..

Thats a very good thing! Honestly ;)

 

So why are you worried about the CIA liars and the Wikileaks-sidekick-manipulators? lol

 

Shouldn't even go there.....

If you trust your own senses...eyes...ears.......there wouldn't be a need to read these online claims in which were equaly fabricated for the same end result lol.

 

Edited by Simple Actions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world."

 

Psalms 19.1

CMoyjgTWUAAP5b0.png

Edited by Morpheus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Morpheus said:

I'm still waiting for a response to my questions of why a rainbow bends and why the colours on a double rainbow are opposite. So what is it bending off and why are the colours opposite?

As to why the rainbow is curved ,here is an explanation that makes sense

 

A rainbow is the diffraction of sunlight through water droplets in the air. To see a rainbow, you need to be looking at light rain with the sun behind you. The rainbow is curved as it reflects the round shape of the sun. It is a semicircle because only half of your field of vision is the air (the other half is the Earth). If you are in an aircraft with the sun directly overhead and you look down into a rain cloud, you will see the rainbow is a full circle, again reflecting the fact the sun is round.

 

I have seen the round rainbow on quite a few occasions with the shadow of the plane in the center so I don't discount this explanation

 

This is an explanation for the reversed colors

 

Light rays emitted by the sun are effectively parallel when they reach the earth, and raindrops are effectively all the same shape. So when sunlight shines into a sky full of raindrops, it’s encountering millions of tiny, very similar spherical prisms and interacting with each in pretty much the same way: each produces a basically identical pattern of refracted, dispersed, reflected, and re-refracted light in a spectrum of colors. The reflected red light is at its greatest intensity at an angle of 42 degrees from the direction of the sun’s rays, while the violet light has maximum intensity at 40 degrees. When you face a rainy sky with the sun at your back you see a ring of red light, forming the outer edge of the rainbow, at 42 degrees from the direction of the sunlight, a violet ring at 40 degrees forming its inner edge, and all the other colors of the spectrum in between. The rainbow is entirely an optical illusion; it changes its apparent position in the sky as you change your vantage point, meaning that no two people are ever seeing a rainbow the same way (and explaining why that pot of gold is so elusive). Also, because the light forming the rainbow is reflected at angles of 40 to 42 degrees, for the most part rainbows are seen only during the hours around sunrise and sunset: if the sun is higher than 42 degrees in the sky the rainbow reflected by the raindrops will be below the horizon for an observer at ground level. You get better viewing at greater altitude, and it’s possible to see complete circular rainbows from an airplane.

Now, about double rainbows: What’s happening here is that the ray of sunlight bounces twice off the back interior surface of the raindrop before re-emerging into the air. The second reflection inverts the order of the colors – the secondary violet band forms at 54 degrees, the red band at 50.5 degrees — so the secondary rainbow appears above the primary one, with red on the inner edge and violet on the outer. Because the twice-reflected light has had two chances to be transmitted out the back of the raindrop rather than reflected back toward the observer, the secondary bow is much fainter than the primary and frequently cannot be seen at all; it’s typical for a secondary rainbow to be visible only at certain points along the arc.

If the light is strong enough to remain visible after being reflected three times inside the raindrop, an even fainter tertiary rainbow can sometimes be seen (at least in part) above the secondary one, with the red back on the outside and the violet on the inside. And rumor has it that it’s occasionally possible to see a quadruple rainbow.

Nitpickers will ask: What about diffraction? Doesn’t it play a role here too? All I have to say is (a) yes, diffraction — a quantum phenomenon where light waves cancel each other out or amplify one another — sometimes figures in rainbow formation, if the raindrops are small enough, in which case (b) all bets are off — you might get smaller rainbows inside the main bow, you might get rainbows with the red in the middle – but (c) no way am I going to work out the math for this. If you’re desperate to know this kind of stuff, well, that’s why they invented physics grad programs.

 

This took me 30sec to find and and 30min to think about what is being said, to me it makes sense,however I personally cannot verify that the colors will be reversed as per the explanation above because I just don't know .

However it makes more sense to me than saying a rainbow follows the path of a dome that is conveniently invisible  .

Let me ask you this then , do you think the earth is flat due to religious doctrine, I'm not saying that this is the case , how ever I feel that a good many converts to the FE cause is not about weather the earth is round ,flat or a triangle for that matter they are simply  looking for something to bolster their own religious beliefs

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, peter said:

A rainbow is the diffraction of sunlight through water droplets in the air. To see a rainbow, you need to be looking at light rain with the sun behind you.

Agreed

 

8 hours ago, peter said:

It is a semicircle because only half of your field of vision is the air (the other half is the Earth). If you are in an aircraft with the sun directly overhead and you look down into a rain cloud, you will see the rainbow is a full circle, again reflecting the fact the sun is round.

This I have a problem with and call bollocks. In essence (not you personally, but from where you pasted this from) every rainbow should be round to reflect the shape of the sun, I'm not buying this semi circular phenomenon when the shape it's reflecting off is completely round. 

 

I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm not sold on that explanation, but thanks for providing it Peter. 

8 hours ago, peter said:

Light rays emitted by the sun are effectively parallel when they reach the earth, and raindrops are effectively all the same shape. So when sunlight shines into a sky full of raindrops, it’s encountering millions of tiny, very similar spherical prisms and interacting with each in pretty much the same way: each produces a basically identical pattern of refracted, dispersed, reflected, and re-refracted light in a spectrum of colors. The reflected red light is at its greatest intensity at an angle of 42 degrees from the direction of the sun’s rays, while the violet light has maximum intensity at 40 degrees. When you face a rainy sky with the sun at your back you see a ring of red light, forming the outer edge of the rainbow, at 42 degrees from the direction of the sunlight, a violet ring at 40 degrees forming its inner edge, and all the other colors of the spectrum in between. The rainbow is entirely an optical illusion; it changes its apparent position in the sky as you change your vantage point, meaning that no two people are ever seeing a rainbow the same way

Sure, seems plausible. 

 

8 hours ago, peter said:

for the most part rainbows are seen only during the hours around sunrise and sunset:

Lost me here because that's nonsense. I think we can all attest to seeing a rainbow at most parts of the day and not mainly sunrise or sunset. 

 

8 hours ago, peter said:

This took me 30sec to find and and 30min to think about what is being said, to me it makes sense,however I personally cannot verify that the colors will be reversed as per the explanation above because I just don't know .

This is a difficult topic and I concur it's hard to explain everything and this is where our knowledge and our seeking of explanations can inadvertently cause more confusion as we seek to explain more and more as we go. 

 

8 hours ago, peter said:

However it makes more sense to me than saying a rainbow follows the path of a dome that is conveniently invisible  .

So because it's over elaborate and more complex that has to be the answer? Fair enough, each to their own. Baffle em with bull shit. 

 

8 hours ago, peter said:

Let me ask you this then , do you think the earth is flat due to religious doctrine

No, because I've never been religious, a bit like the sarcastic comment you made to me in the other thread, so may be don't assume you know everything about a person you don't know. Do I believe there's a god/creator? 

 

Yes I do and I'm not ashamed to admit or say that. By the way, it is apparent to me that science is just as dogmatic as religion as it is apparent by the complete defence of it by the majority of people. Science can't be wrong! Yes it can and it is.  

8 hours ago, peter said:

how ever I feel that a good many converts to the FE cause is not about weather the earth is round ,flat or a triangle for that matter they are simply  looking for something to bolster their own religious beliefs

It may be in some cases but certainly not mine. I just think past civilizations/ancient ancestors knew far more about what we live on than we do. The constant diatribe from mainstream tells us that we were only primitive and I'm having a hard time accepting that's the case. Say what you want about that belief, but for me, there's huge amounts of evidence all over the world to suggest that's not the case. Ancient structures being one of them. Each to their own Peter. 👍

Edited by Morpheus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, peter said:

A rainbow is the diffraction of sunlight through water droplets in the air. To see a rainbow, you need to be looking at light rain with the sun behind you. The rainbow is curved as it reflects the round shape of the sun. It is a semicircle because only half of your field of vision is the air (the other half is the Earth). If you are in an aircraft with the sun directly overhead and you look down into a rain cloud, you will see the rainbow is a full circle, again reflecting the fact the sun is round.

 

I have seen the round rainbow on quite a few occasions with the shadow of the plane in the center so I don't discount this explanation

 

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

This I have a problem with and call bollocks. In essence (not you personally, but from where you pasted this from) every rainbow should be round to reflect the shape of the sun, I'm not buying this semi circular phenomenon when the shape it's reflecting off is completely round. 

 

 

The 'phenomenon' is easy to reproduce, all you need is a trigger spray bottle filled with water, adjust it to a fine mist setting, stand with full sun behind you and spray around in front of you, you'll see a 'round' rainbow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Lost me here because that's nonsense. I think we can all attest to seeing a rainbow at most parts of the day and not mainly sunrise or sunset. 

Agreed

35 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

So because it's over elaborate and more complex that has to be the answer? Fair enough, each to their own. Baffle em with bull shit. 

That is your assumption, the fact that an explanation is complicated or simple should not determine as to weather it is correct or not,   however I grant you that generally the simplest is usually the best

 

40 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

No, because I've never been religious, a bit like the sarcastic comment you made to me in the other thread, so may be don't assume you know everything about a person you don't know. Do I believe there's a god/creator? 

I wasn't being sarcastic ,it was a genuine question

 

43 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Yes I do and I'm not ashamed to admit or say that. By the way, it is apparent to me that science is just as dogmatic as religion as it is apparent by the complete defence of it by the majority of people. Science can't be wrong! Yes it can and it is.

I also believe there is an overarching creator that manifests everything (not a god per-say) and even creator would be the wrong vernacular , more like a mechanism.

Yes I also believe that much of science is absolute bullshit  and could be described as a religion, however with the case of the globe theory ,at present anyhow  it is able to describe  the artifacts  we  observe and is a testable theory with provable predictions , that's not to say it is entirely or even partially correct but it is the best explanation we have at present

 

 

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

 I just think past civilizations/ancient ancestors knew far more about what we live on than we do. The constant diatribe from mainstream tells us that we were only primitive and I'm having a hard time accepting that's the case. Say what you want about that belief, but for me, there's huge amounts of evidence all over the world to suggest that's not the case. Ancient structures being one of them. Each to their own Peter.

Well here is another thing we agree on, I think mainstream history is absolute bullshit , I can't prove it but there are archaeological indicators around the world and in my opinion there has been many technological advanced civilizations on this earth each one being destroyed in turn either by their own hand or natural cataclysmic events where the survivors were left to rebuild

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

 

The 'phenomenon' is easy to reproduce, all you need is a trigger spray bottle filled with water, adjust it to a fine mist setting, stand with full sun behind you and spray around in front of you, you'll see a 'round' rainbow.

Indeed but that would imply that the water is arcing and not the what it's reflecting off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...