THE DERAILING ROOM

[ProperGander]

Thanks again for the advise and I'm sorry for any inconvenience.

[hoi.polloi]

No problem. I have some advice, actually, rather than advise.

What browser are you running, and on what system? I can tell you how to install spell check.

Or, just grab a copy of Micro$oft Word or OpenOffice Writer and use its spell check and grammar check when you write posts, then copy and paste, check for formating issues (such as too many returns or not enough returns) and then hit 'preview' before you hit submit.

It does slow one's pace down to be so careful about writing, but it ultimately makes our forum a much more archival place for information.

[fbenario]

It does slow one's pace down to be so careful about writing, but it ultimately makes our forum a much more archival place for information.

Plus, a post with standard formatting and grammar is easier to read - and thus actually will be read, and taken seriously, by more people!

[bostonterrierowner]

so either present an extremely well researched rebuttal — no more monkeying around — in the "Our Universe That Isn't" thread — in the form of at least one point you have intelligently constructed yourself, or give your foot-stomping and phantom-defending a rest, please.

Well said. I will allow myself to add proverbial 2 cents.

I have recently finished "Earth not a globe" by Dr. Samuel Rowbotham aka Parallax written in 1865 (?). I have never been technicaly/numerically/scientifically you name it, inclined hence I stay away from related discussions.

I am not defending or pushing anything just recommending this title. To me as a layman it seemed legit and convincing.

It's one giant rebuttal of heliocentric, spherical model full of arguments, descriptions of experiments and examples of flat earth supporting phenomena.

I hope I am not derailing.

Restlessly awaiting other members' opinions!

link: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ ... rary-books

[Observer]

Seeing a post by BTO (a serious well-respected CluesForum member) makes me feel bad about my rudeness towards all Flat-Earthers.
I'm sorry for what I wrote. I was directing my anger at those whom I think are purposely trying to sully CluesForum with a wrong model.
I think we are starting to agree that the current mainstream consensus of Convex Earth is wrong, we just disagree about what is right.

After reading the evidence presented by WildHeretic above, I feel the Concave Earth model is far more logical than the Flat Earth model.
But it's rude of me to ridicule the Flat Earth model. I should just write: "Sydney to Chile in 13 hours disproves the Flat Earth model, IMO."

What I am trying to say is, the main evidence against the Concave Earth model is basically, "But, images from NASA, and authorities!"
The evidence for the Concave model, like the horizon line staying the same, seems to disprove the Convex model and the Flat model.

"But, but, if we are living within a ball, like in this video, then... some beings must have MADE this contraption we are living in! Nooo!"
Well, that is the ultimate conclusion which even those who admit total-image-fakery don't want to admit: total-environment-makery.

But since that is hard to admit, and since even the Concave model seems hard to admit, let's simply agree the Convex model is flawed.
If the Convex model were true, NASA could film real footage of outer-space. NASA's outer-space fakery disproves the Convex model. Right? :-)

Again, my apologies for speaking so rudely about the Flat Earth model. I just hate the fact that the Flat model sullies the Concave model.
I understand that Simon probably equally hates the fact that BOTH of these "crazy" models sully the well-proven 9-11 hoax evidence.

I wonder, Simon, if you WERE to read through those 18 pages of evidence WildHeretic presented, if you yourself eventually WERE to decide the Earth is Concave, WOULD you admit it here publicly (even though that ultimate admittance would, through association, turn many less courageous thinkers away from the other hoaxes you have discovered?) It's a tough decision you'll have to make someday, but I guess first you need time to read those 18 pages of Concave Earth evidence. I hope you eventually courageously say, "Flat: NO! Convex: NO! Concave: Yes!" Then the next question would become, about this ultimate hoax, how to escape this Concave contraption?

“Hitler and his mystical compatriots had a curiously inverted view of the universe. To their way of thinking, the universe consists of infinite rock which is broken by numerous hollow areas. In other words, the universe is like an infinite piece of swiss cheese—solid with many holes in it. The concave surfaces of the hollow areas are the surfaces of ‘planets’, including Earth. Humans are therefore not living on the outer surface of a round ball: they are being pushed by gravity against the inner surface of a hollow area. According to the Nazis, the sun hangs suspended in the middle of the hollow area, the sky is made of blue gas, and the stars are tiny objects (perhaps ice crystals) which hang suspended in a similar fashion to the sun. In this infinite ‘swiss cheese’ universe of stone there are many fissures and cracks that allow travel between the hollow areas. In an adjoining hollow area, according to Naziism, lives the race of Aryan ‘supermen.’ Hitler’s underground “supermen” were therefore true extraterrestrials, but in a curiously inverted fashion. Lest it be assumed that the Nazi swiss cheese model of the universe was one of Hitler’s “Big Lies,” there is evidence that the Nazi leadership took the idea quite seriously. For example, an attempt was made to locate the British fleet during World War II with infrared rays pointing toward the sky. The Nazis believed that the rays would hit the opposite side of the concave Earth.” – from the book Gods of Eden, page 389

After realizing we are living inside a ball prison, in which space is not an escape option, and the the only possible way to enter a new world is to go through an exit hole existing at Antarctica, what is the NEXT LOGICAL ACTION?

I propose the next logical action is to storm the gates.

Meaning, without requesting permission, take a totally unauthorized boat/plane/helicopter/submarine stealthy speedy trip, perhaps starting from from Argentina, perhaps starting from elsewhere, acting at first as if heading towards some close-but-different-location, and then SUDDENLY verge towards Antarctica before the surprised military personnel can realize and act upon the realization, and before the highest ranking officer in Antarctica is able to receive the orders from the chain-of-command to kill these folks attempting to escape.

(Yes, of course, a plan must already be in place to defend the exit hole with deadly force, and practice rehearsals have no doubt been made, but nobody besides Hitler has ever had the rare combination of will, courage, and desire-to-escape-this-prison and desire-to-meet-the-aliens-outside-this-prison, enough to actually go to that continent in an effort to leave. So the current highest ranking officer in Antarctica will probably be so shocked and surprised that a group of guerrillas have actually arrived now in the present day that he most likely will waste time going through the procedure of getting extra confirmation from above to actually send his troops to kill this escape team – because who knows, we could be beaming a live stream to the world for all he knows, so just to cover his ass the coward might waste time making phone calls, and thus folks above him might also waste time making phone calls to their higher ups, each decider being too scared to actually be the person to officially authorize the commencement of shooting this group of 10 people who might very well be armed with live video streaming capabilities by bouncing radio signals off the ionosphere to the rest of the world in a realtime live broadcast, so the soldiers' hesitation could make it possible that we might make it to an exit hole BEFORE anybody is actually able to massacre us.)

This to me seems like the next logical action…

(instead of merely pontificating in our armchairs until we die of natural causes) because hey, why die wondering, let’s go and find out once and for all whether we can escape down a hole before getting shot.

Seriously, if we really think we are living within a ball, and that the exit hole is in Antarctica, why are we not making any attempt to go do the ULTIMATE test?

Do you think that 10 folks will get wiped out too easily, and thus our goal is to get a much BIGGER group of humanity interested in storming the gates?

Let’s say you manage to convince a million folks to go with you, totally revolution style, knowing full well that many will get killed but SOME will make it into the hole alive, then in THAT case would you feel brave enough to go take the action you know you need to take?

Just a question I’m seriously hoping might spark a real conversation about real physical follow through of what we have discovered.

If the above sounds too crazy, then please let me know, what do each of YOU think is the next logical action, for us humans alive today who have realized the ultimate truth of Earth?

(Yep, I am always pushing for action. Not just philosophizing. Action. Revolutionary action. Which is what makes me dangerous to the elite parasites trying to keep us in our cages of fearful complacent non-action. Come try to kill me, richest 100. Send your thugs. I'm ready to finally see some action. If you don't come for me soon, I'm going to come for you. And I will bring a group of humans with me. Humans ready to act. The talkers will remain here pontificating on these internet forums you watch. The action takers will storm the gates.)

Is this all just some nihilistic goalless mental-masturbation mere discussion, in which we talk and talk and talk about mentally finding the truth but don’t actually have any interest in PHYSICALLY walking through the exit and seeing what is waiting outside this ball?

Concave Earthers: Talking the talk, but not interested in walking the walk. Since AD 110. Haha.

Well, fine, if you are scared to go through the exit door, then at least please share what you each think is beyond the exit door.

Do you agree with the theory accepted by Hitler, which is that surrounding this ball is infinite rock?

In that case, it is the mass of the infinite rock totally surrounding this ball which causes everything inside our ball to be pulled towards the outside.

If you think this ball is NOT surrounded by rock, then what do you personally imagine is on the outside?



And either way, whether you think our ball is encased in rock (with tunnels leading to other balls), or whether you think our ball is NOT encased in rock (simply sitting there, surrounded by air, like in the Vatican sculpture), either way, DO YOU THINK THAT LEAVING THIS BALL WOULD LEAD TO MEETING OTHER BEINGS?

Is this the real reason everyone seems too afraid to go through the exit, a fear of meeting beings on the other side? Why so scared?



Well, for now, I guess I should post some more evidence of the Concave Earth. Here is a great video with more Concave evidence:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jcisprz6k3337 ... idence.mp4

And here is a good illustration showing what we really see when we think we are seeing the "Horizon Line":

[HonestlyNow]

. . . Simon . . . I hope you eventually courageously say, "Flat: NO! Convex: NO! Concave: Yes!"

Observer, why is it so important to you that Simon, specifically, says "Concave: Yes"?

While the media is used by default to spread our ideas of how we think our planet is shaped and how we're situated on the planet, the layperson, without scientific measuring instruments, cannot exactly determine the veracity of many arguments for or against the concave model. Is there an experiment or two an individual can do for himself to prove this one way or another?

I think this is not suitable as a media fakery topic. Media fakery is proven by what we can each know from our life experience about how physical reality works, how computers and other media work, how stories and images effect our psychology, and noting any inconsistencies between our knowledge and what is portrayed by the media.

Pushing a particular hypothesis about how our planet is one way or another is not fakery, per se.

[anonjedi2]

"Beings from the other side" ??



sullied, indeed.

[hoi.polloi]

Observer, we don't have time for your aliens and Gods. I'm sorry.

Unless you can reformat your post to be more plain scientific evidence (and less speculations and "guessing" the readers' assumptions) this will have to go to the derailing room for now. It isn't that careful assumptions and logical speculations are unwelcome. It just seems you have run away with those and they dominate your thread. Also, I disagree with the presumption that we are trapped in an artificial cage. If that's your first response to learning the beauty of a new Earth shape possibility, whatever shape it is, I worry about you.

WildHeretic has great points, but we do not address his more extreme divergences from the position of "we don't know."

This isn't slander of his site. I myself participate in his comment section and immensely enjoy the unearned privilege of doing so. But that doesn't mean our site should endorse his speculations. We focus primarily on evidences, and unfortunately his site uses up a lot of space to explain a few simple principles, at which point there isn't a lot it could add to our discussion here. I agree "concave" with "bendy light" has a certain intrigue going for it, but the truth is that those curious about that model (or any model) must propose and conduct experiments to give credence to it.

I also agree with HonestlyNow. We have no need to insist on a particular model. Disproving NASA with its own contradictions, and spreading the word about that, is quite a large enough accomplishment already for the purposes of this forum.

[Observer]

On one hand, after examining the Concave Earth evidence, after admitting to oneself there is more evidence of that than convex,
the first logical question is "What force, or more honestly who, BUILT this fake sun and fake moon moving WITHIN this 12,000km ball?",
and the second logical question after that is, "Well, how do I exit this 12,000km ball contraption, where are the exit holes leading out?",
and the third logical question after that is, "What is waiting on the immediate outside of this ball: mere rock, mere air, or the makers of the ball?"

On the other hand, cautious thinkers would prefer to mull over the Concave Earth reality for a few years, before moving to these three logical questions.

In my quickly computing mind, after I read the 18 pages of evidence, after INSTANTLY admitting the negative reality that we are living within a tiny 12,742km diameter contraption, those three questions INSTANTLY occurred together with a positive boost of hope and excitement about a life changing experience:

These three "Concave-Earth post-admittance subsequent-questions" are quite POSITIVE and LIBERATING ideas, since the Concave Earth means there is a whole new physical unexplored frontier OUTSIDE the ball which I might physically walk out to and see with my own eyes in this lifetime!

But Yes Hoi, you're right, these three "post-admittance questions" seem way too "far-out" for those who haven't even admitted Concave Earth yet.

So Yes Hoi, you're right, my response to the Concave Earth reality, namely "Let's storm the gates and physically venture OUTSIDE the ball to see what exists OUTSIDE the ball" (which I first posted on WildHeretic's site on January 9th) belongs right here in the speculative "Derailing" thread.

I'll merely go add to the evidence-focused "Universe" thread, the following three paragraphs, if this is acceptable there:

Here is a video, which proves quite elegantly that we humans can see the bases of boats FARTHER than 8-kilometers away. This experiment instantly disproves, without any room for debate, the mainstream convex ball model which states "a boat 8 kilometers away should have it's base hidden by the convex curvature of the earth."

The mainstream convex ball model labels this "8-kilometer-from-your-eye cutoff-point" as being "the horizon line", but this video proves that anyone with a modern digital zoom camera can zoom right in on the bases of boats FARTHER than 8 kilometers away, it turns out modern layman technology allows anyone to be able to zoom in to ocean distances even 10, 11, 12 kilometers away:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jcisprz6k3337 ... idence.mp4

And here is the illustration showing how the now-proven-much-farther-than-8-kilometers "horizon line" (which we surprisingly see as constant regardless of altitude) is created by: our line-of-sight-deviating-upward within the Concave Earth, which concurrently creates a verge point (a verge point which we label "the horizon line") and behind that verge point a blind spot:

http://i.imgur.com/6cIUdLv.jpg

[hoi.polloi]

On one hand, after examining the Concave Earth evidence, after admitting to oneself there is more evidence of that than convex, the first logical question is "What force, or more honestly who, BUILT this fake sun and fake moon moving WITHIN this 12,000km ball?", and the second logical question after that is, "Well, how do I exit this 12,000km ball contraption, where are the exit holes leading out?", and the third logical question after that is, "What is waiting on the immediate outside of this ball: mere rock, mere air, or the makers of the ball?"

Nope. None of those questions seem logical to me. And I don't think they belong on the forum.

All of them are balancing on the unproven premise that a "who" has "built" the natural world, which is a discussion of God. God discussions have no place on the forum. Sorry.

[Observer]

The Concave Earth which you admit means all of "space" is actually WITHIN a 12,000km ball, with a tiny sun and a tiny moon,
is something which cannot be natural at all: the mainstream conVEX model could plausibly be natural, Concave Earth cannot.

Admitting the sun & moon are tiny while espousing the belief "they must have appeared within the earth ball naturally" conflicts.
Why would you label the makers of the Concave Earth as being "Gods"? If I make a ball and put ants inside am I suddenly a "God"?

I agree completely that the word "God" has no place in this conversation. Perhaps you brought up that word due to a book title?

I contend instead that claiming "a tiny sun and moon moving WITHIN the Concave Earth was created by a big bang" is not logical.
I contend that a more logical claim is "a tiny sun and moon moving WITHIN the Concave Earth was created by some beings. Period."

Your conflicting stance that "a tiny sun and moon moving WITHIN the Concave Earth was created by, uh, NON-beings" seems limited.
"Don't associate the Concave Earth with any makers, the tiny sun and tiny moon WITHIN the Concave Earth were created naturally."

Me personally, I don't think that one kind of being (e.g. humans) creating a cage for another kind of being (e.g. ants) implies "God".
But, I'll let your self-imposed imagination-limitation stand, since you are probably fighting against the whole religion "God" bullshit.

So, from now on, when offering evidence disproving NASA's forged images and forged data which perpetrate the ultimate hoax:
i.e. "We're living on the OUTSIDE of a convex ball surrounded by 'outer-space' which is infinitely large with huge suns and galaxies",
I will remember that we can agree "The Universe" is actually a tiny ball WITHIN the earth, I just can't mention makers of the ball.

[ProperGander]

They should have named the space station "WISDOM OF OLD". The old italian road show cast a nice Italian American actress to play the part. With a monocle I can see the 5th chakra and I know the anointed shire reeve winked at Papa's Old Trick.

[ProperGander]

This is my last post. I enjoyed the work done here by SS, MM and Marvin Miles. Very well crafted.
Me - 'I'm Tired of Playing All the Games'.

[fbenario]

Don't let me stop you from thinking that the explanation above makes sense.
I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think when I post here. If you've read what I wrote and already understand those subjects, I can't and won't tell you to 'think different'. I'm getting too old for debating and am way more interested in reading what other's think about the nonsense we're sold as real.

Please avoid this passive/aggressive and off-putting defensiveness in the future. No reason to respond to his post unless you have something constructive, interesting, or thoughtful to say.


*******
Fbenario: The exact same words you typed could be said about you. Please stop acting as some sort of moderator of this forum. Thanks. (-simon)

Oh, SImon, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of our readers would be just as happy as I to see no more passive/aggressive defensiveness or bravado from new members at any time on any subject.

[Undoctored]

Oh, SImon, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of our readers would be just as happy as I to see no more passive/aggressive defensiveness or bravado from new members at any time on any subject.

I just made a review of ProperGander's posts. He was a nuisance from the very start (see Hoi's response to his introduction.) I don't think passive-aggressiveness or bravado were the problem in particular. What he put forth as insights were mostly empty rhetoric, word games. Sometimes pandering to the crowd, sometimes just being contrary. I think this is called trolling. Wasting our time. I myself have been trolled. I count three of my own posts dedicated to correcting his misconceptions, on focusing at infinity, my own obvious irony, and the Disney rocketry film sound track.

Browse his posts and see if he contributed anything of value, either a new insight or evidence, or a valid criticism of someone else's proposals.

To be fair, though, I appreciate his bringing that Disney video with Wernher von Braun to our attention in the "satellites" topic (at least I had never seen it before). By the way, what do you all think of my analysis of his accent? I"m particularly interested to hear from native German speakers. It probably doesn't belong on the "satellites" topic. Should we start a "Wernher von Braun" topic?