I agree with Windmill knight, and I wanted to add some quote I read (I don’t remember which book):
“the mind is like a parachute, it works better when it is open”
What globe? Flat Earth and Flat-Earthers
- Thread starter ankhepiphan
- Start date
“the mind is like a parachute, it works better when it is open”
newuser23
Padawan Learner
Yes I agree flat earth is wrong. I am just stating that globe earth also has inconsistencies. Thus should also be questioned.
Can you see the internal inconsistency in your reply above?
First, you confirm that you are a "non-believer in everything", then you mention what you believe you could do.
newuser23
Padawan Learner
"What facts and in reference to what? "
What ever the belief system is.
"What exactly has this to do with the flat earth idea? Can you elaborate?"
This fact tends to disprove both flat and globe theories.
If the pendulums are parallel, a flat shape is a possible reason.
If the pendulums are closer at the top and farther at the bottom, a concave shape is a possible reason.
If the pendulums are farther at the top and closer at the bottom, a convexe shape is a possible reason.
We agree Flat earth is wrong.
There are also just too many inconsistencies in globe earth theory to ignore.
Even recently, plane takes off from Taiwan going to Los Angeles, emergency landing in Alaska because of a pregnancy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3270382/Caught-camera-amazing-moment-woman-gives-birth-premature-baby-girl-30-000ft-Taiwan-Los-Angeles-flight-crew-passengers-helping-out.html
This makes sense with a United Nations type map.
Maybe it's not black or white, maybe not grey either perhaps blue or green. Maybe the truth is something we have never thought of.
"How exactly would a "concave flat shape" explain "celestial navigation"? Can you elaborate so that we can follow your reasoning?"
Navigation in a straight line was impossible unless the stars and knowledge of the sailor being on a round shape
was used. I am suggesting a round shape but mirror image, concave instead of convexe.
"Where is NASA admitting that? Where is the proof that it was "impossible" in 1969? What math? Can you provide the math you used? Can you elaborate what you mean?"
NASA says a 65 kW-hr battery packs with a 4 kW max were needed for a 35-hr lunar stay.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090016295.pdf
It is also stated off-the-shelf battery technology was used
Comparison of commercial battery types - Wikipedia
NASA also says "All Apollo batteries were of the silver-oxide/zinc alkaline type."
But as you can see in the previous link these batteries are non rechargeable
Also, this battery had to yield six complete charge/discharge cycles.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720024228.pdf
"Really? Are you suggesting that the helium balloons from NASA caused "huge helium depletion on the earth"? How, why and on what basis do you come to that idea? The video is quite long, has this something to do with that idea? If so, can you elaborate so that we can understand your reasoning?"
The Amarillo storage facility holds around half the Earth's stocks of helium: around a billion cubic meters of the gas.
The world is running out of helium: Nobel prize winner
Therefore the world supply is around 2 billion cubic meters.
How many million of cubic feet is needed to send a satellite up?
https://www.csbf.nasa.gov/pictures/Nasa_standards_english.png
Averages are between 4 and 40 million cubic feet per launch, depending on the payload and height needed.
If NASA has been using helium to put up satellites since before the 1960's
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...-publications/books-and-monographs/corona.pdf
How many balloons were publicly launched? We don't know, but this has been going on for many decades.
Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas - Stratospheric balloon launches
Also how many were secretly launched?
NASA pays many sites to launch satellites with balloons.
Balloons being sent up for M.I.R. Ref page 8
https://www.sscspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Balloon-launch-list-for-the-web.pdf
I have also seen documents from a European balloon launch facility stating that NASA was paying them for Skylab launches, I can no longer find the link for that. But will continue looking for the Skylab info.
"What "discrepancies" exactly? That "Rockets hit the Dome"? How do you come to that idea? Can you elaborate?"
After 3 minutes 15 seconds. You can hear the rocket hit something and see it suddenly stop.
If space is empty nothingness, did nothing stop the rocket?
"What has this video to do with the flat earth idea? I don't get it. Why are those objects "impossible behind a 12 mile tether"? What is your reasoning? Can you elaborate?"
This was just a little NASA film clip showing things are not what we are told to believe.
If there are flashing cellular organic looking things that are miles in diameter; in space.
Intelligent things miles in diameter, is not possible with current belief systems.
It is getting late here I am going to bed soon.
Thank you for your inquiries, I welcome all questions or comments.
Good night.
newuser23
Padawan Learner
Believed is in the past tense. In the past I did believe.
Last edited by a moderator:
newuser23
Padawan Learner
Yes. That was my first thought, the problem is, the knife was a serrated edge steak knife with a black plastic handle. For as long as I can remember we have always had, only two identical steak knives. After the event we only had one, I put off buying another steak knife for a long time. Perhaps in hopes of the knife showing up or a reminder of what happened.
Even if I hallucinated the whole thing, from my arm touching the knife causing it to fall, to seeing it enter the floor. It still does not explain a missing knife. We had a set of those two identical knives for many years.
After we only had one.
"I think it would be more helpful to stay grounded. Too much focus on paranormal experiences can lead to becoming detached from reality. "
Yes I agree, I do walk barefoot in the grass when I can; as well as other grounding exercises. And I do agree anything in excess is harmful to us, I do try to keep balanced.
Thank you for your concern and reminders.
Well I'd say you don't get very far with many things, and it seems kind of silly to even try to not believe in the 'law of gravity' for example.
My bad. I missed the past VS present tense nuance.
newuser23
Padawan Learner
Perhaps I don't understand your meaning of, I don't get very far with things.
There is no need to believe in any laws. Laws are to be understood and followed.
A law and a belief are two different things.
I don't have to believe the merits of a no smoking law to follow it.
If a law is not followed there are usually very serious consequences.
If a belief is not followed usually the consequences are less severe now-a-days.
It is usually better to pretend believing if necessary, so that believers ego's are not hurt; bruised egos often results in believers attacking you.
It seems to me a person would get less far by believing.
Of course a person does not have the same beliefs all their life. Beliefs change as they become untenable.
As a friend was telling me recently " If my beliefs are wrong I adjust and change my beliefs".
Going from one false belief to another false belief. This seems like and endless circle, doing the same thing over and over; revolution but no evolution.
But as far as those types of laws are concerned, I am certified as an Automated Systems Electromechanic.
Which means I can build and design robots, drones, things like that, pretty well any automated system with the proper tools.
I also have apprenticeships in Auto Mechanics, Elevator mechanics. Electricity and Ski lifts.
So laws of gravity, thermodynamics, hydraulics, gases, electricity etc, I do understand and follow.
Yes, as most rational people do. But ‘belief’ is still implicit in them.
This is from Merriam-Webster:
Definition of belief
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing //her belief in God, a belief in democracy, I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique, contrary to popular belief
2 : something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed //an individual's religious or political beliefs - especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group //the beliefs of the Catholic Church
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence //belief in the validity of scientific statements
For example, you follow the law of gravity. Why? Because your experience and observation of it tells you that when you do something there is an expected response (for example if you jump up you will expect to return back to the ground). That expectation is your belief.
That’s why your statement is contradictory. You can’t claim to ‘not believe’ in anything when you do so by believing in the laws. It’s incorporated into it.
Another way belief is defined is:
“confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof”
If that is what you mean then yes, ‘not believing’ can have its utility. But consider this: in order to facilitate knowledge, you have to believe in something whether you have proof or not. The belief that something may or may not be true is not known. In order to know it we have to research and investigate. Science is predicated on someone having a certain belief and then setting out to discover whether it is true or not.
If we all started out with the idea to ‘not believe’ in anything then we’d still all be in the stone age, and something like this forum wouldn’t have begun either. In other words, one can claim to ‘not believe’ in anything but if that were really true of them they would be a complete and total nihilist.
But you don't believe them, right? You said you're a nonbeliever in everything. So you follow them, but don't believe in them per se. That's what makes you a nonbeliever in everything. You can claim that you only "follow" certain laws and rules about things that seem to work, but you don't accept that they are real, you reserve judgement as to their alleged reality. That's the kind of fence sitting that allows you to say that you don't believe in the flat earth, but you also don't necessarily believe in a round earth.
ShamanSam,
I was a bit perplexed by your following response. Were you facetious in response to Oxajil or was it meant to be serious?
I was a bit perplexed by your following response. Were you facetious in response to Oxajil or was it meant to be serious?
i'm sure some1 said this already.. but my take in "flat earth" is, that yes.. they might be on to something. Not Earth literally being flat, but our earth and our whole reality, just might be a hologrammic projection (icke said it first, and no1 goes that far with just lies!!). Being "flat" on dimension beyond our comprehension, and the "round-3d" feature being artificially created. I dunno, just an thought. if our world is a simulation, or a "game", the flatness might be an accurate way to describe our reality.
I think there's about 50% chance that our reality is created by artificial intelligence.
Thenagain,
Artificial intelligence might be one of the STS-4D:s. and when artificial intelligence (read machine intelligence) first came to be in some faraway galaxy billions of years ago, that same artificial intelligence created some tiny biological robots to go explore and conquer the universe. Those biological robots reproduced and created the surroundings for AI to succeed. I think it might be in our genes. to seek for technological ease to the point, that theres no need for us humans anymore. When whe build the surroundings for the AI to flourish, we have completed our assignement and can retire.
Well, thats a possibility?? :D flat earth - AI ?
ok this is kinda shallow way to look at things, but in some of billions of possibilities, this might be true and worth considering.
I think there's about 50% chance that our reality is created by artificial intelligence.
Thenagain,
Artificial intelligence might be one of the STS-4D:s. and when artificial intelligence (read machine intelligence) first came to be in some faraway galaxy billions of years ago, that same artificial intelligence created some tiny biological robots to go explore and conquer the universe. Those biological robots reproduced and created the surroundings for AI to succeed. I think it might be in our genes. to seek for technological ease to the point, that theres no need for us humans anymore. When whe build the surroundings for the AI to flourish, we have completed our assignement and can retire.
Well, thats a possibility?? :D flat earth - AI ?
ok this is kinda shallow way to look at things, but in some of billions of possibilities, this might be true and worth considering.
I'd say that's an assumption that doesn't take into account all of Icke's written output.
