Pacfanweb said:

---

Literally every single bit of "evidence" he's ever provided is false, and easily debunked....and has been many times.

You can see the curvature with your own eyes on trans Atlantic flights. People who rode the Concorde when it was operational saw it many, many times.

---

No, none of it has been "debunked". I doubt you have even actually watched any of the videos I've posted. And I understand some of those videos are long, but have you even watched a substantial portion of any of them? If you don't actually consider the evidence for my argument, then you cannot judge whether my argument is true or false. It's that way with anything in life. If you don't actually look into it, you cannot know.

And I understand that most people are probably thinking that this whole "flat earth" topic is "too crazy" to even look into. Like, "That's nuts, those people are crazy. I'm not wasting my time even considering it". I used to think that too. But then I actually looked into it. And I started seeing that they have a legitimate argument. But that can never happen if you never actually consider the arguments.

When you look out of an airplane and think you see a "curved earth", that is the result of looking out of curved window, which distorts the image you are seeing. This is also caused by fisheye lenses being used in many types of cameras, such as the GoPro camera on the Felix Baumgartner high altitude jump from 128k feet.

There have been many high altitude balloons launched recently with cameras (not having fish-eyed lenses) which show a totally flat horizon, and from a much higher altitude than on the Concord jet (cruising altitude of 60,000 feet).

Here is one from around 120,000 feet showing a flat horizon:




And here is the god Neil Degrasse Tyson admitting that the video from Felix Baumgartner's jump uses a lens that distorts the image, causing the curve to appear. Tyson even admits that "you don't see the curvature" of the earth from the altitude Baumgartner jumped, and then says "that stuff is flat". Those are Tyson's exact words. Watch for yourself in this very short clip.

LOL at the clearly doctored video of the "flat" horizon. If you don't see that's been doctored then I don't know what to tell you.

No, I haven't watched every single video you posted....there's no need to. I've glanced at a few just to laugh at the crackpots in the comments, but no....it's beyond "evidence". The only evidence there is, that comes from anyone remotely credible is that the Earth is round/spherical.

There's so much of that, that it's one of those things you just forget about and move on to things that might actually be debatable. But the Earth being round isn't one of those things. Sun comes up in the East, sets in the West. It's cold in the winter, hot in the summer. Water is wet. Eastern NC BBQ is THE definition of what BBQ is. UNC cheats.

None of these things are in question. So we don't worry about fools who think they are.

Edit: And further LOL at the Neal Degrasse video claim that he's saying the Earth is flat. He said no such thing. You cannot understand basic English if you listened to what he said and concluded that he's saying the Earth is flat.

Pacfanweb said:

---

LOL at the clearly doctored video of the "flat" horizon. If you don't see that's been doctored then I don't know what to tell you.

No, I haven't watched every single video you posted....there's no need to. I've glanced at a few just to laugh at the crackpots in the comments, but no....it's beyond "evidence". The only evidence there is, that comes from anyone remotely credible is that the Earth is round/spherical.

There's so much of that, that it's one of those things you just forget about and move on to things that might actually be debatable. But the Earth being round isn't one of those things. Sun comes up in the East, sets in the West. It's cold in the winter, hot in the summer. Water is wet. Eastern NC BBQ is THE definition of what BBQ is. UNC cheats.

None of these things are in question. So we don't worry about fools who think they are.

Edit: And further LOL at the Neal Degrasse video claim that he's saying the Earth is flat. He said no such thing. You cannot understand basic English if you listened to what he said and concluded that he's saying the Earth is flat.

---

Of course I know that Tyson argues in favor of a globe earth view. Actually, he's said the earth is "pear-shaped", LOL. In that video, Tyson was saying that the horizon would appear flat from an altitude of 128,000 ft (which Baumgartner jumped from).

That video from the balloon at 120,000 ft has not been doctored. There are numerous other videos from high altitude balloons also showing a flat horizon.

And here's the bottom line....if you haven't even considered the evidence I have posted, how can you know for sure whether my argument is true or false? You can't. Because you haven't even considered the information. Think about it....if there is information you are unaware of (on any subject imaginable), it could totally change your view. But as long as you are unaware of this information, you might think that people are "crazy" who have beliefs based upon that information. But they are not "crazy". They just have been made aware of facts, evidence, and information that you do not know about, and may have never even considered might exist.

lumberpack5 said:

---

Only someone with Mental Illness would open the door like that to an ass hole like me.

1. When you ask me am I a Christian - yes I am, but I am not Jewish, nor do I believe in the cult of Paul.
2. Judaism rips off earlier stories and texts that go back before Gilgamesh.
3. You have to be mentally ill to accept the Old Testament as literally true. The Old Testament presents God as a supposedly Omnipotent and Omniscient being who despite being all powerful is too dumb to know Adam is too stupid to fix the problem created by Satan in the Garden when he tells Eve the truth. This is the same God who throws a temper tantrum when his stupid monkey men disobey him. This is the same God who evidently can't be bothered to show up periodically and confirm his existence thereby getting mankind to do better.
4. Anyone who places God inside a man-sized box is mentally ill. What is the man-size box? That box is the crazy human limitations imposed on God by humans who want to make God in their image.
5. The incest, murder, and lust that is condone in the Old Testament is an illogical ploy to allow early Jews not to be bound by the actual rules of Judaism.
6. 3500 years ago, humans had a poor grasp of advanced physics. Stories were made up to explain things that could not otherwise be explained.
7. Every word used as a description about or around God is essentially an attempt to represent a 4 dimensional object in 2 dimensional space - an image of a hypercube. Every word used to describe Earth and it's place in the Universe is infected by the inability of people 3500 years ago to explain things like gravity, space-time, or even numbers beyond 5 digits
8. The Omnipotent, Omniscient God does not need to alter physics to end up with a habitable planet.
9. My dog has free will. When he exercises free will he acts like a dumb ass. The relationship of God to man is even further than from Man to dog. How is it that humans can understand that their dog is stupid, but God is supposed to be surprised and disappointed?

So yes you are either mentally ill, or a really pesky troll. If you aren't mentally ill, that can only mean your are very stupid.

---

So you admit to being an "ass hole"? LOL. I like your sense of humor, at least.

I think you are "cheapening" the use the term "mentally ill" by applying that to people who believe the Old Testament is true. Usually, in society in general, when we refer to people as "mentally ill", we are referring to people with severe problems, and severe delusional beliefs. Now, of course, I understand that in recent decades, the medical establishment has vastly widened the definition of "mental illness" to include all sorts of mild problems -- such as depression, anxiety, etc.

Yes, I do happen to believe that the Old Testament is the inspired word of the Creator, and is true. So if that makes me "mentally ill" according to some people, then so be it. I could look at people on the other spectrum (far Leftists), and I believe that they are actually mentally ill for supporting the things they do -- such as murdering unborn children (abortion), the transgender agenda, etc.

One thing you said particularly peaked my interest, and that is what you said about Paul. I am aware of a movement arguing that Paul is a false apostle, and that he corrupted the true teachings and message from the Messiah. Is this your position? And I'm not "attacking" you with this question. I am genuinely interested in your opinion.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

LOL at the clearly doctored video of the "flat" horizon. If you don't see that's been doctored then I don't know what to tell you.

No, I haven't watched every single video you posted....there's no need to. I've glanced at a few just to laugh at the crackpots in the comments, but no....it's beyond "evidence". The only evidence there is, that comes from anyone remotely credible is that the Earth is round/spherical.

There's so much of that, that it's one of those things you just forget about and move on to things that might actually be debatable. But the Earth being round isn't one of those things. Sun comes up in the East, sets in the West. It's cold in the winter, hot in the summer. Water is wet. Eastern NC BBQ is THE definition of what BBQ is. UNC cheats.

None of these things are in question. So we don't worry about fools who think they are.

Edit: And further LOL at the Neal Degrasse video claim that he's saying the Earth is flat. He said no such thing. You cannot understand basic English if you listened to what he said and concluded that he's saying the Earth is flat.

---

Of course I know that Tyson argues in favor of a globe earth view. Actually, he's said the earth is "pear-shaped", LOL. In that video, Tyson was saying that the horizon would appear flat from an altitude of 128,000 ft (which Baumgartner jumped from).

That video from the balloon at 120,000 ft has not been doctored. There are numerous other videos from high altitude balloons also showing a flat horizon.

And here's the bottom line....if you haven't even considered the evidence I have posted, how can you know for sure whether my argument is true or false? You can't. Because you haven't even considered the information. Think about it....if there is information you are unaware of (on any subject imaginable), it could totally change your view. But as long as you are unaware of this information, you might think that people are "crazy" who have beliefs based upon that information. But they are not "crazy". They just have been made aware of facts, evidence, and information that you do not know about, and may have never even considered might exist.

---

That BS was "considered" thousands of years ago. It was proven to be false then. There's no need to look at it any further. There's been zero evidence to the contrary. And absolutely mountains of evidence otherwise.

And I noticed that you ignore stuff that you can't refute, like the naval gunnery documents I provided from the 1940s that clearly state their calculations for long range gunnery take the Earth's curvature and the coriolis effect into account.

And Tyson is wrong. You can absolutely see the curvature of from that height.

Pacfanweb said:

---

That BS was "considered" thousands of years ago. It was proven to be false then. There's no need to look at it any further. There's been zero evidence to the contrary. And absolutely mountains of evidence otherwise.

And I noticed that you ignore stuff that you can't refute, like the naval gunnery documents I provided from the 1940s that clearly state their calculations for long range gunnery take the Earth's curvature and the coriolis effect into account.

---

Actually, I responded with a lengthy post regarding how the supposed "coriolis effect" is completely preposterous -- and this was on page 3 of a separate thread titled "Mandatory vaccines and tracking, mark of the Beast" where we had this exchange. I absolutely did not "ignore" that. Not in the slightest. I made long posts in response to it. So why would you allege that I "ignored" it?

For the supposed "coriolis effect", I talked about the fact that a helicopter can hover over the earth in one spot for an hour, yet it does not end up 1,000 miles to the west after an hour (with the earth supposedly spinning at 1,000 miles per hour). There have also been several experiments where people have fired a cannon ball straight up into the air, and guess what? -- it comes down exactly in the same spot after being in the air (for a minute or more).

Of course there are going to be government documents in existence claiming to have to account for the "coriolis effect" and the "globe earth". But they are bunk. There are also numerous government documents that admit that there is no coriolis effect, and that the earth is "flat and non-rotating".

In that thread, I also posted this video of a detailed presentation by Pastor Dean Odle showing many government documents that describe the earth as "flat and non-rotating" - including Army, Navy, and NASA documents describing the design of aircraft and analysis of fired projectiles being based on a "flat nonrotating earth" (those exact words are used in the documents).

Pacfanweb said:

---

And Tyson is wrong. You can absolutely see the curvature of from that height.

---

You "see curve" because of the fisheye lens in a GoPro camera. It's distorting the true nature of the horizon -- which is flat, as always.

Tyson is admitting this in the video. He admits that the camera in the Baumgartner jump distorted the horizon, and says in the clip that he even tweeted about it (admitting the curve was a distortion from the lens). Then he says that this altitude (128,000 ft) is not high enough to see the supposed curvature of the earth. He says that the horizon would still appear flat from an altitude of 128,000 ft.

Wrong. It distorts it to be more curved than it normally is, but it's still curved no matter what

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Of course I know that Tyson argues in favor of a globe earth view. Actually, he's said the earth is "pear-shaped", LOL. In that video, Tyson was saying that the horizon would appear flat from an altitude of 128,000 ft (which Baumgartner jumped from).

That video from the balloon at 120,000 ft has not been doctored. There are numerous other videos from high altitude balloons also showing a flat horizon.

And here's the bottom line....if you haven't even considered the evidence I have posted, how can you know for sure whether my argument is true or false? You can't. Because you haven't even considered the information. Think about it....if there is information you are unaware of (on any subject imaginable), it could totally change your view. But as long as you are unaware of this information, you might think that people are "crazy" who have beliefs based upon that information. But they are not "crazy". They just have been made aware of facts, evidence, and information that you do not know about, and may have never even considered might exist.

---

In your view, is any science truly 'settled science'?

How is scientific progress made if you turn a hyper-critical eye even to topics about which there has been scientific consensus for thousands of years?

Pastor Dean Odle...give me a break. Not credible.

And I already told you why a helicopter can hover in one spot, yet as usual, here you come again with another recycled-but-debunked claim.

That is just a laughably dumb example.

It hovers in one spot for the same reason that it hovers at the same altitude. The pilot is constantly making corrections, both with his gauges and visually, to keep it there.
Otherwise, the Earth would absolutely move right out from under him.

Pacfanweb said:

---

Pastor Dean Odle...give me a break. Not credible.

And I already told you why a helicopter can hover in one spot, yet as usual, here you come again with another recycled-but-debunked claim.

That is just a laughably dumb example.

It hovers in one spot for the same reason that it hovers at the same altitude. The pilot is constantly making corrections, both with his gauges and visually, to keep it there.
Otherwise, the Earth would absolutely move right out from under him.

---

So when a helicopter is hovering over one spot on the earth, it is ACTUALLY travelling at 1,000 mph to the east the whole time (the supposed rotational velocity of the earth)??!

LMFAO. Quite a "correction" by the pilot there!

I also mentioned many experiments being done where a canon ball is fired exactly straight up into the air, and it always comes back down at virtually the exact spot it was fired from. If the earth was actually spinning at 1,000 mph, then a cannon ball fired straight up into the air (hypothetically up in the air for one minute) should land about 17 miles to the west of where it was fired...with the earth "spinning at 1,000 mph" to the east while the cannonball is in the air.

This is why it's so easy to see that the supposed "coriolis effect" is total nonsense.

Ah, the military documents that say gunnery is based on a "flat, non rotating Earth".

Seen them. They are taken out of context, just like you tried to do today with NDT's statement of "that stuff is flat" as meaning he was saying the Earth is flat. Then you backtracked on that, but you're lying...you were trying to say he was admitting it.

Sorry, the Navy's long range gunnery is like I said it was. (or was, when they actually HAD long-range gunnery) All they can do is shoot missiles now.

Pacfanweb said:

---

Pastor Dean Odle...give me a break.

---

"Not credible" based on what? His name? Have you ever even listened to him? Again...you will not even consider the evidence. You just reject the argument without even considering any of the information.

Pacfanweb said:

---

Ah, the military documents that say gunnery is based on a "flat, non rotating Earth".

Seen them. They are taken out of context, just like you tried to do today with NDT's statement of "that stuff is flat" as meaning he was saying the Earth is flat. Then you backtracked on that, but you're lying...you were trying to say he was admitting it.

Sorry, the Navy's long range gunnery is like I said it was. (or was, when they actually HAD long-range gunnery) All they can do is shoot missiles now.

---

You either didn't read my post, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. Of course I know that Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes in a globe (or "pear-shaped" earth). The video I posted was NDT saying that the horizon was "flat" from a view from 128,000 ft in altitude. And that's what I clearly said after posting the video.

Why are you lying about what I said?

GuerrillaPack said:

---

I also mentioned many experiments being done where a canon ball is fired exactly straight up into the air, and it always comes back down at virtually the exact spot it was fired from. If the earth was actually spinning at 1,000 mph, then a cannon ball fired straight up into the air (hypothetically up in the air for one minute) should land about 17 miles to the west of where it was fired...with the earth "spinning at 1,000 mph" to the east while the cannonball is in the air.

This is why it's so easy to see that the supposed "coriolis effect" is total nonsene.

---

And....once again, you're wrong. Fire a cannon ball straight up, it absolutely, 100% does NOT land "virtually at the exact spot it's fired from".

Not unless it only goes a few feet in the air before falling. The farther up it goes, the more the Coriolis Effect matters and the farther away it lands.

How close to the Equator matters, too. Lots of variables, but no actual cannon ball or bullet fired straight up comes straight down.

Again, with the posting of long-debunked lies of the conspiracy crowd.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Ah, the military documents that say gunnery is based on a "flat, non rotating Earth".

Seen them. They are taken out of context, just like you tried to do today with NDT's statement of "that stuff is flat" as meaning he was saying the Earth is flat. Then you backtracked on that, but you're lying...you were trying to say he was admitting it.

Sorry, the Navy's long range gunnery is like I said it was. (or was, when they actually HAD long-range gunnery) All they can do is shoot missiles now.

---

You either didn't read my post, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. Of course I know that Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes in a globe (or "pear-shaped" earth). The video I posted was NDT saying that the horizon was "flat" from a view from 128,000 ft in altitude. And that's what I clearly said after posting the video.

Why are you lying about what I said?

---

You are lying (or are willfully ignorant, which is the same thing, basically) about everything else, so if I got something wrong, then not a big deal in the big picture. Because you and I both know that's the effect you were going for by pointing out that statement.

Pacfanweb said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Ah, the military documents that say gunnery is based on a "flat, non rotating Earth".

Seen them. They are taken out of context, just like you tried to do today with NDT's statement of "that stuff is flat" as meaning he was saying the Earth is flat. Then you backtracked on that, but you're lying...you were trying to say he was admitting it.

Sorry, the Navy's long range gunnery is like I said it was. (or was, when they actually HAD long-range gunnery) All they can do is shoot missiles now.

---

You either didn't read my post, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. Of course I know that Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes in a globe (or "pear-shaped" earth). The video I posted was NDT saying that the horizon was "flat" from a view from 128,000 ft in altitude. And that's what I clearly said after posting the video.

Why are you lying about what I said?

---

You are lying (or are willfully ignorant, which is the same thing, basically) about everything else, so if I got something wrong, then not a big deal in the big picture. Because you and I both know that's the effect you were going for by pointing out that statement.

---

Ok, thank you for admitting you were wrong.

And no, I was not trying to insinuate that NDT believes the earth is flat. Why would I even try to do that? Everyone knows that NDT promotes the globe earth model. By posting that video of NDT, I was only making the points relevant to what he actually said -- ie, that the horizon is flat at 128,000 ft in altitude.

Civilized said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Of course I know that Tyson argues in favor of a globe earth view. Actually, he's said the earth is "pear-shaped", LOL. In that video, Tyson was saying that the horizon would appear flat from an altitude of 128,000 ft (which Baumgartner jumped from).

That video from the balloon at 120,000 ft has not been doctored. There are numerous other videos from high altitude balloons also showing a flat horizon.

And here's the bottom line....if you haven't even considered the evidence I have posted, how can you know for sure whether my argument is true or false? You can't. Because you haven't even considered the information. Think about it....if there is information you are unaware of (on any subject imaginable), it could totally change your view. But as long as you are unaware of this information, you might think that people are "crazy" who have beliefs based upon that information. But they are not "crazy". They just have been made aware of facts, evidence, and information that you do not know about, and may have never even considered might exist.

---

In your view, is any science truly 'settled science'?

How is scientific progress made if you turn a hyper-critical eye even to topics about which there has been scientific consensus for thousands of years?

---

Exactly. 2+2=4. That was settled so long ago that nobody even bothers to think about it anymore...it's just common knowledge at this point.

If some idiots came at us with some pseudo-science that claimed otherwise, you'd probably have the same group of morons saying "Hey, they have a good point there" and next thing you know you'd have a "Real Math Society". And then they'd find a few random passages in the bible to misinterpret and take out of context to draw others in as well.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Ah, the military documents that say gunnery is based on a "flat, non rotating Earth".

Seen them. They are taken out of context, just like you tried to do today with NDT's statement of "that stuff is flat" as meaning he was saying the Earth is flat. Then you backtracked on that, but you're lying...you were trying to say he was admitting it.

Sorry, the Navy's long range gunnery is like I said it was. (or was, when they actually HAD long-range gunnery) All they can do is shoot missiles now.

---

You either didn't read my post, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. Of course I know that Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes in a globe (or "pear-shaped" earth). The video I posted was NDT saying that the horizon was "flat" from a view from 128,000 ft in altitude. And that's what I clearly said after posting the video.

Why are you lying about what I said?

---

You are lying (or are willfully ignorant, which is the same thing, basically) about everything else, so if I got something wrong, then not a big deal in the big picture. Because you and I both know that's the effect you were going for by pointing out that statement.

---

Ok, thank you for admitting you were wrong.

And no, I was not trying to insinuate that NDT believes the earth is flat. Why would I even try to do that? Everyone knows that NDT promotes the globe earth model. By posting that video of NDT, I was only making the points relevant to what he actually said -- ie, that the horizon is flat at 128,000 ft in altitude.

---

And he was wrong. You can absolutely see the curvature at that height, but the fisheye makes it more curved than it really is...but even when you correct the fisheye effect to reality, it's still curved. Just not as much.
You don't even have to be that high to see it, so Tyson was simply wrong in this case.

Civilized said:

---

In your view, is any science truly 'settled science'?

How is scientific progress made if you turn a hyper-critical eye even to topics about which there has been scientific consensus for thousands of years?

---

First of all, there has NOT been a scientific consensus "for thousands of years" that the earth is a globe, or that the heliocentric model is correct. That consensus has only existed for maybe the last 75-100 years (ie, a preponderance of those in "academia" holding the view). But, of course, a consensus or majority opinion is NOT proof that a view is correct. I'm sure there is also a "huge consensus" among "scientists in academia" that the theory of evolution (or Big Bang) are also "true". But those things (Big Bang, evolution) are not the least bit true. They are 100% total and complete nonsense.

You should ask this same question of the "mainstream" supposed "scientists" themselves. They are constantly changing their own theories -- in many areas of science, and especially in cosmology and physics. The "Big Bang" is an admitted theory, and only very recent in origin. There are all sorts of other competing theories about the nature of the universe ("super-string theory", etc). A few years/decades from now, they will probably modify and change the "Big Bang" theory to something completely new. Same with the theory of evolution -- constant revisions and changes to how the theory supposedly "works" or "happened".

"Scientists" are constantly changing their mind on about everything. First they claimed that the universe was "1 billion years old". Then a few years later, they claimed it was "5 billion years old". Now they currently claim that the universe is "13.8 billion years old". A few years from now, who knows...maybe they will say it is "100 billion years old". In recent years, many prominent scientists (including Stephen Hawking) are now saying that black holes do not even exist. They can't even decide if Pluto is a "planet" or not.

The thing you must realize with "science" is that much of it is PURE THEORY. These scientists do not "have it all figured out". Not in the slightest. And they admit that. They also admit, for instance, that they have no idea how gravity works (ie, what causes the force). That's why they have to admit that all of these things (Big Bang, evolution, etc) are all theoretical.

And guess what? The heliocentric model and globe model are also theoretical. They are not proven.

There is no scientific experiment, for example, that has shown that the earth is in any way moving (eg, spinning/revolving, or moving through space). None. To the contrary, there have been multiple scientific experiments proving that the earth is stationary and not moving. The Michelson-Morely experiments are the most famous of these.

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Of course I know that Tyson argues in favor of a globe earth view. Actually, he's said the earth is "pear-shaped", LOL. In that video, Tyson was saying that the horizon would appear flat from an altitude of 128,000 ft (which Baumgartner jumped from).

That video from the balloon at 120,000 ft has not been doctored. There are numerous other videos from high altitude balloons also showing a flat horizon.

And here's the bottom line....if you haven't even considered the evidence I have posted, how can you know for sure whether my argument is true or false? You can't. Because you haven't even considered the information. Think about it....if there is information you are unaware of (on any subject imaginable), it could totally change your view. But as long as you are unaware of this information, you might think that people are "crazy" who have beliefs based upon that information. But they are not "crazy". They just have been made aware of facts, evidence, and information that you do not know about, and may have never even considered might exist.

---

In your view, is any science truly 'settled science'?

How is scientific progress made if you turn a hyper-critical eye even to topics about which there has been scientific consensus for thousands of years?

---

Exactly. 2+2=4. That was settled so long ago that nobody even bothers to think about it anymore...it's just common knowledge at this point.

If some idiots came at us with some pseudo-science that claimed otherwise, you'd probably have the same group of morons saying "Hey, they have a good point there" and next thing you know you'd have a "Real Math Society". And then they'd find a few random passages in the bible to misinterpret and take out of context to draw others in as well.

---

It's like all of a sudden starting to question gravity or the earth revolving around the sun or oceanic tides or something.

People drawn to conspiracy theories often share a "disbelief in conventional wisdom in favor of a kind of secret, malevolent, "real story" that's being hidden from the public through some cover-up."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202001/understanding-the-psychology-conspiracy-theories-part-1

Clearly GP aligns closely with this description, at least on these boards. It's not about whether a particular theory has merit; it's about a fundamental and extraordinarily strong distrust of authority and conventional wisdom.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

lumberpack5 said:

---

Only someone with Mental Illness would open the door like that to an ass hole like me.

1. When you ask me am I a Christian - yes I am, but I am not Jewish, nor do I believe in the cult of Paul.
2. Judaism rips off earlier stories and texts that go back before Gilgamesh.
3. You have to be mentally ill to accept the Old Testament as literally true. The Old Testament presents God as a supposedly Omnipotent and Omniscient being who despite being all powerful is too dumb to know Adam is too stupid to fix the problem created by Satan in the Garden when he tells Eve the truth. This is the same God who throws a temper tantrum when his stupid monkey men disobey him. This is the same God who evidently can't be bothered to show up periodically and confirm his existence thereby getting mankind to do better.
4. Anyone who places God inside a man-sized box is mentally ill. What is the man-size box? That box is the crazy human limitations imposed on God by humans who want to make God in their image.
5. The incest, murder, and lust that is condone in the Old Testament is an illogical ploy to allow early Jews not to be bound by the actual rules of Judaism.
6. 3500 years ago, humans had a poor grasp of advanced physics. Stories were made up to explain things that could not otherwise be explained.
7. Every word used as a description about or around God is essentially an attempt to represent a 4 dimensional object in 2 dimensional space - an image of a hypercube. Every word used to describe Earth and it's place in the Universe is infected by the inability of people 3500 years ago to explain things like gravity, space-time, or even numbers beyond 5 digits
8. The Omnipotent, Omniscient God does not need to alter physics to end up with a habitable planet.
9. My dog has free will. When he exercises free will he acts like a dumb ass. The relationship of God to man is even further than from Man to dog. How is it that humans can understand that their dog is stupid, but God is supposed to be surprised and disappointed?

So yes you are either mentally ill, or a really pesky troll. If you aren't mentally ill, that can only mean your are very stupid.

---

So you admit to being an "ass hole"? LOL. I like your sense of humor, at least.

I think you are "cheapening" the use the term "mentally ill" by applying that to people who believe the Old Testament is true. Usually, in society in general, when we refer to people as "mentally ill", we are referring to people with severe problems, and severe delusional beliefs. Now, of course, I understand that in recent decades, the medical establishment has vastly widened the definition of "mental illness" to include all sorts of mild problems -- such as depression, anxiety, etc.

Yes, I do happen to believe that the Old Testament is the inspired word of the Creator, and is true. So if that makes me "mentally ill" according to some people, then so be it. I could look at people on the other spectrum (far Leftists), and I believe that they are actually mentally ill for supporting the things they do -- such as murdering unborn children (abortion), the transgender agenda, etc.

One thing you said particularly peaked my interest, and that is what you said about Paul. I am aware of a movement arguing that Paul is a false apostle, and that he corrupted the true teachings and message from the Messiah. Is this your position? And I'm not "attacking" you with this question. I am genuinely interested in your opinion.

---

Paul is a weirdo at best. His obsession with rules and dogma is not in the tradition of Jesus. Those that claim they are pro-life are often just "pro-birth" meaning they have not one ounce of care for the child after birth. That a human could even "destroy" an immortal soul stuck into a baby by God is hubris and again puts God into the man sized box. God can do what he wishes with a soul. He can recycle them for instance. In fact if the soul is the immortal creation of God, how is that humans can kill this soul. If the soul is what matters, and God makes the soul, then what is the point of life on Earth - just to demonstrate how imperfect God's greatest creation is in reality?

Humans are needed to fight wars. Leaders need humans to fight their wars. Therefore leaders for thousands of years have wanted as many humans born so as to keep their armies stocked. Why would an Omnipotent and Omniscient God tell the Jews to go forth and multiply to the point that incest is okay if it yields a son? The answer is He did not. Just like the Jewish territorial claim being based on a 90 year old woman giving magical birth - these are literary devices designed to explain and promote the Jewish way of life at that time. It's nothing sinister, but it is in a sense, a lot of propaganda,

What separates Jesus from the pack is his logic and common sense. He is ethical and honest. He specifically warns against false prophets, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and the changes that come over people when they are overly concerned with material wealth.

There is no commandment by Jesus to go forth and be stupid and ignore science. There is no Commandment to go forth and love Capitalism and Patriotism as much as you love Him.

If you accept that God is irrational, makes mistakes, loses his temper, and beats the equivalent of his dog, that's not much of a God. In fact that is no "God" at and logically you can only conclude one of two things - God does not exist or God is grossly misunderstood by humans. Which is more likely?

Civilized said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Of course I know that Tyson argues in favor of a globe earth view. Actually, he's said the earth is "pear-shaped", LOL. In that video, Tyson was saying that the horizon would appear flat from an altitude of 128,000 ft (which Baumgartner jumped from).

That video from the balloon at 120,000 ft has not been doctored. There are numerous other videos from high altitude balloons also showing a flat horizon.

And here's the bottom line....if you haven't even considered the evidence I have posted, how can you know for sure whether my argument is true or false? You can't. Because you haven't even considered the information. Think about it....if there is information you are unaware of (on any subject imaginable), it could totally change your view. But as long as you are unaware of this information, you might think that people are "crazy" who have beliefs based upon that information. But they are not "crazy". They just have been made aware of facts, evidence, and information that you do not know about, and may have never even considered might exist.

---

In your view, is any science truly 'settled science'?

How is scientific progress made if you turn a hyper-critical eye even to topics about which there has been scientific consensus for thousands of years?

---

Exactly. 2+2=4. That was settled so long ago that nobody even bothers to think about it anymore...it's just common knowledge at this point.

If some idiots came at us with some pseudo-science that claimed otherwise, you'd probably have the same group of morons saying "Hey, they have a good point there" and next thing you know you'd have a "Real Math Society". And then they'd find a few random passages in the bible to misinterpret and take out of context to draw others in as well.

---

It's like all of a sudden starting to question gravity or the earth revolving around the sun or oceanic tides or something.

People drawn to conspiracy theories often share a "disbelief in conventional wisdom in favor of a kind of secret, malevolent, "real story" that's being hidden from the public through some cover-up."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202001/understanding-the-psychology-conspiracy-theories-part-1

Clearly GP aligns closely with this description, at least on these boards. It's not about whether a particular theory has merit; it's about a fundamental and extraordinarily strong distrust of authority and conventional wisdom.

---

Here's a way to look at it. Gravity may not exist, but something that acts like gravity does exist. Atoms may not exist but something that acts like then does exist. Nothing is actually solid at the atomic scale, but strong force gives us the appearance that the chair we sit in is solid. The ideation toward conspiracy theory is often based on a personal lack of agency or a mental inability to exercise and grasp agency.

We can clearly observe a force (which we refer to as "gravity") that acts to pull things down, but we don't actually know what causes that force. Isaac Newton's claim that this force is caused by an "attraction between objects" is only a theory. It is not actually proven. And the mumbo-jumbo from Einstein about "curvature of space-time causing gravity" is more pure theory.

And, again, the current "Pope" of "SCCCIEEENCE", Neil DeGrasse Tyson, even admits that they don't know what gravity is and what causes it.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

We can clearly observe a force (which we refer to as "gravity") that acts to pull things down, but we don't actually know what causes that force. Isaac Newton's claim that this force is caused by an "attraction between objects" is only a theory. It is not actually proven. And the mumbo-jumbo from Einstein about "curvature of space-time causing gravity" is more pure theory.

And, again, the current "Pope" of "SCCCIEEENCE", Neil DeGrasse Tyson, even admits that they don't know what gravity is and what causes it.

---

The 'observability' of physical phenomena is exactly my point.

Gravity is objectively observable and quantifiable even if you don't know *exactly* what causes it.

You seem to agree.

How is that any different than the earth being round?

Civilized said:

---

The 'observability' of physical phenomena is exactly my point.

Gravity is objectively observable and quantifiable even if you don't know *exactly* what causes it.

You seem to agree.

How is that any different than the earth being round?

---

My overall point with that post (on the issue of gravity) is that "scientists" often have no idea what they are talking about, and that they just propose of bunch of theories to try to explain observable phenomena. Everyone can see that there is a force causing things to go down. Isaac Newton was only famous in regards to "gravity" for his theory of what he claimed causes that force.

With regard to the nature and dimensions of the earth, it is a little bit different. All that we can observe and measure actually demonstrates that: 1) the earth is stationary and not moving (not spinning, not revolving around the sun, 2) that the earth is a flat plane (and not a globe).

The only thing even close to observation that "seems" to indicate that the earth is spherical in shape is when you observe ships disappearing from view when going out to sea. But, as I explained (with evidence) earlier in the thread, this is explained by optical phenomena -- including angular resolution and limitations of eyesight as objects get really far away, and superior mirages that occur on the surface of water. You can actually take a high-zoom camera and zoom in and see a ship that has disappeared from view and "gone over the curve".

griff17matt said:

---

waynecountywolf said:

---

I have some well drained Nahunta Swamp land for sale for one poster, here.

---

Can we perma-ban you for bringing this bat**** crazy thread up 8 months after it died a slow, agonizing death? Now GP is going to inundate this thread with more YouTube ******s that are so mentally weak and insecure that they latch onto any and every stupid conspiracy they come across that affirms their worldview.

---

Could we revisit the perma-ban on wcw as mentioned previously for reviving this thread from the throws of death?

griff17matt said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

waynecountywolf said:

---

I have some well drained Nahunta Swamp land for sale for one poster, here.

---

Can we perma-ban you for bringing this bat**** crazy thread up 8 months after it died a slow, agonizing death? Now GP is going to inundate this thread with more YouTube ******s that are so mentally weak and insecure that they latch onto any and every stupid conspiracy they come across that affirms their worldview.

---

Could we revisit the perma-ban on wcw as mentioned previously for reviving this thread from the throws of death?

---

Surely you aren't serious. How in the world could you justify banning someone for merely commenting in a thread, no matter how old it is? First of all, such a rule would be stupid. Secondly, there is no such rule currently. So you are talking about banning someone for something that is not wrong, and has never been officially declared to be against any rule.

What is the deal with you lefties and your obsession with censorship, and muzzling people and banning people? Is that a psychological disorder of some sort? Why do you feel that you have the "right" to prevent people from being able to speak their mind?

We have the right to freedom of speech. Maybe you should learn to deal with it. Or maybe you are willing to admit that you do not believe in freedom of speech, and that you believe in the Leftist agenda to silence all conservatives and anti-Establishment dissidents via "hate speech" rules/laws and such?

GuerrillaPack said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

waynecountywolf said:

---

I have some well drained Nahunta Swamp land for sale for one poster, here.

---

Can we perma-ban you for bringing this bat**** crazy thread up 8 months after it died a slow, agonizing death? Now GP is going to inundate this thread with more YouTube ******s that are so mentally weak and insecure that they latch onto any and every stupid conspiracy they come across that affirms their worldview.

---

Could we revisit the perma-ban on wcw as mentioned previously for reviving this thread from the throws of death?

---

Surely you aren't serious. How in the world could you justify banning someone for merely commenting in a thread, no matter how old it is? First of all, such a rule would be stupid. Secondly, there is no such rule currently. So you are talking about banning someone for something that is not wrong, and has never been officially declared to be against any rule.

What is the deal with you lefties and your obsession with censorship, and muzzling people and banning people? Is that a psychological disorder of some sort? Why do you feel that you have the "right" to prevent people from being able to speak their mind?

We have the right to freedom of speech. Maybe you should learn to deal with it. Or maybe you are willing to admit that you do not believe in freedom of speech, and that you believe in the Leftist agenda to silence all conservatives and anti-Establishment dissidents via "hate speech" laws and such?

---

Simmer down, David Duke. Was being facetious. But we wouldn't be subjected to your ridiculous conspiracy theories if he never brought this stupid thread back up. I'm not a leftist or Marxist or whatever stupid boogeyman identifier you want to throw around, so don't get your mom's panties in a wad.

Tell me this, how does a fly trapped in a car going 75mph down 95 fly around the car like it's standing still and not slam into the back window?

griff17matt said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

waynecountywolf said:

---

I have some well drained Nahunta Swamp land for sale for one poster, here.

---

Can we perma-ban you for bringing this bat**** crazy thread up 8 months after it died a slow, agonizing death? Now GP is going to inundate this thread with more YouTube ******s that are so mentally weak and insecure that they latch onto any and every stupid conspiracy they come across that affirms their worldview.

---

Could we revisit the perma-ban on wcw as mentioned previously for reviving this thread from the throws of death?

---

Surely you aren't serious. How in the world could you justify banning someone for merely commenting in a thread, no matter how old it is? First of all, such a rule would be stupid. Secondly, there is no such rule currently. So you are talking about banning someone for something that is not wrong, and has never been officially declared to be against any rule.

What is the deal with you lefties and your obsession with censorship, and muzzling people and banning people? Is that a psychological disorder of some sort? Why do you feel that you have the "right" to prevent people from being able to speak their mind?

We have the right to freedom of speech. Maybe you should learn to deal with it. Or maybe you are willing to admit that you do not believe in freedom of speech, and that you believe in the Leftist agenda to silence all conservatives and anti-Establishment dissidents via "hate speech" laws and such?

---

Simmer down, David Duke. Was being facetious. But we wouldn't be subjected to your ridiculous conspiracy theories if he never brought this stupid thread back up. I'm not a leftist or Marxist or whatever stupid boogeyman identifier you want to throw around, so don't get your mom's panties in a wad.

Tell me this, how does a fly trapped in a car going 75mph down 95 fly around the car like it's standing still and not slam into the back window?

---

You're not being "subjected" to anything at all. You are not being forced to click on this thread, and read the posts. If you don't want to hear about these subjects or see what I'm saying, then simply don't click on the thread. But others who DO want to discuss these issues have the right to do so. And it's not hurting anyone. It's not "hurting" you to have other people here on these boards posting things that you disagree with, no matter how "extreme" or "wrong" you may think those views are. So whose panties are really in a wad here? You may not be a lefty, but you sure act like some lefty snowflake whose precious feelings are hurt whenever he has to be "subjected" to someone else who he disagrees with committing the "sin" of exercising their right to speak their mind.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

waynecountywolf said:

---

I have some well drained Nahunta Swamp land for sale for one poster, here.

---

Can we perma-ban you for bringing this bat**** crazy thread up 8 months after it died a slow, agonizing death? Now GP is going to inundate this thread with more YouTube ******s that are so mentally weak and insecure that they latch onto any and every stupid conspiracy they come across that affirms their worldview.

---

Could we revisit the perma-ban on wcw as mentioned previously for reviving this thread from the throws of death?

---

Surely you aren't serious. How in the world could you justify banning someone for merely commenting in a thread, no matter how old it is? First of all, such a rule would be stupid. Secondly, there is no such rule currently. So you are talking about banning someone for something that is not wrong, and has never been officially declared to be against any rule.

What is the deal with you lefties and your obsession with censorship, and muzzling people and banning people? Is that a psychological disorder of some sort? Why do you feel that you have the "right" to prevent people from being able to speak their mind?

We have the right to freedom of speech. Maybe you should learn to deal with it. Or maybe you are willing to admit that you do not believe in freedom of speech, and that you believe in the Leftist agenda to silence all conservatives and anti-Establishment dissidents via "hate speech" laws and such?

---

Simmer down, David Duke. Was being facetious. But we wouldn't be subjected to your ridiculous conspiracy theories if he never brought this stupid thread back up. I'm not a leftist or Marxist or whatever stupid boogeyman identifier you want to throw around, so don't get your mom's panties in a wad.

Tell me this, how does a fly trapped in a car going 75mph down 95 fly around the car like it's standing still and not slam into the back window?

---

You're not being "subjected" to anything at all. You are not being forced to click on this thread, and read the posts. If you don't want to hear about these subjects or see what I'm saying, then simply don't click on the thread. But others who DO want to discuss these issues have the right to do so. And it's not hurting anyone. It's not "hurting" you to have other people here on these boards posting things that you disagree with, no matter how "extreme" or "wrong" you may think those views are. So whose panties are really in a wad here? You may not be a lefty, but your sure act like some lefty snowflake whose precious feelings are hurt whenever he has to be "subjected" to someone else who he disagrees with committing the "sin" of exercising their right to speak their mind.

---

You are right about that. Have a wonderful evening.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

You can actually take a high-zoom camera and zoom in and see a ship that has disappeared from view and "gone over the curve".

---

Okay....no, you can't.

I'll bet you any amount from here to Rocky Mount right now. We (you and I) will go to the coast on the clearest day we can find. We will watch a ship disappear.
You provide whatever "high power" optical device you think will do the job.

And you will not be able to see the ship eventually....and when that becomes the case, we will climb up a few stories at whatever structure is nearby and you will be able to see it again for a little while, until it disappears again.

Easily proven.

Pacfanweb said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

You can actually take a high-zoom camera and zoom in and see a ship that has disappeared from view and "gone over the curve".

---

Okay....no, you can't.

I'll bet you any amount from here to Rocky Mount right now. We (you and I) will go to the coast on the clearest day we can find. We will watch a ship disappear.
You provide whatever "high power" optical device you think will do the job.

And you will not be able to see the ship eventually....and when that becomes the case, we will climb up a few stories at whatever structure is nearby and you will be able to see it again for a little while, until it disappears again.

Easily proven.

---

Can we do this during the BBQ caravan or Wilber's get together- you know, just for the sake of fun?

Further: Why can't a radio station from New York be heard in London?

Why can't radar see ships all the way across the sea? They all have limits based on height and that's because of the curvature of the Earth. Mirages and moisture on the ocean wouldn't affect these things like they might with eyesight. Radio signals would pass right through those things.

Why can you see the Moon even though it's farther away than any point on Earth is? Because there's no curvature between you and it. Same with the stars and the Sun. It can even be somewhat cloudy and you can still see the moon poking through. Way more clouds then any missed that might be at the ocean's surface preventing you from seeing as far as normal.
Same reason you can go up in a skyscraper and see much farther than you normally can see.

waynecountywolf said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

You can actually take a high-zoom camera and zoom in and see a ship that has disappeared from view and "gone over the curve".

---

Okay....no, you can't.

I'll bet you any amount from here to Rocky Mount right now. We (you and I) will go to the coast on the clearest day we can find. We will watch a ship disappear.
You provide whatever "high power" optical device you think will do the job.

And you will not be able to see the ship eventually....and when that becomes the case, we will climb up a few stories at whatever structure is nearby and you will be able to see it again for a little while, until it disappears again.

Easily proven.

---

Can we do this during the BBQ caravan or Wilber's get together- you know, just for the sake of fun?

---

Works for me.