What globe? Flat Earth and Flat-Earthers

Renaissance said:
Good point! Belief is a fundamental aspect of how we perceive the world. We cannot 'not believe'. It is a basic part of our subjective nature. Sure, we can question our outer most beliefs, but believing we 'don't believe' is a belief in itself, and not an accurate one! The other thing is we operate on very deep subconscious beliefs, or as the C's have called it the 'belief center'. Knowing these beliefs takes time and effort, and adjusting them seems to take pretty specialized knowledge and effort. This is a bit like the elephant in Jonathan Haidt's analogy in how we are driven toward decisions, choices, thoughts, etc.

An interesting phenomena with flat earth and related topics is how people are unquestioningly questioning things. It's like the saying goes, 'keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out'. We have to be critical of our own critiques. This is especially important when it comes to getting into conspiracy theories, the paranormal, self improvement, liberalism, revolution, etc. These are areas that seek disintegration. This is a needed process for development, but it actually causes damage left unchecked.
Click to expand...

"We cannot 'not believe'. It is a basic part of our subjective nature."

This is what I meant by DNA memory and it's trauma.
The word believe has only been in the English dictionary since around 1125
Origin of belief
1125–75; earlier bile(e)ve (noun use of v.); replacing Middle English bileave, equivalent to bi- be- + leave; compare Old English gelēafa (cognate with Dutch geloof, German Glaube; akin to Gothic galaubeins )

Origin of believe
1150–1200; Middle English bileven, equivalent to bi- be- + leven, Old English (Anglian) gelēfan (cognate with Dutch gelooven, German glauben, Gothic galaubjan )


I think perhaps peoples and cultures could have a subjective nature before the concept of belief came along.


"but believing we 'don't believe' is a belief"
Yes I agree, but a person can also know that they do not believe, can a person choose to not believe.
So if we can have good beliefs, can a person choose to believe only if he is certain the belief is good?
Does a belief have certainty? How can we avoid bad or false beliefs, just discernment?

I pick up a roll of tissue paper. I don't have to believe anything about the tissue paper. I know how it feels. I know how it smells. I know how to make it. Everything in this room is has the same qualities. If I know it, I do not have to believe it. If I don't know it I can admit that instead of believing.
This remains the same for the intangible.

Have you ever seen or experienced something impossible?
Why believe after seeing or experiencing something impossible?

If the impossibly good things can happen, wouldn't believing in the possible limit yourself?
Believe for the expectation and anticipation? Nah.

I think knowing outranks belief every time.

I would like to thank the group for providing me with insight, thoughts, and a place to sort this thing out.
 
on_strike_usaexpat said:
I surmise you did not even look at the "conventional" globe to even understand what I was getting at. Have you spoken to international pilots and how they plot the shortest distances? GCM is the method and they have been using it for gee...of course, possibly they are 100% all in on the conspiracy and/or are the matrix guardians.

End of discussion and yes approaching Alaska would be the shortest GCM path on the way to LAX.

We are obviously not "seeing" the same thing and further discussion would be pointless.

View attachment 29372
Click to expand...

No I have not touched a conventional globe for many years.
No I do not have any pilot friends or acquaintances.
No I have never heard of GCM and do not know what the letters stand for.

"End of discussion"
I agree there are probably many more people directing negative emotions toward me.

 
ShamanSam said:
Again I think you are confusing believing and knowing.
Click to expand...

No, I’m not confusing belief and knowing, as you are implying. My point is that belief is a component of such things (truth, laws, etc). There is an overlap and where belief overlaps with truth, one could say that is knowledge. So when someone says they don’t believe in anything at all I tend to think they are lying to themselves about it. As Renaissance pointed out – it’s a fundamental aspect of how we perceive the world.
 
ShamanSam said:
Yes I am serious, my favorite is, to do a native sweat, it's not like a sauna; it's the little details that count.
<snip>

Perhaps our definition of grounding is different.
What do you do to ground yourself and what does grounding mean to you?
Click to expand...

It is certainly different. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that you live in a very different reality that most members of this forum. You completely missed the crux of Oxajil's comment, the meaning of it, and just blithely went on yakking. I suspect you would have better conversational experiences if you talked to a mirror. I'm sure the rest of us would too.
 
[QUOTE = "ShamanSam, post: 793813, membre: 90"]
Je pense que nous devrions utiliser le dictionnaire pour mieux nous mettre d'accord et comprendre les lois et les règles.
Règle
nom
un principe ou une réglementation régissant la conduite, l'action, la procédure, les arrangements, etc.
: les règles des échecs.

Loi
nom
les principes et les réglementations établis dans une communauté par une autorité et applicables à sa population,

"Je pense qu'il y a aussi des exceptions aux lois."
Les exceptions aux lois ne sont-elles pas illégales? Les lois ne sont-elles pas censées être exactes? Les deux sont des principes mais la loi est habilitée à les appliquer. J'ai toujours pensé que les règles étaient davantage un principe ou une conduite. Peut-être que je me trompe.

[/CITATION]
Je pense que la sémantique est la cause fondamentale des désaccords. Les définitions des mots sont basées à mon avis sur nos propres émotions. Et nos émotions varient selon les individus. Cependant, je vais essayer de définir le concept de loi. Je dis souvent à mon fils que les lois sont faites pour être périmées. Parce que j'ai le sentiment que si une loi existe, c'est pour encadrer une liberté. Comme si une loi existait, supposons qu’un monde sans lois existe. Hors, si nous ne connaissons pas toutes les lois, alors comment connaître toutes les "non-lois"? Ou sont des lois non-lois que nous n'avons pas découvertes? Ma conclusion semble reposer de toutes ces interrogations sur le fait que les règles sont des lois inférieures et les lois des sous-vérités. Il semble n'y avoir qu'une seule vérité en 7 D. Tous les autres sont des fragmentations de cette conscience. Par conséquent, reconnaître des règles, même imparfaites, revient déjà à une forme de "law" Accepter une loi, c'est accéder à une conscience supérieure. Mais se libérer des lois, c'est accéder à la vérité. Je ne pense pas que Dieu soit régi par une loi, car cela signifierait qu'il existe un cadre externe et donc inconnu. Pour conclure, la loi n'est pas la vérité, mais une voie d'accession. Pour ce qui est de la définition de la conviction (To believe) , je ne le risquerais pas, la voie est beaucoup plus dangereuse, du moins en français.
 
Laura said:
It is certainly different. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that you live in a very different reality that most members of this forum. You completely missed the crux of Oxajil's comment, the meaning of it, and just blithely went on yakking. I suspect you would have better conversational experiences if you talked to a mirror. I'm sure the rest of us would too.
Click to expand...
Hello Laura

We have been exchanging information since before February 2007; thank you for your patience.
I know that my delivery of information can strike a raw nerve to many; as we have previously discussed.
I am constantly reminded of this and continually try to correct my deficiency.

There are not many things in this world I trust.
But you, and the community you have created, is what I trust the most.

I will try harder to be less abrasive in all my contacts.

Leon
 
ShamanSam said:
Did you ever ask your self? What is the difference between a placebo and a belief?
Click to expand...

There is no difference, which is proof that belief, when strong enough and not at odds with objective reality and perhaps the universal law of free will, is the core function of shaping reality. With your declaration of being an all round "non believer" you wish to dispense with any ability you might have to shape reality.

It is also the case that when you know, you also believe. The problem is that many people hold beliefs that are only partially objectively true or simply wrong, although it is only when they try to act on these beliefs that they encounter difficulties. Otherwise, people are well able to believe all sorts of nonsense (which amounts to simply saying they believe it) without any problems occurring in their lives. This is true of your claim that you are a "non believer in everything", which are merely words that in no way reflect how you actually live your life, in fact, it's a fundamental lie in that regard, and while you may be fooling yourself, you're obviously not fooling anyone here.
 
Last edited:
This Cruise is gonna last forever .... :boat:

All aboard the Flat Earth cruise – just don’t tell them about nautical navigation

Flat earthers, who believe the Earth is a large disk, may be shocked to find the ship’s navigation is based on a spherical planet
A group of people who believe the Earth is flat have announced their “biggest, boldest, best adventure yet”: a Flat Earth cruise scheduled for 2020.

The cruise, organized by the Flat Earth International Conference, promises to be a lovely time. Flat earthers – who include the rapper B.o.B. and reality television person Tila Tequila – will be able to enjoy restaurants, swimming pools and perhaps even an artificial surf wave.

There’s just one problem for those seeking to celebrate the flatness of the Earth. The navigational systems cruise ships, and other vessels, use rely on the fact that the Earth is not flat: theoretically puncturing the beliefs of the flat Earth crowd.

“Ships navigate based on the principle that the Earth is round,” said Henk Keijer, a former cruise ship captain who sailed all over the globe during a 23-year career.

“Nautical charts are designed with that in mind: that the Earth is round.”

Keijer, who now works as a forensic marine expert for Robson Forensic, said the existence of GPS, the global positioning system, alone is proof that the Earth is a sphere, not a flat disc. GPS relies on 24 main satellites which orbit the Earth to provide positional and navigational information.

“The reason why 24 satellites were used is because on the curvature of the Earth,” Keijer said.

“A minimum of three satellites are required to determine a position. But someone located on the other side of the Earth would also like to know their position, so they also require a certain number of satellites.

“Had the Earth been flat, a total of three satellites would have been enough to provide this information to everyone on Earth. But it is not enough, because the Earth is round.”

While there are different theories within the Flat Earth community, the core belief is the Earth is flat. The FEIC claims that after “extensive experimentation, analysis, and research”, its adherents came to believe the Earth is not a sphere.

A common model offered for the exact topography of the Earth is that it is a large disk, surrounded by “an ice wall barrier” – Antarctica.

The Flat Earth Society, which is not connected to the FEIC, has suggested that “the space agencies of the world” have conspired to fake “space travel and exploration”.

“This likely began during the cold war,” the Flat Earth Society says. “The USSR and USA were obsessed with beating each other into space to the point that each faked their accomplishments in an attempt to keep pace with the other’s supposed achievements.”

The FEIC did not respond to requests for more information on the Flat Earth cruise. The organization could potentially try to staff the cruise ship with a crew which does not think the Earth is round, but Keijer said that would be difficult.

“I have sailed 2 million miles, give or take,” Keijer said.

“I have not encountered one sea captain who believes the Earth is flat.”
Click to expand...
 
I was wondering why some people believing Earth is Flat.
But, now I found out from C’s transcript that those people have a different perception than us.


Laura said:
Session Date: August 29th 2015

Q: (L) Okay. What other problems to we have to deal with? Oh... Well, let's just get on to the main one here. Hey! Is the Earth flat?

A: I can't believe you would even ask!!!

Q: (L) You didn't answer the question! [laughter] Well, of course you know the reason I'm asking. I know you're trying to be a little humorous here, but the reason I'm asking is because this is just like... I mean, there is this CRAZY group of people who are claiming this Dark City kind of reality is what really exists in our world. They've take conspiracy theory to the ultimate extreme. They're preaching the Gospel of the Flat Earth.

A: Disintegration and ultimate soul smashing takes many forms and pathways!!!!

Q: (Perceval) What was very familiar to me about the whole Flat Earth thing after watching a video and looked at the theory and stuff was that the way people were presenting it was very similar to the Boston Bombing Actors thing. People take conspiracy theories to extreme subjective levels. When we asked them about the Boston Bombing Actors thing, they mentioned disintegration. I think they said, "Pattern recognition run amok."

(L) Yeah.

(Perceval) It's pretty much the same thing, ya know?

(Pierre) I had a question about the genesis of this Flat Earth movement was due to one guy pretty much. It has some stigmas of a deliberate, coordinated psyop. So, does this Flat Earth theory come from one mind, or is it a deliberate concerted enterprise?

A: Recall your intuition, Pierre!

Q: (Pierre) My intuition that it had all the stigmas, all the marks, of a deliberate and coordinated...

A: No! 2nd density perception.

Q: (Perceval) They were not talking about your intuition that it was a psyop, but your intuition about 2nd density perception.

(Pierre) Ah, okay.

(Perceval) Laura, you were talking about it being like a 2d...

(L) It was Pierre's idea. I just brought it up on the forum.

(Pierre) So, the intuition was that there is some analogy between density and dimensions. In 2nd density, things like horses and dogs can only see in 2 dimensions. In 3rd density, we human beings can perceive 3 dimensions. Organic portals recently graduated into 3rd density from 2nd density are only used to these 2d worlds, and they have difficulties to perceive or live with 3 dimensions. So the Flat Earth idea appeals to them.

(Perceval) Maybe it's not so much that they have "problems with 3d", but that there's a harking back to 2d.

(L) Well, that would mean they would have problems with this reality.

(Perceval) Yeah, but not in a strict sense like in terms of being able to navigate in 3 dimensions like a dog can. They have no problem walking around doors or whatever.

(Chu) But in a deeper, more abstract way...

(Perceval) Yeah. Maybe they're thinking would tend towards 2d.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom