Eric Dubay Answers Everyone's Flat Earth Questions

markwilson wrote:
So if you don't want it here, put it in a corner somewhere else, or delete it.

No one is going to delete your proposal.
As for myself, I am not interested in spending money promoting yet another elaborate flat Earth proof; the "control opposition" has that covered, and IFERS should distance themselves from that comparison.

The State of Kansas has been surveyed FLAT; I wrote about this in 2012, a few months later "Vsauce" came out with a video admitting that the State of Kansas was flat but Earth was still Spherical. (sic)
The problem with Balltardism is getting them to comprehend what comes out of their mouth; see my example of the Suez canal.

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:
I will gladly wear the badge of Heretic anytime.  Go ahead and build your monument as an altar and I volunteer to be your first heretical sacrifice.

Your statement that we don't need to build, nor have any more need of practical experiments, whether large or small, is antithetical to the practical demonstration of science. Does what I propose advance knowledge? If so, why are you now exposing your weak position with superficial sarcasm, instead of explaining how I'm wrong? I get that type reply everyday on YouTube.

Did I not pose in my first post this subject, the question, "Am I way off or does this have merit? I've been thinking about it for some time, but maybe I'm missing something obvious that invalidates the experiment? Costly, yes. But does it serve the purpose?"

Tell me what "invalidates" what I've proposed. How is the design of the project able to be commandeered by those wishing to have no such proof that water doesn't bend? Have the laser beam experiments been unassailable? Has seeing the Chicago skyline from sixty miles away been unassailable? And if you can't do that, what is your motive to pooh-pooh that which you apparently cannot invalidate in principle, because why wouldn't you go ahead and do so instead of writing in the flavor of the superficial folks we run into daily on the social media platforms?

My statement stands as accurate. Paraphrasing that you've come at me with "badge of the Heretic, build my monument, and use it as an altar so you can be the first heretical sacrifice," comes from a weak position. Was that really needed? Your original statement was heretical to true zetetic science, and your attempt to deflect from that accurate assessment is even more so.

I had no clue that I would be met with animosity over a project that apparently is sound in principle. Declare what invalidates, or admit you can't find fault with an experiment, a display, that removes all doubt of water's nature to settle into a level plane. I'd pay a dollar to go see what I'm talking about before paying the same dollar to go look at dead politicians carved on the face of Mount Rushmore, no doubt a much more expensive project.

I agree with Schpankme, and I will add this: No amount of proof will ever satisfy the sheeple (hence why they are sheeple). Yuri Bezmenov explains it best (simply replace some of the terms he uses for ones that relate to the spherical Earth deception):



The only way for the sheeple to stop being sheep is to accept that they are in fact people and not sheep, and that realization must come from within... Unfortunately, I don't see that happening on a mass scale in the near future.

Dual1ty wrote:No amount of proof will ever satisfy the sheeple

It's getting interesting in here. Now a 3rd person pooh-poohing practical demonstration. We don't do a practical demonstration, because "no amount of proof will" sink through the indoctrination blinding those imperceptive to such demonstration and what it proves? Did you really write that? Don't prove, don't demonstrate, because "sheeple" won't get it anyway?! Since when is the bar of science down around what "sheeple" are satisfied with?

Third fellow in the fray; did you not think that perhaps your best approach would be to actually invalidate the principles involved in building a project that would otherwise be supportive of our cause, and that I first proposed? You're worried that sheeple be satisfied over principles in nature being proved by way of practical demonstration? I don't get it.

A walking path next to a level plane foundation over its length, the length of one mile or two, built with a clear water level atop, and proving what water does over a one mile distance— settles in a plane, with no curve, just like in a drinking glass— is being assailed for every reason other than the construction principle is flawed?

And if the construction principle isn't flawed— after all, we haven't been discussing flaws in the proposed design, but peripheral things having nothing to do with design— why is such an adversarial position taken sans any effort to point out its flaw(s)? That's what I originally asked for, I think, when proposing such project.

And if the project proves an 8, or 32 inch rise over one/two miles, false, by way of practical demonstration, why is the conversation here, HOW my project recommendation is invalid, yet without a hint of addressing flawed principle in its construction?

markwilson wrote:

Dual1ty wrote:No amount of proof will ever satisfy the sheeple

It's getting interesting in here. Now a 3rd person pooh-poohing practical demonstration.

Not at all. What I'm saying is some of the sheeple will remain sheeple, regardless of the facts, because the indoctrination is stronger.

Dual1ty wrote:

markwilson wrote:

Dual1ty wrote:No amount of proof will ever satisfy the sheeple

It's getting interesting in here. Now a 3rd person pooh-poohing practical demonstration.

Not at all. What I'm saying is some of the sheeple will remain sheeple, regardless of the facts, because the indoctrination is stronger.

Then you have no argument against a project to demonstrate a known fact in nature; that water settles in a level plane. We don't not demonstrate facts in nature just because some, regardless of those facts being rejected when put on display before the eyes still blinded, simply because they don't get it due to a lifelong indoctrination that is alleged by you to be too strong and can't be overcome. Right? "Rowbotham, don't ruin your shoes at that darn Bedford Level today. The sheep won't get it anyway."

Can you assail the principle in the building of said project? If the proposed structure does nothing more than display, over a distance of water that should have demonstrable curve over the distance if Earth is a ball, that it isn't there, why are we concerned with what those not ready for the truth anyway, have to think about what is staring them in the face?

Mark, with all due respect, it's up to the ones who believe in nonsense to provide proof for their nonsense if they want all of us to embrace their nonsense and turn it into a system. What's happened is science has been hijacked in order to fit nonsense explanations about the world we live in.

Most of us here on IFERS know beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is not a ball, and some have known this for quite some time, even before this forum existed. If we had any doubts we wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be denying the existence of the globe. The only thing that's stopping the rest of the population from unraveling the deception and pulling the wool away from their eyes is themselves.

I've merely proposed the below on a scale which proves the middle one will never be higher than the other two, at a distance the middle one would, of necessity, be higher than the other two if the Earth were a ball of 24,901 miles in circumference:



And the only way to do it, as I see it, is to have the above resting hard on a known level foundation. Because without such foundation, it leaves open the specious argument that, yes, water in such containment is level, but it is level above an undulating, curved, Earth (i.e., the water is level above, but the Earth beneath is still spherical). I do not understand the resistance to practical demonstration on a scale wherein scale is the only argument made against the proposal.

Am I wrong? Has the principle been misstated by myself? And if we're only talking scale, principle being the same in each regardless of the size of construction, why am I still trying to make that point that a project can be built proving the hypothesis?

But we know that the Earth is not a ball of any size, and the physical reality that the photo you posted just now depicts proves it, so what is the point? As Schpankme accurately stated, your demonstration and its financial cost only benefits those who claim the Earth is a ball. Your proposal does not further our understanding of the world we live in, it only humors those who can't think for themselves and believe in absurdities.

Dual1ty wrote:
Most of us here on IFERS know beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is not a ball....

Well, I would have thought that, too. It's why I'm scratching my head that Schpankme posts three things, bang, bang, bang, as though I just plopped in here today, and I was the one spreading heresy, when I've done nothing more that said, "scale bigger" and make a statement that we have undeniably proved there is not an 8 inch rise over 1 mile when there should be, demonstrated practically, and cannot be logically argued against.

Shouldn't we be about practical demonstrations that can't be argued against (and if it's in their face, so what)? Why did Rowbotham bother down at the Bedford, if not? But even his efforts were muddled up by a court action now used by enemies of the truth to continue propagating the lie. If the proposed project doesn't accomplish that, please inform how the larger proposed scale is any different than the smaller scale, which does nothing to show an 8 inch peak, which we know isn't there, over 1 mile. Make it 2 miles to be more emphatic. If it shuts up the liars for all future generations, it will be worth the trouble. Improbable that it will be done, yes. Impossible, no.

If there isn't an 8 inch peak in 1 mile, incontrovertibly proved, there isn't any in the other mythological 24,900 of them. What would the argument be? "Oh, flat earther, you should have built 1 mile further North, South, East, or West. We're sure your project would have proved bendy surface water if only one mile distant over yonder."

All water must of necessity curvate on the sphere to form to it. That's their argument and just one mile proves them liars.

"You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.

[...]

A person who was demoralized (indoctrinated) is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him―even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures... he will refuse to believe it... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization (indoctrination)." - Yuri Bezmenov.

Dual1ty wrote:"You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.

[...]

A person who was demoralized (indoctrinated) is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him―even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures... he will refuse to believe it... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization (indoctrination)." - Yuri Bezmenov.

I really can't argue with that. You provided absolutely nothing of substance in that comment. When I take their figure of 24,901, build a level foundation over 1 mile of it, and there is no 8 inch peak in it, why are you speaking to me of innumerable ones too dense to see what is demonstrated in front of their eyes? Do you have anything disproving the principle upon which the project is built? And if not, why do you talk about the inability of some to perceive? What is their dullness of mind to you? Water will find its level over that 1 mile, correct? They are proved wrong by way of practical demonstration, regardless if they perceive it or not, correct? Does your concern over their inability to perceive, do anything to invalidate the proper construction, though you apparently can't assail that construction with a logical argument against it, and what it proves? Else, why haven't you?

Specifically, what do you have against a practical demonstration, built properly and observing the scientific principles we have come to understand, that you feel compelled to keep those who don't get it from seeing/thinking on it? Shouldn't you be assailing the principle the project is built on if I'm in error, rather than who may, or may not, understand what it proves going forward?

If I'm wrong in scaling the demonstrable proof up to 1 mile scale, so the imaginary 8 inches can be unequivocally proved nonexistent, tell me how I'm wrong in the building of it. And if you can't do that, please don't argue against it.

You're making an argument you were subjected to in government controlled schools, and I bet you don't even realize it. "Oh, Johnny, the rest of the class knows the earth is a globe, and therefore your talk of proving them wrong by way of practical demonstration cannot possibly be perceived by them. Let's hold off on that science experiment, Johnny. Cost must be considered too, Johnny."

Thanks for this discussion everyone. I find myself in the difficult position of agreeing with all 4 of you. To begin with, any such practical demonstration is good and worth-while, so I think on the surface it is certainly something to consider. If it was only a mile long however, the middle point's water level on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference would only reach 4 inches higher than either end, not 8 inches. 8 inches is the drop over one mile, not half a mile. A 4 inch difference across a mile stretch doesn't seem very impressive or conclusive to me, so I think you would need a minimum of 2 miles, so that the middle should be 16 inches higher. If an independently wealthy flat Earther (not sure of Mark's financial position) wanted to fund such a thing and make it happen, I think that would be great. It would certainly be yet another excellent practical example to point people towards showing the Earth/water to be perfectly level. The problem is that 1) there is no "home-run" proof that will somehow silence all criticism and denial from the sheeple, 2) likely none of us have the kind of funding possible to create such a thing, 3) Myself and IFERS have separated from the FES, FECore, the Potatoes, the Conference crew, the Globe Lie and other controlled opposition groups (in many ways including) by NOT asking for donations or having money be involved, 4) the logistics of actually constructing something like this sounds very costly and time-consuming, time and money that may be better spent on other forms of activism, especially considering that, 5) once constructed, on some plot of land somewhere, the challenge of getting people to actually go there or getting wide-spread attention to the experiment still remains, and we're back to what we're doing now anyway, trying our best to spread the word on and offline. So in conclusion, I do think it is a great idea and if financially and logistically it was possible for someone to construct, they should absolutely go ahead and do so. If, however, crowd-funding was needed to create this, I would personally rather not change mine/IFERS policy of not asking for donations. Peace

Admin wrote:Thanks for this discussion everyone....

Thanks for that, Eric. I'm more than a bit embarrassed that I missed what I thought had been the correct interpretation of the numbers using the globe model. And I have been mistaken for quite some time.

On page 15/16 in Earth Not a Globe, Rowbotham gives the example of a distance of 40 miles, 20 miles from start to peak, 20 miles from peak to end.

He states, "The ship coming into view from the east would have to ascend an inclined plane for 20 miles until it arrived at the center of the arc A B, whence it would have to descend for the same distance. The square of 20 miles multiplied by 8 inches gives 266 feet as the amount the vessel would be below the line C D at the beginning and at the end of 40 miles."

I've never once taken only half the total distance to compute the peak, and even when I have shared with others regarding the 60 miles overlooking Lake Michigan, as an example, I had always used 60 x 60 x 8 to ultimately come to an 8 football field high vertical peak between the east shore and Chicago skyline. And now I find out it is considerably less than that, and I regret having been wrong all this time. And I've never been called out on it, so I'm happy to have that corrected, though I've regrettably shared that example numerous times.

But that is exactly what I was looking for when posting the scenario to consider under "Questions." That is, any factual error to making a demonstrable experiment over a sufficient distance showing the peak of curved water that should be there, but isn't under their false ball model.

So if I understand correctly now, and in the case of 60 miles across Lake Michigan, I would take half the distance, 30 miles, square it and multiply by 8, and that would be the vertical height of the peak, correct?

30 x 30 x 8 = 7,200 inches, divided by 12 inches foot = 600 feet (I had been using 60 x 60 x 8 ). Whereas I have been claiming all of the skyline is hidden (Willis Tower being 1,451 feet), the truth of the matter is that standing on the east shore looking over the lake would result in a peak of water only TWO football fields high, and since Willis Tower is 1,451 feet, that would leave roughly 851 feet of the tower still visible. Can you confirm that for me?

And as you say, given a two mile project built on a level plane foundation, the peak is only going to be 8 inches at a total distance of 2 miles, whereas I incorrectly claimed 8 inches at 1 mile. Correct?

It grieves me much that I've been misrepresenting the computation of the peak over so many months. Thanks so much for clarifying.

And now I've muddled up my own point I had wished to make, without doubt. If the other gentleman are agreeable to it, I see no reason for my incorrect numbers to litter the thread based on faulty math (though the others didn't address that math, which is what I was looking for from the outset). Please feel free to delete my own errant assumptions, if the other gentleman don't mind having their replies deleted also— unless you want others wading through much discussion that you instantly proved moot based on my errant figures. I do not apologize, though, for broaching the subject of an edifice over a given length proving water settles in a true level plane, as an attempt to have a memorial proving the curvature claim false.

Your yeoman efforts are much appreciated.

Thanks Mark, your curvature calculation for Lake Michigan is correct from 60 miles, the 30 mile marker only comes into question if you set up a third observation point half-way through. In your example with the 1 mile water tube, you suggested there would be 8 inches in deviation upwards after half a mile and another deviation downwards 8 inches after another half mile (per globe model), which would make a total deviation of 16 inches over the 1 mile (instead of the 8 inches it should be). Likewise, to an observer 30 miles out on Lake Michigan, you would have to half it for him, but not for the initial observer, for the initial observer, the 60 mile original calculation is indeed correct. I'll leave this discussion up for a little while longer to see if any more replies come in but will clean this thread up afterwards.

Mark , wouldn't the water levels in the experiment be influenced by atmospheric pressure differences /humidity/winds , unless I'm mistaken  . It's a good experiment but would need to be allied with others .
      I do know , from old survey text books , that earth is surveyed as flat by civil engineers in areas up to 100 square miles - dont know where that figure comes from but it is stated that when surveyed , no curvature is found that doesn't fall within the instrument error limits , i.e. no curve .
     I'd like to see your experiment allied to the Brian Mullin " force the line experiment" but that would be expensive .

Admin wrote:Thanks for this discussion everyone.  [...]

I agree, Eric.

By all means, carry out this experiment if you have the time and the money to do it. It's the crowd-funding part and the "checkmating the globe" attitude that I have an issue with and frankly I'm sick of. And I firmly believe that if you do carry out this experiment (or any other experiment), you'll find that, no matter what you do, the believers will always come up with excuses to justify their beliefs and trash your evidence, even if your evidence is perfect (and the behavior of water already is perfect evidence as it is).

Dual1ty wrote:

Admin wrote:Thanks for this discussion everyone.  [...]

I agree, Eric.

By all means, carry out this experiment if you have the time and the money to do it. It's the crowd-funding part and the "checkmating the globe" attitude that I have an issue with and frankly I'm sick of. And I firmly believe that if you do carry out this experiment (or any other experiment), you'll find that, no matter what you do, the believers will always come up with excuses to justify their beliefs and trash your evidence, even if your evidence is perfect (and the behavior of water already is perfect evidence as it is).

I was only searching for the answer to the question how best to prove our plane Realm to those now rejecting it. Why have you made it about the money? I'm just curious?

Dual1ty wrote:

Admin wrote:Thanks for this discussion everyone.  [...]

I agree, Eric.

By all means, carry out this experiment if you have the time and the money to do it. It's the crowd-funding part and the "checkmating the globe" attitude that I have an issue with and frankly I'm sick of. And I firmly believe that if you do carry out this experiment (or any other experiment), you'll find that, no matter what you do, the believers will always come up with excuses to justify their beliefs and trash your evidence, even if your evidence is perfect (and the behavior of water already is perfect evidence as it is).

Can one come around full circle? My original post was only trying to express in principal what happens in nature (law) using a water level. We are not the people controlling the purse strings that can build monuments to our own understanding of nature (laws thereof). My original post wasn't so much about the money as it was, that if we ever get the purse strings back for public works, the knowledge will go out. Because we've been lied to, and now people are waking up to it. Agreed? Books will eventually be rid of the lies they now promulgate.

My original post was about the technical correctness of said project. If I'm a Bill Gates, I build it for you guys. Massively. I'm old, and about to die anyway, and I'll leave a legacy to this truth we share here at IFERS. Just for fun. It will be lit up at night. Free Frisbees for everyone.

The Egyptians built a big pyramid. What does it speak of? Anybody know? What would a massive fact of nature, staring people in the face, do? Have we got room for that? Who controls these things?

Maybe I'm confused. What I wish to impart is what is demonstrated in nature. Why are we all having this duality, one with another, when we all know that water seeks its plane level? Period. I think I may have put my question in the wrong thread, or perhaps I totally botched the way I asked it.

Why do we care what "believers" of the Masonic spinning ball think about these things? Do we compose our thoughts, write our books, build our monuments, based on what they mistakenly believe?

Let's reverse it. You say, "trash your evidence, even if your evidence is perfect" Your evidence is perfect, trash it. I hope that is not what is going on here. Should we be talking about believers under a thread discussing the construction of of a project in nature with a message that supports only one side of the argument (and it's not the "believers" side). The evidence is perfect and such a building project may, or may not, happen, it seems. Who knows? Once we wrest the myths from the minds of those believers, at that point, the monument can go back to the earth as The Peter Iredale is slowly going back to the sea. It would be redundant, and we just started exploring in a straight line going south, building supply camps along the way. Who is going to pay for that public works project?!

Sorry guys. I didn't mean to cause the controversy.

Dual1ty wrote:

Admin wrote:Thanks for this discussion everyone.  [...]

I agree, Eric.

Gosh, I need to back away from the keyboard for a bit. I owe you an apology. After pondering your comments, I thought I was the one who had cast the up vote by your comment originally. And frankly, I didn't want that. I clicked the minus sign to remove what I thought I had done, and it gave you a down vote. I went to a browser not signed in on and there it is. I was trying to register my ambivalence to it, not give you a down vote. I owe you an apology and ask that Eric remove that vote, because apparently I can't do it. Sorry. Sometimes I'm not smarter than the equipment.

markwilson wrote:Gosh, I need to back away from the keyboard for a bit. I owe you an apology. After pondering your comments, I thought I was the one who had cast the up vote by your comment originally. And frankly, I didn't want that. I clicked the minus sign to remove what I thought I had done, and it gave you a down vote. I went to a browser not signed in on and there it is. I was trying to register my ambivalence to it, not give you a down vote. I owe you an apology and ask that Eric remove that vote, because apparently I can't do it. Sorry. Sometimes I'm not smarter than the equipment.

That's alright, I don't really care about upvotes. I do give them to people in order to highlight their comments and I won't deny that it feels good to receive them, but even if you had meant to give me the downvote there would be no hard feelings from me. A quick tip: you don't need another browser to check such things, you can just open a new private window and you won't be signed in on that.

As for your proposal and the controversy surrounding it, I won't get into a philosophical debate with you any further. You obviously care a lot about it, so like I already said, if you manage to get it funded you can do it. I won't be stopping you, obviously, but I also won't be personally contributing to it and I have my reasons, some of which I've already stated here.

Dual1ty wrote:

markwilson wrote:Gosh, I need to back away from the keyboard for a bit. I owe you an apology. After pondering your comments, I thought I was the one who had cast the up vote by your comment originally. And frankly, I didn't want that. I clicked the minus sign to remove what I thought I had done, and it gave you a down vote. I went to a browser not signed in on and there it is. I was trying to register my ambivalence to it, not give you a down vote. I owe you an apology and ask that Eric remove that vote, because apparently I can't do it. Sorry. Sometimes I'm not smarter than the equipment.

That's alright, I don't really care about upvotes. I do give them to people in order to highlight their comments and I won't deny that it feels good to receive them, but even if you had meant to give me the downvote there would be no hard feelings from me. A quick tip: you don't need another browser to check such things, you can just open a new private window and you won't be signed in on that.

As for your proposal and the controversy surrounding it, I won't get into a philosophical debate with you any further. You obviously care a lot about it, so like I already said, if you manage to get it funded you can do it. I won't be stopping you, obviously, but I also won't be personally contributing to it and I have my reasons, some of which I've already stated here.

Thank you for that reply. I am ambivalent to the statement I boo-booed on, and like you, base my judgement on what I've already shared here. I don't think you're the devil. Yet ;-)

And it is something I'm trying to learn. Disagree more graciously than I have been wont to do. I'm sick to death, though, of tit-for-tats with people who mask their true intentions. Take Flat Earth Math, for example. Name's his avatar in a deceitful way and immediately proceeds to challenge the truth revealed in the demonstrable facts found in nature proving beyond any shadow of doubt the plane. And I don't apologize for pointing out that he uses his channel to promote his, either, 1) knowing lies promoting the ball myth, or, 2) his inability to rightly reason. Either way, he's an enemy of the truth.

What the motivation to do so?

How many of those types do we suppose are attempting to poison the well, here and there, such as another example, RockLover? I pegged him. He's never once denied it. Lover of the 3rd Rock from the Sun. Liars prevaricate. We flushed out Jim Giraffe, for example. Caught him disparaging Dubay unjustly even after he started a thread on IFERS. Why does RockLover infest flat earth channels with his stupidity/deceit? It's one or the other. What motivates those, who without question are present in these threads and throughout social media? Isn't it natural for them to behave the way they do? Copernicus, Kepler, Freemasons. Read his Revolutions tome. Gets brown all over his nose while bent over kissing the Pope's hiney (a priest prattling his superstitious nonsense as a full time employment while eating slaughtered animals as part of the sacrificial system invented by men who didn't understand the science of their own bodies; like me in a previous life). Superstitious sun-worshipers. That's why he's "RockLover." I'm still working on "Dual1ty." Something, maybe? Maybe not. Why are they lying about the shape of our realm? If demonstrable facts in nature didn't prove the thing, it would be matters of opinion. It's not, though. It's matters of deceit or obtuseness.

As above so below? Or, better, as above, nothing like below, and oh, btw, I feel most privileged and happy the above invited me to the reality of being below? Because I'm not the above. Yet I see the works of the above and the immutable laws of nature pervading everything as I try to grow while on the journey. I hate liars.  

And I couldn't care less the opinion of "believers," induced by liars, to parrot the fibs that are easily disproved by understanding (not standing under) facts written in laws all throughout nature, and which they can't prove, such as water clinging to a ball, or bendy surface water. [EDIT: I misspoke. I do indeed "stand under" those "facts written in laws al throughout nature. I do not stand under the the lies of those attacking those 'planely' visible laws.]

I'll have to keep that tip in mind, though, about the private window. More proficient, and I never thought about doing it that way.

What are your reasons for not wishing to contribute to an edifice screaming Intelligent Design in its very human design, while at the same time an experiment demonstrable and proving the level plane water always settles in when at rest, no matter basin size? Let's make the thing 5 miles long, clear water tubes 6 feet in diameter, flood them with the massive amount of water necessary to reach the proof we desire. Massive marks indicating the water in the vertical tubes, equidistant to the plane it sits on, no matter how many vertical tubes we decide upon throughout the construction. Airplane passengers marvel at it and what it proves to them as they fly over it. Behold the curve that isn't there! It seems paradoxical to me. Give us a buck. I'm not the Pope. I'm Bill Gates and don't have near the budget of the Pope, so your dollar will help. We'll name a brick after you, and I won't try to push any ritualistic absurdities on you. Marveling at a demonstrable fact in nature trumps staring at a pyramid whose purpose is ambiguous.

Are you in our camp?

I'm going to hit the send button. I'm sure you'd agree I've been on the soap box long enough.

Mark, you hinted to this being some sort of magnum opus project for you before you die, or at least that's what I understood. Perhaps that's affecting your judgement a little. If humanity ever frees itself from this tyranny you won't be around to see it, and possibly I won't either. This is a long term struggle and personally I'm not optimistic about it. That doesn't make me the enemy or the devil, and frankly I don't care if you think it does. Yes, you've been on the soap box, and I'm not about that. It doesn't help anyone.

This whole thing is more than just about facts and natural science and proving things. If it wasn't, all this would have been resolved a long time ago.

There are no hard feelings to any of this. It is the policy of IFERS/Eric that there shall be no crowd-funding here and I stand by that decision.

As a side note, I don't think you want to compare yourself to Bill Gates. Without going into the details, Linux has accomplished everything Windows has and has done it better, and free of charge, and this isn't even touching on the treacherous history of Microsoft.