Flat Earth

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

larsenb wrote: November 27th, 2022, 10:13 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: November 27th, 2022, 9:57 pm
Fred wrote: November 27th, 2022, 9:15 pm On the globe, both end up at the south pole.
How could you possibly know that beyond being told that? Have you looked into the history of south pole trans navigation? Do you know the people involved? Do you know who funded them? Do you think allopathic medicine is the only science money can buy?
Allopathic medicine?? What on earth (the global one) does that have to do with the flat-earth hypothesis??
I'm simply using that as an example of what science money can buy. Every branch of science is political science or money science. Whoever provides the funding gets to craft the narrative.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

Allison wrote: November 27th, 2022, 8:54 pm To be correct, it’s a lack of curvature hypothesis, that’s all. The fact that you can’t show the requisite curve doesn’t mean that I owe you all of the answers about what IS.

Really, this is like arguing that we must have gone to the moon if I cannot tell you where the fake moon landings were filmed. I don’t have to know that in order to know the moon landings were a ridiculous hoax.
Right, so the ballers put forth and support a model with proven holes in it bigger than the Grand Canyon and then turn and say, well, you can't point out these huge holes until you put forth a model. It doesn't and shouldn't work that way.

The lack of curvature alone is enough to question the entire model. I'm not saying they have to replace it with Flat Earth, but at least be willing to acknowledge and fix the holes.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

larsenb wrote: November 27th, 2022, 10:11 pm Ah Shawn, you miss the point. Allison certainly can't create a predictive theory for the flat-earth hypothesis, but can she, you , or anyone else, even point to such a theory?
But is that even remotely fair when for decades money and the Luciferian agenda have dictated what science gets funded and which scientists get shut down and sometimes even killed.

If they kill doctors for bringing forth cures for cancer and kill free energy technology, don't you think they have that same power in all branches of science?

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

larsenb wrote: November 27th, 2022, 10:18 pm Can you provide a good source for this? A video of him saying it would be good.
They've been posted before by others in these very threads. It seems you have been skipping over what others have been trying to tell you. This happens a lot when we are so convinced we are right that we won't hear anyone out.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

larsenb wrote: November 27th, 2022, 10:44 pm
h_p wrote: November 27th, 2022, 9:07 pm I think the only thing that really gets proven in these debates is that pretty much everything we believe or even claim we know without a doubt is actually just taken on faith.
Nope. There is massive evidence for a global earth.
Yep, and there's massive evidence that vaccines are all safe and effective, but who paid for that evidence. The same who have paid for all scientific evidence.

You will never be able to provide a good argument as to why all science is corruptible except for the science that you hold close to your heart. You can say all you want that your science has immunity, but I know better.

User avatar
JandD6572
captain of 100
Posts: 292

Re: Flat Earth

Post by JandD6572 »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 28th, 2022, 1:30 pm
larsenb wrote: November 27th, 2022, 10:44 pm
h_p wrote: November 27th, 2022, 9:07 pm I think the only thing that really gets proven in these debates is that pretty much everything we believe or even claim we know without a doubt is actually just taken on faith.
Nope. There is massive evidence for a global earth.
Yep, and there's massive evidence that vaccines are all safe and effective, but who paid for that evidence. The same who have paid for all scientific evidence.

You will never be able to provide a good argument as to why all science is corruptible except for the science that you hold close to your heart. You can say all you want that your science has immunity, but I know better.
Just so I'm on the same page, are you supporting that the earth is flat, or a globe?

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

JandD6572 wrote: November 28th, 2022, 1:42 pm Just so I'm on the same page, are you supporting that the earth is flat, or a globe?
It's my firm conviction that the heliocentric model is a complete hoax and that money has corrupted this field of science more so than all others and that NASA is the scientific arm of the great and abominable church. Beyond that, I have seen much evidence that the earth is flat, but I don't know that I would claim anything beyond flatness. I don't profess to know what is beyond the Antarctic, but I do believe that there are other continents out there and that these are the Islands of the Sea the BoM references where different branches of the House of Israel are scattered.

I believe the Bible to be correct when it says that all the stars we see in the sky are all right here underneath the waters that are above the earth. The creation accounts, all 3 of them, debunk the heliocentric model, unless you claim as others that the Hebrews were too stupid for God to tell them that all the stars are actually really far away, so he had to lie to them and tell them they are actually here under the earth's waters and that the saints under Joseph were equally not intellectually ready to be told the truth.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 28th, 2022, 1:04 pm
larsenb wrote: November 27th, 2022, 10:13 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: November 27th, 2022, 9:57 pm
Fred wrote: November 27th, 2022, 9:15 pm On the globe, both end up at the south pole.
How could you possibly know that beyond being told that? Have you looked into the history of south pole trans navigation? Do you know the people involved? Do you know who funded them? Do you think allopathic medicine is the only science money can buy?
Allopathic medicine?? What on earth (the global one) does that have to do with the flat-earth hypothesis??
I'm simply using that as an example of what science money can buy. Every branch of science is political science or money science. Whoever provides the funding gets to craft the narrative.
A silly assertion. You seem to have an addiction for making unfounded generalized statements about this and that.

The reality is that a funding organization may simply believe that a research proposal has merit and is worth funding. I've been a recipient of such funding, and in no way was influenced in my investigation by the funding organization. This happens countless times in the world of scientific research.

Then you have research that is funded by the investigators themselves, or is funded by an academic or research institute or even by a corporation or governmental body, where the research that is done is in the service of the goals of the particular institute, or of the independent researchers.

An example of a wholly independent research effort, funded by the researchers, is the investigation by Dr. Steven Jones, et al., into "active thermitic material found in dust from the WTC catastrophe"

That doesn't mean that funding is untainted when it is used in 'research' that enhances a particular political agenda (e. g., global warming) or a money making scheme (e.g., promulgating a particular pharmaceutical drug).

User avatar
gradles21
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1331
Location: Weimar

Re: Flat Earth

Post by gradles21 »

Fred wrote: November 26th, 2022, 6:18 pm Gravity holds our atmosphere against the vacuum.
So the concept of bent spacetime holds pressurized air against a ball adjacent to the incredible vacuum of space? Surely there would be a scientific experiment able to validate this?

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 28th, 2022, 1:18 pm
larsenb wrote: November 27th, 2022, 10:11 pm Ah Shawn, you miss the point. Allison certainly can't create a predictive theory for the flat-earth hypothesis, but can she, you , or anyone else, even point to such a theory?
But is that even remotely fair when for decades money and the Luciferian agenda have dictated what science gets funded and which scientists get shut down and sometimes even killed.

If they kill doctors for bringing forth cures for cancer and kill free energy technology, don't you think they have that same power in all branches of science?
No. Making unverifiable generalized, black-and-white statements about almost anything is a bane of rational, objective thought. Such statements are inherently illogical. I try to avoid such. On your part, though, go ahead and indulge.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 28th, 2022, 1:22 pm
larsenb wrote: November 27th, 2022, 10:18 pm Can you provide a good source for this? A video of him saying it would be good.
They've been posted before by others in these very threads. It seems you have been skipping over what others have been trying to tell you. This happens a lot when we are so convinced we are right that we won't hear anyone out.
I don't have time to follow everything on this board. But I also feel, if one is going to make particular assertions in a post, they should be prepared to back them up. Can you do it? You're the one allegedly quoting Buzz Aldrin.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 28th, 2022, 1:30 pm
larsenb wrote: November 27th, 2022, 10:44 pm
h_p wrote: November 27th, 2022, 9:07 pm I think the only thing that really gets proven in these debates is that pretty much everything we believe or even claim we know without a doubt is actually just taken on faith.
Nope. There is massive evidence for a global earth.
Yep, and there's massive evidence that vaccines are all safe and effective, but who paid for that evidence. The same who have paid for all scientific evidence.

You will never be able to provide a good argument as to why all science is corruptible except for the science that you hold close to your heart. You can say all you want that your science has immunity, but I know better.
Sounds like the important thing for you is that you're secure in your beliefs. You're welcome to them.

You know nothing about my experience in science, and your statement: "You will never be able to provide a good argument as to why all science is corruptible" seems to strongly contradict your stance, namely, that all science is corruptible.

Now I believe that the conduct of science is potentially all corruptible. But is this conduct always corrupted? Not by a long shot.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

larsenb wrote: November 28th, 2022, 3:29 pm No. Making unverifiable generalized, black-and-white statements about almost anything is a bane of rational, objective thought. Such statements are inherently illogical. I try to avoid such. On your part, though, go ahead and indulge.
It's a complete logical fallacy on your part and I find it laughable when we have seen the power money has on science.

It's like witnessing the destructive power of a bullet and then saying that that doesn't prove the other bullets have that same destructive power.

We also should exclude all the irrelevant science projects that don't affect our world view, there is little reason to corrupt things that don't matter. The science that has been targeted are all the areas that affect our worldview, the things relating to the battle for our minds, this fight for good and evil. These are the areas that Satan had bought influence over and he would be a fool not to. You can profess all day long that Satan has power to buy up armies and navies, but when you claim that after that, he must have run out of money to buy space agencies, I'm seeing a discrepancy in your belief system. If our bought and paid for DOD is under his control and NASA is 1/10th the cost, I'm sure he can afford both. Now, if you lack faith that that dialogue in the temple is actually revelatory, I can respect that.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

larsenb wrote: November 28th, 2022, 3:32 pm I don't have time to follow everything on this board. But I also feel, if one is going to make particular assertions in a post, they should be prepared to back them up. Can you do it? You're the one allegedly quoting Buzz Aldrin.
They were backed up. You already chose to disregard them. I'm sure a quick search on your part could yield two of the three.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 28th, 2022, 12:18 pm
larsenb wrote: November 27th, 2022, 10:31 pm And regarding your claim for the Michaelson-Morley experiment, I've already pointed out in a previous thread, how you've totally misunderstood it. What? No pickup? Why am I not surprised.

At the very least, you could have explained why, in your view, I was wrong in my claim or why those I was quoting were wrong.
Yes, but you explaining how you understand it, doesn't mean I misunderstand it, but I do thank you for your efforts.
The experiments and many more refined versions of it, even done up to the last decade or so, showed that there was no detectable change in the velocity of light going in the supposed direction of the earth or perpendicular to it, allegedly showing that there was no directional "ether wind", which rather supports the idea that light doesn't travel through a medium called ether. I.e., ether, analogous to water through which waves travel, does not exist in this fashion.

Has nothing to do with proving the earth stands still. You would first have to demonstrate that ether exists and what its properties are. Lots of luck with that.

Care to discuss what I've just posted? A real discussion? Come on, SH, surprise me.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 28th, 2022, 3:51 pm
larsenb wrote: November 28th, 2022, 3:32 pm I don't have time to follow everything on this board. But I also feel, if one is going to make particular assertions in a post, they should be prepared to back them up. Can you do it? You're the one allegedly quoting Buzz Aldrin.
They were backed up. You already chose to disregard them. I'm sure a quick search on your part could yield two of the three.
You make an unfounded assumption. I don't ever recall seeing this allegation, and if I had, would certainly have enjoyed seeing the attribution for it. You made the assertion about Buzz Aldrin, you back it up. It's called taking responsibility.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 28th, 2022, 3:48 pm
larsenb wrote: November 28th, 2022, 3:29 pm No. Making unverifiable generalized, black-and-white statements about almost anything is a bane of rational, objective thought. Such statements are inherently illogical. I try to avoid such. On your part, though, go ahead and indulge.
It's a complete logical fallacy on your part and I find it laughable when we have seen the power money has on science.

It's like witnessing the destructive power of a bullet and then saying that that doesn't prove the other bullets have that same destructive power.

We also should exclude all the irrelevant science projects that don't affect our world view, there is little reason to corrupt things that don't matter. The science that has been targeted are all the areas that affect our worldview, the things relating to the battle for our minds, this fight for good and evil. These are the areas that Satan had bought influence over and he would be a fool not to. You can profess all day long that Satan has power to buy up armies and navies, but when you claim that after that, he must have run out of money to buy space agencies, I'm seeing a discrepancy in your belief system. If our bought and paid for DOD is under his control and NASA is 1/10th the cost, I'm sure he can afford both. Now, if you lack faith that that dialogue in the temple is actually revelatory, I can respect that.
Your particularly irksome statement was: "Every branch of science is political science or money science.".

I demonstrated that this is simply not true. The simple fact is that most science has nothing to do with making the funders rich or to enhance a political agenda.

Could some "they" with enough power and money corrupt all scientific endeavors? Probably not. They would be up against the integrity of the majority of those people engaged in doing science, the number of which is considerable.

You're wedded to a very negative general view of science, which simply doesn't wash. And much of the corruption you do describe, and rightly so, is how the science is interpreted by the mangers involved in the money making or who are pushing political agendas.

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Allison »

larsenb wrote: November 28th, 2022, 4:15 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: November 28th, 2022, 3:48 pm
larsenb wrote: November 28th, 2022, 3:29 pm No. Making unverifiable generalized, black-and-white statements about almost anything is a bane of rational, objective thought. Such statements are inherently illogical. I try to avoid such. On your part, though, go ahead and indulge.
It's a complete logical fallacy on your part and I find it laughable when we have seen the power money has on science.

It's like witnessing the destructive power of a bullet and then saying that that doesn't prove the other bullets have that same destructive power.

We also should exclude all the irrelevant science projects that don't affect our world view, there is little reason to corrupt things that don't matter. The science that has been targeted are all the areas that affect our worldview, the things relating to the battle for our minds, this fight for good and evil. These are the areas that Satan had bought influence over and he would be a fool not to. You can profess all day long that Satan has power to buy up armies and navies, but when you claim that after that, he must have run out of money to buy space agencies, I'm seeing a discrepancy in your belief system. If our bought and paid for DOD is under his control and NASA is 1/10th the cost, I'm sure he can afford both. Now, if you lack faith that that dialogue in the temple is actually revelatory, I can respect that.
Your particularly irksome statement was: "Every branch of science is political science or money science.".

I demonstrated that this is simply not true. The simple fact is that most science has nothing to do with making the funders rich or to enhance a political agenda.

Could some "they" with enough power and money corrupt all scientific endeavors? Probably not. They would be up against the integrity of the majority of those people engaged in doing science, the number of which is considerable.

You're wedded to a very negative general view of science, which simply doesn't wash. And much of the corruption you do describe, and rightly so, is how the science is interpreted by the mangers involved in the money making or who are pushing political agendas.
This comes to mind:

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Flat Earth

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Botchee, but no bachi me. :mrgreen: dbnp

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

larsenb wrote: November 28th, 2022, 3:57 pm Care to discuss what I've just posted? A real discussion? Come on, SH, surprise me.
I love discussing these things. I would have responded to your previous comment, but I don't remember your previous Michaelson-Morley comments or what thread that was. That being said, I got a B in physics, so just know that I acknowledge my low status when it comes to physics.

I don't know that there would have to be a medium for light to travel through. I don't even know whether scientists agree on their being an ether. Obviously, any experiment on earth has an atmosphere for a medium, even vacuums are not perfect vacuums.

If I remember correctly, it is said that light emitted from a train traveling 200 mph is not faster than light emitted from a stationary position. So, if light is being slowed down, what is doing it if not a medium.

I don't remember to what degree their equipment measured. It would have to be well below 1/10th of 1%, because the MilkyWay is traveling at 230 kps and light is 300,000 kps.

Anyway, I'm smart enough to know not to rely on my own understanding of physics. What I try to do is find those who claim they know on both sides and listen to their explanations. I'm a pretty good judge of what side is winning a debate, or so I think.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

BeNotDeceived wrote: November 28th, 2022, 11:00 pm
Botchee, but no bachi me. :mrgreen: dbnp
Just curious, have you looked into the Cavendish experiment? You have to wonder. Some clown in 1797 hangs two lead balls from a wooden torsion bar in a closed box inside his shed and claims he measured their attraction to each other and every scientist since, just rolls with it.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

Allison wrote: November 28th, 2022, 10:44 pm This comes to mind:
Great find Allison. This is a must watch video.

For all our ballers who don't have the intellectual honesty to look at the other side of a debate, here is a recap.

1. 39% of scientific studies can't be reproduced.
2. only 20-25% of drug studies are reproduceable.
3. 11% of cancer studies are reproduceable.
4. More than 70% of scientists have tried and failed to reproduce an experiment, including physicists and chemists.
5. More than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
6. 40% of scientists admit that fraud is a factor contributing to irreproducible research.
7. A 2012 study showed that 43% of retractions were due to fraud.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

larsenb wrote: November 28th, 2022, 4:15 pm Your particularly irksome statement was: "Every branch of science is political science or money science.".

I demonstrated that this is simply not true. The simple fact is that most science has nothing to do with making the funders rich or to enhance a political agenda.

Could some "they" with enough power and money corrupt all scientific endeavors? Probably not. They would be up against the integrity of the majority of those people engaged in doing science, the number of which is considerable.

You're wedded to a very negative general view of science, which simply doesn't wash. And much of the corruption you do describe, and rightly so, is how the science is interpreted by the mangers involved in the money making or who are pushing political agendas.
Allison's video is a complete rebuttal to everything you just said.

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Allison »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 29th, 2022, 1:35 pm
larsenb wrote: November 28th, 2022, 4:15 pm Your particularly irksome statement was: "Every branch of science is political science or money science.".

I demonstrated that this is simply not true. The simple fact is that most science has nothing to do with making the funders rich or to enhance a political agenda.

Could some "they" with enough power and money corrupt all scientific endeavors? Probably not. They would be up against the integrity of the majority of those people engaged in doing science, the number of which is considerable.

You're wedded to a very negative general view of science, which simply doesn't wash. And much of the corruption you do describe, and rightly so, is how the science is interpreted by the mangers involved in the money making or who are pushing political agendas.
Allison's video is a complete rebuttal to everything you just said.


Here is another good exposé on the craft of Science. While much of the discussion is about the lockdown and morality, Dr. Battacharya also describes the financial and professional pressures applied within academia that heavily color the outcomes of so-called “scientific research.”

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t ... 0587412067

User avatar
gradles21
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1331
Location: Weimar

Re: Flat Earth

Post by gradles21 »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 29th, 2022, 12:40 pm
BeNotDeceived wrote: November 28th, 2022, 11:00 pm
Botchee, but no bachi me. :mrgreen: dbnp
Just curious, have you looked into the Cavendish experiment? You have to wonder. Some clown in 1797 hangs two lead balls from a wooden torsion bar in a closed box inside his shed and claims he measured their attraction to each other and every scientist since, just rolls with it.
As you know It's not an experiment. There isn't an independent variable to manipulate in order to prove causation.

Post Reply