Originally Posted by sideways14a
What did you see that made you believe?
Oh no ! not the thought police!
I have never been hurt by someone's thoughts personally, and believe each mans thoughts are his own, it seems you would like to control some peoples thoughts as you deem them silly and dangerous, I doubt you will be successful in your pursuit of thought control and inevitably controlling the will of others as many have tried none have ever been fully successful, that is at least until the implants are rolled out.
How does the shape of the earth get conflated with vaccinations ?
Last edited by LeonatLarge; 13-01-2020 at 12:18.
That's not even convincing trolling.
Damn it, he is back
It's not trolling fella but it should challenge you a bit. As I said before, you were being wound up, I think you still are. That's kind of your choice. It's also up to you whether you open your mind up a bit.
Flat-earther is not the same as antivaxxer. They're both felt to be misguided views, and there will be some merging of the subsets, but by tarring them all with a 'silly and dangerous' brush you miss the intricacies of the issues and beliefs and just come across as intolerant and closed-minded.
SX rider I'll thank you to keep a civil tongue, if you've nothing to add to the discussion don't post
power-crazed Head-Mod
Bob, the chap just plain as day said I am trying to control people’s thoughts and what, that’s to be taken seriously?
I likened anti-vax to flat earth because they’re two stupid churches of thought that have no evidence to back them up, that contradict what the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believe and that have both gained traction with the rise of social media.
I’m not intolerant or close minded. Show me the data that anti-vax is better and I’m open to reassessing. Show me the proof god exists and I’ll probably become a believer. Show me the evidence that the earth is flat and the consensus in the community and I’ll reconsider.
It’s not closed minded to dismiss nonsense.
This needs a bigger reply but I’ve got to go to work
I think you’re taking general observations as personal attacks and that’s not how they’re intended.
Science is not a panacea. Evidence and data can be manipulated, and it’s usually for human gain. I’ll try and post in a bit more detail later
power-crazed Head-Mod
I determined from your choice of words on peoples thoughts that you would like to control them, to say someone's thoughts are silly is one thing but to say someone's thoughts are dangerous is absurd.
You are incorrect on anti - vax and flat earth both theories have repeatable verifiable scientific evidence to back them up for example the michelson morley experiment and the sagnac experiment and the recent long distance photography world record all prove the heliocentric model to be incorrect when examined in great detail.
Some of the heliocentric theories such as Einstein's theory of relativity have never been verified properly, because no one has travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will, but people believe them because they are told by their masters that even though it is just a theory that this "theory" is correct which also leads on to other theories, so in actual fact one "theory" verifies another which iI believe is nonsense.
I have not really looked into the anti vax movement but I do know in the states they examined the vaccines been prescribed to children and found they had been using heavy metals as a preservative, even though they should of stopped doing so years before, which is why President Trump got involved, I know from personal experience that the doctor administering the jab will not sign a disclaimer saying that no harm will come to the infant after the vaccine has been injected into the infants blood stream.
I also know from looking at the stats that there are far more autistic children than there has been in the past, the vaccine industry is worth billions of pounds a year, I'm not saying that there is a link with vaccines and autism as I have not done my research regarding this subject but as someone with an open mind I look at the evidence on both sides then evaluate before I can come to a conclusion.
Without looking at the evidence from both sides you can't dismiss one view or the other as nonsense, as you are just repeating what you have been told by your masters.
Last edited by LeonatLarge; 14-01-2020 at 09:16.
So how do you explain the Breitling Orbiter? GPS, Satellite communications or the fact you cannot see the end of the flat Ehra Lessien?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No-one had autism before 1911, so I'm going to blame it on starter motors, which were invented at the same time. The rise in popularity of starter motors is clearly linked to autism diagnosis, and the stop-start systems triggered a small explosion is diagnosis rates.
Challenging the established truth is fine (this is what science does, not holding onto the established truth as "must be true"), replacing it with whimsy tinfoil hat stuff is nonsense.
Also: thought control happens, and is highly effective. We like to think we're really smart, but we are wired to react to stimulus in certain ways.
God I can't even be bothered to read anymore.
Course they can. But good evidence is sufficient, demonstrable and testable and means there can be no interpretation.
What like the Lancet paper that claimed MMR was responsible for autism? Manipulated and fabricated evidence!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's not really true. Science constantly challenges stuff that was demonstrable and testable when a "better" model comes along. Just because the maths adds up, doesn't mean it's right.
Hold up, you're reading too far into my point.
I agree with you entirely, science is based around disproving itself. But that doesn't change that at the original point, if you can prove something in that manner then it's not open to interpretation. It is what it is.
You can disprove it later with a better model, sure. But the point was about interpretting what you had. And assuming the evidence satisfies those criteria, I'm comfortable with my point.
The Breitling Orbiter was a hot air balloon, how can a hot air balloon scientifically verify the heliocentric model ?
GPS works better on the ground, to verify this next time you fly switch your phone on, you will notice that the signal gets weaker the higher you go, at 40000 ft it is virtually impossible to pick a signal up.
It is also difficult to pick a signal up in built up urban areas, in some parts of the southern hemisphere especially when looking at the flight tracker software there is no GPS coverage at all, the aircraft simply disappears from the map of the globe, this contradicts what we are told about GPS, we are told there are over 3000 satellites in orbit and I know they say they are not all used for GPS but it is difficult for me to believe it works in the way it was described when I was in full time education as we would have full coverage by now.
Just because something is called satellite communications doesn't necessarily mean that it is, as a critical thinker we could see what other technologies would do the job, troposcatter in the 1950's had a 300km range and was and probably still is used by the military, you would have seen the rotating dish on armoured vehicles ect. If they could do 300km in the 1950's it is not absurd to say they would be able too do 6000 km seventy years on, they simply beam a signal into the troposphere the signal is then picked up by the dishes the other end.
I can't see the end of my drive on a foggy day, I dont know how not being able to see this edge you speak of verifes the heliocentric model ?
Last edited by LeonatLarge; 14-01-2020 at 12:39.
Goodness me what absolute tosh.
You get a weak GPS signal in a plane because you're wrapped in an Aluminium cylinder.
The aircraft has it's own specialised GPS antenna to overcome exactly that so it can, you know, navigate with.
Edit - By 'you' I mean any GPS device. That's not even taking into account the fact that phones, as best i know, aren't "true" GPS devices.
Last edited by piman2k; 14-01-2020 at 13:12.
Agreed, there is a southern hemisphere.
Also, GPS isn't a two way street. A GPS device uses it to get the position of itself. If your flight tracker wants to know where the plane is, the plane has to tell it through some other channel. It's this channel that doesn't have coverage, not GPS.
No, this does not explain the gradual loss of signal as max altitude is achieved, for your theory to be correct there would be no signal at sea level when inside the aircraft, you could of said that the phone isn't designed to accept the signal at altitude as it's closer to the source but I would not of found that explanation acceptable either.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
