You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Divine Feminine Mother Moon
I appreciate your comment regardless of your intent., andd have you had a chance to watch that link that i presented to you? @hammaraxx
I appreciate your comment regardless of your intent., andd have you had a chance to watch that link that i presented to you? @hammaraxx
Dear @anarchan,
My intention was pure, I do appreciate your photos. The Moon is beautiful to look at through a telescope, especially during a half moon phase when the craters are visible in great detail due to the shadows.
I'd love to get an adaptor for my telescope to attach my phone for taking pictures too, something on my "to get" list.
BTW: I did watch the video. Admittedly, I skipped through most of it as Eric is so wrong, lies, or just too ignorant about most things he talks about that it's not funny. I also replied to you in that thread.
Are you able to answer the two questions I asked you?
If not, I understand, those are tough ones for flat Earth people to explain honestly.
The thread is here For those 'playing at home'.
Steem on bro!
@hammaraxx Take an honest look at the i formation that i presented, and let me know your answer to my one question. I look forward to your response, i will never give up on showing people the fact that we are being lied to,
Thank you for the links @anarchan.
I've had a read through them and they are nothing really.
I agree with you that people do lie, but you don't have to take their word for things. You can reproduce many of the experiments and observations that support Earth being a globe yourself. But you must be honest about what you find.
I've been 100% honest with you about my own observations which leaves me to think that you're either being intentionally ignorant or just happily trolling.
Please, enjoy my upvotes and have a great day.
Yes man, i can sit here and answer your 2 questions over and over, but honestly i can say that, that is two sides of the same coin, we may say it occurs due to the globe, or due to the physics that would apply to the flat earth, but man, how can you honestly say that he is lying? I fact checked eric on at least 50 out of the 200 and i was simply enraged the fact that the government has truly lied to us, i mean you and i do not even have to be scientist to not only contradict the mainstream scientific narrative, but completely debunk it, all government programs owe us a MASSIVE tax refund due to their lack of substantial empirical evidence. BUT, since you admittedly didn't give the video an honest attempt to review, if you can answer my ONE question, i will amswer the both of yours, senserely. "IF THE EARTH WERE A SHERE 25,000 MILES IN CIRCUMFERENCE, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEE AN OBJECT 6 MILES AWAY FROM YOU?, WHEN THE OBJECT SHOULD BE HIDDEN BELOW 16 FEET OF CURVE, YET IT IS NOT. My bad for the caps lol
https://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment
The Old Bedford Level experiment, really?
The Bedford Level experiment was debunked at the original site in 1870 by Alfred Russel Wallace and also by Henry Yule Oldham in 1901.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/a-historic-experiment-shows-why-we-might-not-want-to-de-1627339811
https://alchetron.com/Henry-Yule-Oldham
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/old-bedford-level.html
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5095.0
Are you ready for my explanation about the movement of the stars?
https://hammaraxis.com
Also discussed at: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread650922/pg1
Enjoy.
Ya know, i find it very ironic that you have that snake symbol. Because you obviolsly are unaware that that is actualy a symbol for the giant ice wall that holds all the water inside on a flat map, thats LITERALLY where that symbol came from. In the bible it sayd that becausr the serpant tempted eve he was cast to be the barrier of the oceans. And man we can not continue this if all your goin to do is be bias and TELL ME im wrong and im not reading carefully, the original Bedford level challenge showrd for a facr that there is no curve, and also, light and images do NOT BEND ACROSS CONVEXT SURFACES. idk where you gor your science knowledge or simple characteristics os light and water, but you are seriously off track of reality. At this point you are literally just ignoring facts that do not suppport and completely debunk the globe. The bedford level was only the beginning. You have failed to review rhe information i presented properly, you are approaching me with some sort of arrogance that is inappropriate. As much as i disagree worh you, i sat and read every word of what you sent, but you can not even sit thru the video and you claim he is lyin or is just plain wrong, but you have no honest clue. You have no way to prove the globe, noone ever has, because it ia completely illogical. MANY major scientist and philosophers who WERE NOT MASONIC FREE MASONS of the time of the introduction of the globe HATED the idea because it was all just theory, and the true scientific method has ever been used to prove the globe. EVERY SINGLE EXPERIMENT DONE TO PROVE THE BALL OR GRAVITY HAS PROVEN THE EXACT OPPOSITE. explain that? And as far as your teo questions, they are half retarded but here goes, tje midnitgh sun works on a flat map modle perfectly fine so idk how the hell to show you because like you told me "that im just ignoring things" you choose to pick the globe side rather than accepting that logically it works on a flat map without theoretical explanations for a ball earth model. And secondly about "anticrepuscular rays" which yet again, if you see thst on a flat map, because the sun is smaller and close to us, as it comes or goes out of your visual perspective, the light rays are subjective to the viewer. So as it goes over the horizon you will see the light rays spread out. I have two links for your teo questions. But actually go thru them, stop acting like you have Stockholm syndrome and pay attention to realty
It's an Oroborus.
Look it up.
Is your head that thick? You won't listen will you?
Bedford was debunked MORE THAN ONCE!
So, are you saying you've never seen the Sun set or rise?
Check one out some time. You'll see it rise or set over the horizon, the curve, not getting smaller as things in the distance do.
You have still avoided both of the specific questions I asked you. Don't bother even trying any more. I already know you are incapable of doing so.
Mate...
Can you read?
You can't spell for shit.
"ANTICREPUSCULAR RAYS."
Google that term.
That idiot is confused about CREPUSCULAR RAYS and is just so wrong it's not even funny.
https://steemit.com/sky/@hammaraxx/anticrepuscular-rays-in-the-east-at-sunset
https://www.google.com.au/search?tbm=isch&q=anticrepuscular+rays&gws_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=Ko9kWvzIF4Wn0ASb96qgCg#spf=1516539692750
I realise you've got your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la la" out loud. You keep referring back to your lies. Stay happy. I couldn't give a toss about your ignorance any more.
I feel like you keep describing yourself, and its not my spelling grammar nazi -_- its my dickhead spellcheck on this phone, but you need to stop insulting me because it just makes you look mentally week. All you have presented is bias and arguing rather than discussions. Relax man. Im sorry that you are unable to present any actual information proving the globe, everything "supporting"the globe is theoretical, not factual. What is a fact is that sailors can see light house towers over 140 miles from shore, you wouldnt even do the math it took to figure how far past your suposed curvature that sailor should be hidden from the light. And it is scientifically proven that light doesn't bend soooooooooooooooooooo how do you explain that? Your curvature is missing from your whole "globe" religious based ideology. The globe has always been and will forever remain a theory in the mind of the demoic powers that be to controll the masses. We cannot keep even debating this when your are being unrreasonable. Stop insulting me and open your mind a bit. And just a quick ? For ya, why the hell does the UN use the flat earth map as there official logo? Or how about the USGS? Its right in front pf our face man, they farm us to believe ehat they want us to believe.
I feel sorry for you.
Keep ignoring the actual facts you are offered if you like.
Revel in the silly things you believe, and that the truth is just a conspiracy against you. That is your right after all.
Have a good life. It will be totally unaffected by the shape of the planet either way anyway.
All the best, over and out.
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment
With that experiment, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley only disproved the existence of the theoretical "aether" which was a popular thought in the scientific world at that time.
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/4999/why-is-this-independently-reproducible-proof-of-non-curvature-wrong
You might want to re read that page a bit more carefully.
It's not on your side.
I truly enjoy your oposition, because i have read your statement over two or three times and i come to the same conclusion, as you said ( tp govern mentally) nasa is just a government organization put in place to drain tax payer money. And i have used my own experience and senses that show me whats real, and since you extensively went thru my links as i asked i will answer your questions, i am at work at the moment give me some time to get home and find them in our comments ^^ and if you read correctly the court gave robothem his money back because it was not conclusive that the water was bent at all ^^bur seriously, the Bedford level was never debunked and robothem was rewarded his money back so wallace never debunked anything
Please read the story of the Old Bedford Level experiment properly.
You are cherry picking and overlooking the fact that Samuel Rowbotham's experiment was successfully debunked by Alfred Wallace and again by Henry Oldham in 1901.
If you read the story correctly, you'll see that the court did NOT award the money to be returned due to the results of the experiment at all (to John Hampden by the way).
The court ruled that the wager had been invalid because Hampden retracted the bet.
Alfred Wallace's demonstration actually showed a curvature consistent with a spherical Earth.
The most worrying part of the story is that when rational though failed, Hampden resulted to making death threats towards Wallace.
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan
And i know man, i was showing you the oposing side to show you that ,thru my own eyes and experience, i see that ALL math and scientific "findings" were all theories and conjecture, not a single test has ever proven the sphere, EVER.
So, are you just going to continue to ignore the facts, because they do not accommodate your beliefs? That's not being very clever.
Real science does not claim to 'prove' anything. Science either supports a theory or disproves it.
For one, sticking with the single story that you brought up, Alfred Wallace's demonstration actually supports the findings that there is a curvature consistent with a spherical Earth. He also disproved Rowbotham's findings by showing that Rowbotham's experiment was flawed.
And i found your twp questions, as bias as they are, i will answer them. And i truly appreciate the upvotes.