WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

[The Fish 10855]

Just now, wolfy said:

If you feel the need to do it, go ahead.

 

You reject all evidence and proof (that you haven't seen for yourself) of the earth as a globe, but you don't apply that scrutiny to your own theory. This is hypocritical.

 

 

 

[Meenzer 15518]

You'd understand if you weren't too busy playing with your ZX Spectrums and your Etch-a-Sketches.

[wolfy 12]

14 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

You reject all evidence and proof (that you haven't seen for yourself) of the earth as a globe, but you don't apply that scrutiny to your own theory. This is hypocritical.

 

 

 

Like I said: there is no proof of a globe, so I'm not rejecting any evidence of any proof. I'm rejecting so called evidence of supposed proof handed to us on a plate for the masses to gobble up and regurgitate as a truth that is handed down from the fiction shelf.

 

As for my musings. I've never portrayed them out as a truth.

I mention that I have my own theories as to what Earth is, which gets misconstrued as me actually knowing what it is in any entirety.

This is because I say that I know what it isn't by use of clear natural science that is testable and repeatable.

The simplicity above everything is there for all to see, in water level.

 

But: like I said time and time again; If you or anyone would rather accept oceans adhering to a spinning globe and atmosphere moving in exact unison with a solid as well as a liquid and accepting magic for answers, then you are 100% entitled to do so, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I merely ask people to have a real think about it all.

It doesn't affect me in any way if people decide to just follow the accepted norm.

Edited May 26, 2017 by wolfy

[Rayvin 5217]

6 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Like I said: there is no proof of a globe, so I'm not rejecting any evidence of any proof. I'm rejecting so called evidence of supposed proof handed to us on a plate for the masses to gobble up and regurgitate as a truth that is handed down from the fiction shelf.

 

As for my musings. I've never portrayed them out as a truth.

I mention that I have my own theories as to what Earth is, which gets misconstrued as me actually knowing what it is in any entirety.

This is because I say that I know what it isn't by use of clear natural science that is testable and repeatable.

The simplicity above everything is there for all to see, in water level.

 

But: like I said time and time again; If you or anyone would rather accept oceans adhering to a spinning globe and atmosphere moving in exact unison with a solid as well as a liquid and accepting magic for answers, then you are 100% entitled to do so, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I merely ask people to have a real think about it all.

It doesn't affect me in any way if people decide to just follow the accepted norm.

 

Let's take us out of this. So our evidence and theories are utter nonsense, not worth talking about.

 

Why have you concluded that your theory is correct? On what basis? I don't need to know the theory itself, you've already explained that, but what is allowing you to believe your theory. Do you have evidence? Does it just make logical sense to you? What is it?

 

The problem we're having is why you think your theories hold any more weight than literally any other theory. I think from what you're saying, you believe that there is literally no way of knowing the answer - so therefore, your theory is as good as any. Would that be right?

[The Fish 10855]

Just now, wolfy said:

Like I said: there is no proof of a globe, so I'm not rejecting any evidence of any proof. I'm rejecting so called evidence of supposed proof handed to us on a plate for the masses to gobble up and regurgitate as a truth that if handed down from the fiction shelf.

 

As for my musings. I've never portrayed them out as a truth.

I mention that I have my own theories as to what Earth is, which gets misconstrued as me actually know what it is in any entirety.

This is because I say that I know what it isn't by use of clear natural science that is testable and repeatable.

The simplicity above everything is there for all to see in water level.

 

But: like I said time and time again; If you or anyone would rather accept oceans adhering to a spinning globe and atmosphere moving in exact unison with a solid as well as a liquid and accepting magic for answers, then you are 100% entitled to do so, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I merely ask people to have a real think about it all.

It doesn't affect me in any way if people decide to just follow the accepted norm.

 

That's a terrifically long winded way of missing the point.

 

You state, categorically the earth isn't a globe, there aren't satellites, the earth is only a few thousand years old, without a single, scrap of evidence beyond "Water is flat, innit". Then claim the reality is a far more fantastic state, with domes and ice walls and cellular realities and so on, without a scrap of evidence.

 

So, what we have is reams of evidence and testimony and replicable experiments on one side and, literally, nothing on the other.

 

You drown the nuggets of your theory in long posts that proffer analogies and make arrogant claims about your open mindedness while implying that whoever agrees with the official line is closed minded by comparison. But essentially, when you boil off that detritus you're left with one man arrogantly making baseless claims. 

 

We've all tried to reason with you, some with more patience than others, but you are impervious to common sense.

[Monkeys Fist 42386]

What's the difference beteeen "natural" science and science? 

[wolfy 12]

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Quote

Let's take us out of this. So our evidence and theories are utter nonsense, not worth talking about.

Your evidence and theories may well be worth talking about. Do you have any as regards Earth?

 

Quote

Quote

Why have you concluded that your theory is correct?

I haven't. 

Quote

 

 

Quote

I don't need to know the theory itself, you've already explained that, but what is allowing you to believe your theory. Do you have evidence? Does it just make logical sense to you? What is it?

It makes much more logical sense, to me, than the nonsense given out by mainstream scientists.

Quote

Quote

The problem we're having is why you think your theories hold any more weight than literally any other theory.

It only holds more weight, to me, because it's my thought process. That doesn't mean it's the best theory out tehre. It's just a much better one than the schooled one that we were all brainwashed with.

If you have a problem with that then dismiss it out of hand and stick to your trusted, off the peg version.

Quote

 

I think from what you're saying, you believe that there is literally no way of knowing the answer - so therefore, your theory is as good as any. Would that be right?

Basically it's better than some and definitely as good as any, I would say, with confidence.

Edited May 26, 2017 by wolfy

[Monkeys Fist 42386]

Bloke can't even use the quote feature properly and expects us to believe the earth is a fucking ice-egg or whatever. 

[The Fish 10855]

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3887]

@wolfy do you have a job?

[wolfy 12]

15 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Quote

You state, categorically the earth isn't a globe, there aren't satellites,

Absolutely, 100%.

15 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

Quote

the earth is only a few thousand years old,

I don't know how old it is and never gave an age for it.

15 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Quote

without a single, scrap of evidence beyond "Water is flat, innit".

here's plenty of evidence against the globe but most of it is circumstantial and requires each individual to actual see past the global nonsense. Some can and so can't, or won't. That's part and parcel of life in any shape or form, with people.

15 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Quote

Then claim the reality is a far more fantastic state, with domes and ice walls and cellular realities and so on, without a scrap of evidence.

Again, it's how people look into this stuff. It's not something that the average person can just jump into and give a direct answer to, one way or the other. It requires in depth thought but uncomplicated in depth thought, in the main. It just requires basic logic to see past the nonsense and then be able to see a bit more clear.

I accept that most of you lot will mock it and I'm fine with that.

Many that are looking in, who are reading it might try and think carefully on it.

The end result is entirely up to each person to arrive at, regardless.

15 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Quote

So, what we have is reams of evidence and testimony and replicable experiments on one side and, literally, nothing on the other.

Not quite.

What you follow is your perceivement, by being part of mass indoctrination of so called science, the mindset to go along with there being lots of real evidence and guaranteed proof's.

The reality is, there are none of what you speak of.

15 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Quote

You drown the nuggets of your theory in long posts that proffer analogies and make arrogant claims about your open mindedness while implying that whoever agrees with the official line is closed minded by comparison. But essentially, when you boil off that detritus you're left with one man arrogantly making baseless claims. 

I can imagine how it comes across to others. I may be arrogant but definitely no more arrogant than those who come at me with what they believe.

Being handed your supposed truth's on a plate and copying those supposed truth's to regurgitate at will, does not make them a truth. It makes them a perceived truth among the likeminded masses.

15 minutes ago, The Fish said:

We've all tried to reason with you, some with more patience than others, but you are impervious to common sense.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything with me.

 

[wolfy 12]

29 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

What's the difference beteeen "natural" science and science? 

Nothing.

[wolfy 12]

26 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

Bloke can't even use the quote feature properly and expects us to believe the earth is a fucking ice-egg or whatever. 

I don't expect anything from you or anyone. Please yourself what you go with.

[Rayvin 5217]

Right so, what this means is that Wolfy (and he can correct me if I'm wrong here) thinks the whole situation is entirely unknown or unknowable, and that we're dealing with theories only. Anyone can postulate one, to the best of their ability, but there's no way of proving any of it. As such, he may as well stick to his guns on a thought process that makes sense to him.

 

The real issue, is why he has chosen to reject the generally accepted evidence of the issue. Presumably stems from a deep mistrust of society in general? Could also be a yearning for the world to be a little more interesting than it is? Wolfy would, I expect, argue that the reality is he simply sat down, thought about it, and it hit him. There is no spoon.

 

It's interesting, but I don't think it's a point that can be debated because Wolfy rejects all evidence out of hand, and feels that the battle can only be won on a theoretical basis.

[Monkeys Fist 42386]

4 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Nothing.

But you keep referring to natural science, whilst dismissing scientific evidence,theory and practice out of hand. 

That tells me that, to you, there is a difference, but you aren't prepared to explain the difference. 

Why is that? 

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3887]

23 minutes ago, wolfy said:

I don't expect anything from you or anyone. Please yourself what you go with.

 

@wolfyWhat happens to the moon when we can't see it, what is it and how does it move?

Edited May 26, 2017 by Kevin Carr's Gloves

[wolfy 12]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

Right so, what this means is that Wolfy (and he can correct me if I'm wrong here) thinks the whole situation is entirely unknown or unknowable, and that we're dealing with theories only. Anyone can postulate one, to the best of their ability, but there's no way of proving any of it. As such, he may as well stick to his guns on a thought process that makes sense to him.

 

The real issue, is why he has chosen to reject the generally accepted evidence of the issue. Presumably stems from a deep mistrust of society in general? Could also be a yearning for the world to be a little more interesting than it is? Wolfy would, I expect, argue that the reality is he simply sat down, thought about it, and it hit him. There is no spoon.

 

It's interesting, but I don't think it's a point that can be debated because Wolfy rejects all evidence out of hand, and feels that the battle can only be won on a theoretical basis.

There is no battle.

There are no winners.

One of the biggest talking point, ever is religion and politics.

Religion is made up of many belief's relating to some kind of super entity, or whatever. Try telling one religion to walk into another religion's church and shout them down.

The issue is, many people who are religious are basically classed as pillars of society in their specific communities.

Politicians are basically lauded by the mere average Joe's.

People go to both to ask for wrongs to be righted. One by faith and the other by hope and sometimes expectation.

 

There are also agnostic people or atheists.

WHo is right and who is wrong?

Who tells lies and who makes you reliant on faith?

We were all brought up (or most) by schooling of some religion regardless of parents having (maybe) a different mindset.

 

Go into a religious school and tell them you are atheist and see what happens.

Go and argue one religion against the other.

They are all backed to the hilt with evidence and real proof's, with many people having the visions and what not.

Does this make all religions real or just the one's that hold the larger masses?

 

What about small religions. Aren't they cults run by nutters or something, as we are told?

 

Does anyone know which one is real and have evidence?

 

How about Earth being a globe against some basics I've mentioned about it not being a globe?

How about my thoughts on my Earth?

How about flat or toroidal or dual Earth theory...and so on. Which one is right or are they all right?

Ar ethey all wrong or is the globe correct by mass opinion?

 

I don't have all the answers but then again, who does?

All we go on is what those who govern us dictate to us in whatever part of land we dwell on.

 

[wolfy 12]

13 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

But you keep referring to natural science, whilst dismissing scientific evidence,theory and practice out of hand. 

That tells me that, to you, there is a difference, but you aren't prepared to explain the difference. 

Why is that? 

Because I'm not arguing against science.

Science is Earth itself and all that is in it. It's there to be explored by any and all means over how ever long, by ALL creatures, not just humans.

Science is natural science.

 

Mainstream science can be natural in many ways but then become know as pseudo science, or supposed science that does not show a reality of nature.

Like nonsense space or spinning globes, etc. The list is almost endless with the good the bad and the ugly of it all.

[Meenzer 15518]

5 minutes ago, wolfy said:

There is no battle.

There are no winners.

One of the biggest talking point, ever is religion and politics.

Religion is made up of many belief's relating to some kind of super entity, or whatever. Try telling one religion to walk into another religion's church and shout them down.

The issue is, many people who are religious are basically classed as pillars of society in their specific communities.

Politicians are basically lauded by the mere average Joe's.

People go to both to ask for wrongs to be righted. One by faith and the other by hope and sometimes expectation.

 

There are also agnostic people or atheists.

WHo is right and who is wrong?

Who tells lies and who makes you reliant on faith?

We were all brought up (or most) by schooling of some religion regardless of parents having (maybe) a different mindset.

 

Go into a religious school and tell them you are atheist and see what happens.

Go and argue one religion against the other.

They are all backed to the hilt with evidence and real proof's, with many people having the visions and what not.

Does this make all religions real or just the one's that hold the larger masses?

 

What about small religions. Aren't they cults run by nutters or something, as we are told?

 

Does anyone know which one is real and have evidence?

 

How about Earth being a globe against some basics I've mentioned about it not being a globe?

How about my thoughts on my Earth?

How about flat or toroidal or dual Earth theory...and so on. Which one is right or are they all right?

Ar ethey all wrong or is the globe correct by mass opinion?

 

I don't have all the answers but then again, who does?

All we go on is what those who govern us dictate to us in whatever part of land we dwell on.

 

 

So what you're saying is you're a bit of a cult.

[wolfy 12]

For those that are interested in whether Earth is a globe, Brian Cox does a good job of destroying the globe model with his jet shenanigans.

From 4:30 in this video you will hear Brian Cox mention about the Earth's supposed rotation.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4k8e89?GK_FACEBOOK_OG_HTML5=1

At 5:00 we hear the pilot mention about them trying to beat the Earth's rotation.

This is the same rotation that I get told time and time again off people who mention that the Earth carries everything with it.

 

At around 7:40 we get told that the sun is starting to set. 

 7:58 Cox tells us that they are turning towards the setting sun and accelerating.

 

Around 8:15 Cox  tells us that a rock is spinning below him at 650 mph.

Keep watching from this point and cox mentions catching up with the Earth's spin, then the pilot tells us that by keeping this speed they are effectively stopping the sun from setting.

 

Can anyone see how this contradicts what we get told?

At around 8:55 Cox tells us that if they travel faster than the Earth's  rotation then the passage of the day is reversed.

Basically he's telling us that the sun is now rising due to them beating that rotation and moving over the Earth to see more sun.

 

What's really happening is far different than the clear nonsense that's being spouted here.

The light of the Earth sun is moving away from the jet on the ground.

Basically it appears to be setting as people are told.

 

The further the light moves away, the more the eyes lose the bottom of it as the atmosphere becomes too thick over distance from below the eye and a little less above the eye which is why we see the illusion of a setting sun.

 

Going up in the jet would start to bring that sun back a little more as height is gained, because you regain your light due to seeing over the thicker atmosphere at sea level.

 

The key issue is when they supposedly hit 650 mph going against the supposed rotation of Earth and managing to stop that Earth motion carrying them backwards and down and away from the sun as they drop down the curve.

 

To make this plainer. It's like they're telling us that a person is stuck on a huge ball looking at the sun and someone pushes the ball so that the person starts to lean away from the sun until it eventually disappears from view but then deciding to run against that rotation to keep up with the ball falling so he can see the sun appear to just stay put, given the fact we are told that the sun is sat in the middle as Earth spins around it.

 

Just for those who are interested in finding out what's what in this world we live in.

[wolfy 12]

How many people get told that you can watch a sun set twice by standing on the ground and wtahcing the sun go down, then getting into the lift of a tower and viewing the sun setting again?

 

Think about this.

Imagine having a telescope absolutely level at sea level and also another telescope at the top of your tower that is perfectly level and aimed at where the sun will be setting.

Ok, now imagine looking through your scope and seeing the sun disappear from your view.

You now rush to the top of the tower and look through your higher levelled scoped and you see the sun setting again.

 

Proof of a globe or proof that a globe cannot exist?

Remember that your scopes are level.

Your top scope would be moving away from the sun just as your bottom scope would be if there was a globe, because the globe is rotating away from it as we are told. It means that your scope has to be rising higher than the sun as you move away.

So running up a tower to get a second view of the supposed sun would only render you leaned back quite a bit more with your scope well above the sun.

 

The mere fact that we can actually see two sun sets as we are told is because the height allows us to see further through the atmosphere.

This would be impossible on a globe. Absolutely impossible.

 

 

[strawb 4247]

25 minutes ago, wolfy said:

For those that are interested in whether Earth is a globe, Brian Cox does a good job of destroying the globe model with his jet shenanigans.

From 4:30 in this video you will hear Brian Cox mention about the Earth's supposed rotation.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4k8e89?GK_FACEBOOK_OG_HTML5=1

At 5:00 we hear the pilot mention about them trying to beat the Earth's rotation.

This is the same rotation that I get told time and time again off people who mention that the Earth carries everything with it.

 

At around 7:40 we get told that the sun is starting to set. 

 7:58 Cox tells us that they are turning towards the setting sun and accelerating.

 

Around 8:15 Cox  tells us that a rock is spinning below him at 650 mph.

Keep watching from this point and cox mentions catching up with the Earth's spin, then the pilot tells us that by keeping this speed they are effectively stopping the sun from setting.

 

Can anyone see how this contradicts what we get told?

At around 8:55 Cox tells us that if they travel faster than the Earth's  rotation then the passage of the day is reversed.

Basically he's telling us that the sun is now rising due to them beating that rotation and moving over the Earth to see more sun.

 

What's really happening is far different than the clear nonsense that's being spouted here.

The light of the Earth sun is moving away from the jet on the ground.

Basically it appears to be setting as people are told.

 

The further the light moves away, the more the eyes lose the bottom of it as the atmosphere becomes too thick over distance from below the eye and a little less above the eye which is why we see the illusion of a setting sun.

 

Going up in the jet would start to bring that sun back a little more as height is gained, because you regain your light due to seeing over the thicker atmosphere at sea level.

 

The key issue is when they supposedly hit 650 mph going against the supposed rotation of Earth and managing to stop that Earth motion carrying them backwards and down and away from the sun as they drop down the curve.

 

To make this plainer. It's like they're telling us that a person is stuck on a huge ball looking at the sun and someone pushes the ball so that the person starts to lean away from the sun until it eventually disappears from view but then deciding to run against that rotation to keep up with the ball falling so he can see the sun appear to just stay put, given the fact we are told that the sun is sat in the middle as Earth spins around it.

 

Just for those who are interested in finding out what's what in this world we live in.

 

I think I've got it lads.

 

Wolfy, do you know planes can go forwards as well as upwards? 

 

This is clearly a rhetorical because I couldn't give a fuck what your answer is

[Meenzer 15518]

Just now, strawb said:

This is clearly a rhetorical because I couldn't give a fuck what your answer is

 

tl;dgaf

[Monkeys Fist 42386]

Thats a double negative from me. 

[Monkeys Fist 42386]

Oops! 

I seem to have deleted Rentons post by mistake, and can I fuck find the option to reinstate it. 

Aaaannt! Help!