How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:25 pm

Posted by sheriffrowdy1982 on 06/27/2015
I'm currently in a debate on an anarchist fb page that had a post about some NASA hoax which pulled me in to drop flat earth bombs on fellow anarchists and I was surprised by some of their blind allegiance to their cosmic Jesus and Mohammed; Copernicus and Newton. You'd thought that I had just denied the religious texts of Christianity of Islam to one guy. What a fervent follower who could only copy and paste Google searches to make his case in all regards to a globular earth. I did end up having a few fellow flat earthers come to my aid which was refreshing. If anyone wants to hop in you should probably be aligned with anarchism yourself because it's a closed group called NU GATEWAY Anarchist and Voluntaryist. I didn't realize that so many anarchists which I had assumed to be critical thinkers drank so much kool-aid. So butt hurt!

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:25 pm

Posted by gnosticwarrior on 06/27/2015
Facebook seems to be a very high-resistance medium to anything but comfortable, orthodox anti-establishment stuff. I have this thing, where I tell friends and family that "Whatever the truth is, you're not going to hear about it on Facebook".

I've noticed a clear divide between people doing genuine research, and those just hanging out in FB groups circle-jerking to the same old stuff. Memes, broken logic/selective reasoning, and "safe discussion" that never veers outside the acceptable boundaries of the group's paradigm. Everything is literally a closed system of reinforcing lies.

Russell Brand gets a ton of attention, as he's obviously controlled opposition which has gained serious traction after several months of "test trials with the market" of passive keyboard warriors, eager to defend their narrow minded social and political bias from behind the comfort of their computer screen. That's just one example, IMHO, for how broken FB has become.

People don't go on there for Truth; they go on their to perpetuate their ignorance and comfort, via insulating themselves with cat memes all day.

Not to say the cause is totally lost, but I find it's WAY easier to get people on board who already have an intuitive impression that a lot of the mainstream stuff is "off", to the point where they begin looking and researching for themselves. The best thing we can do is guide those who are ready to places like this. Making others aware of disinfo is about the best you can do in cases of resistance, but they will decide in their own time. I'm so done keeping my mouth shut with people who are ignorant, however; I've since seen first hand because of this forum, that passive attitudes allow shills and disinfo agents to run amok. I say my piece, and if they start rejecting, then I peace. At least the information is there (until someone deletes it), and perhaps someone will catch it, and start thinking orthogonally to the group's biases.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:26 pm

Posted by thesekininja on 06/27/2015
The phrase 'globetrotters' itself is evidence of a long-game to conceal reality from us.

What has trotters?

How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters? 0aOQdzlx9T2YSBkew9TG

How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters? 0aOQdzlx9T2YSBkew9TG

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:26 pm

Posted by sheriffrowdy1982 on 06/27/2015
I agree gnosticwarrior. I normally wouldn't have bothered but it was in a closed anarchist group. I assumed that anarchists were critical thinkers and open to looking deeper into issues especially when the topic was about NASA, a waste bin of taxpayer's dollars. I assumed wrong. I thought the basic building blocks of an anarchist, life myself, was a genuine mistrust of anything espoused by any government agency and to question everything. It was good to see others take a stand though. We're out there. It's a comfort! Needless to say the one guy that tried to make a valid argument stopped responding. Logic prevailed.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:27 pm

Posted by eldask on 06/28/2015
I generally go through the facts and show how all of NASA's video's are all CGI with composite photos , after that point- I make it very clear that a Globe model is something of an inversely proportionate ruse, much of what you -believe- you can explain on a round earth, also can be explained by a flat earth, but the reality is that there is an extent of inconsistency that the globe eventually meets.

Hard to get across this to the opposition because when you try to explain these inconsistencies, they more so take it as straw man, if you claim something about gravity is wrong or doesn't make sense, well.. they believe it does- so to them it's just a straw man. And when you do explain something they just go "No it happens because of X on a round Earth".

All Newtonian physics does is justify its claim in the model it's presenting with the presumption that the world is round and an existing zero G space, which means that in order for us to really believe that gravity is an enacting force, we have to first think Zero G space exists and that we're in a planet. however, it's totally unverifiable to any "Globalist" (lol).

People don't really realize that the theory does a lot of the work, and the rest is their minds justifying it in their heads because their assumptions. I take a route of philosophy and reason in between the facts to really help them get a different perspective, and break the programming a little.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Nikola Tesla

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:28 pm

Posted by sheriffrowdy1982 on 06/29/2015
A bunch of others jumped in the debate and it was two of us vs a bunch of them. They had no argument other than their belief in theoretical math which they cannot even comprehend themselves. They pretty much said that their math (which they can't even begin to factor themselves) is better than our math (basic math) and the fact that they have zero experimental data to prove their claim was better than the fact that we actually do because they had theoretical math equations to disprove our concrete experience due to "illusions" and "skewed perspective." Another argument was that "because Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton said so." They had nothing yet it proved everything.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:28 pm

Posted by gnosticwarrior on 06/29/2015
That's still one of my favorite aspects about the majority of Western "Science" - the amount of mathematical "theory" involved. "Well, in theory, it works like..." = So you have no actual idea, then?

Replace "theory" with "magic", "pixie dust", "lucky charms marshmallows", and the equation still "works".

The amount of BS variables they stretch and rationalize is its own art. I assure you though, it's definitely not True Science!

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:29 pm

Posted by bk on 07/02/2015

Jun 27, 2015 11:09:42 GMT sheriffrowdy1982 said:
I'm currently in a debate on an anarchist fb page that had a post about some NASA hoax which pulled me in to drop flat earth bombs on fellow anarchists and I was surprised by some of their blind allegiance to their cosmic Jesus and Mohammed; Copernicus and Newton. You'd thought that I had just denied the religious texts of Christianity of Islam to one guy. What a fervent follower who could only copy and paste Google searches to make his case in all regards to a globular earth. I did end up having a few fellow flat earthers come to my aid which was refreshing. If anyone wants to hop in you should probably be aligned with anarchism yourself because it's a closed group called NU GATEWAY Anarchist and Voluntaryist. I didn't realize that so many anarchists which I had assumed to be critical thinkers drank so much kool-aid. So butt hurt!

Hello everyone.

I'm new to the forum and grateful for your wonderful work.

From my own experience, it is a good way to make them think, whith their own idiotic theory.
For example, the ecliptic of the Earth.
How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters? RyckYq6xvIagIuIZYhl8

How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters? RyckYq6xvIagIuIZYhl8

Accordingly the heliozentric theory, should the sun stay in the northern hemisphere during the summer midday in the north. Opposite of the inclined earth's axis
But it is always in the South and not toward the inclined axis of the earth.
Excuse my bad google english.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:30 pm

Posted by schpankme on 07/03/2015
Anyone can see the Sun and Moon above the Horizon with the Moon in Phase, or Eclipse. This cannot happen on the
Magical Ball Earth.

Welcome to the Flat Earth, where Freemasons Fake Space and Jesuits give Big Bangs.

Lets start the Deprogramming.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:30 pm

Posted by rebecca on 07/05/2015
Been debating a friend via email about the flat earth all weekend. And it has gotten a bit nuts!
Anyway I think I have come up with something that might make the point as how nuts the ball earth is. That is if the earth is spinning at a thousand mph around its central axis then there must be some very strange place both at the central points of the north and south poles that it must be like some crazy merrygoround! Spinning God only know how fast. Where nothing could survive. But I have never heard about such a place.
And if it is then it would be simple for the ball earthers to prove we live on a spinning ball rather than go to the moon and take rubbish pictures! They just go to the North Pole and find this spinning place and film it. Should make for great viewing!
Have I gone too far? Completely lost it? Just seems to me that it would to be the case. Anyway I stand to be corrected!

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:31 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 07/05/2015

Jul 5, 2015 11:22:28 GMT rebecca said:
Been debating a friend via email about the flat earth all weekend. And it has gotten a bit nuts!
Anyway I think I have come up with something that might make the point as how nuts the ball earth is. That is if the earth is spinning at a thousand mph around its central axis then there must be some very strange place both at the central points of the north and south poles that it must be like some crazy merrygoround! Spinning God only know how fast. Where nothing could survive. But I have never heard about such a place.
And if it is then it would be simple for the ball earthers to prove we live on a spinning ball rather than go to the moon and take rubbish pictures! They just go to the North Pole and find this spinning place and film it. Should make for great viewing!
Have I gone too far? Completely lost it? Just seems to me that it would to be the case. Anyway I stand to be corrected!

Have you linked him to the FAQ thread Eric made? That would certainly give him some food for thought.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:31 pm

Posted by rebecca on 07/05/2015

Jul 5, 2015 11:50:32 GMT thinkforyourself said:
Jul 5, 2015 11:22:28 GMT rebecca said:
Been debating a friend via email about the flat earth all weekend. And it has gotten a bit nuts!
Anyway I think I have come up with something that might make the point as how nuts the ball earth is. That is if the earth is spinning at a thousand mph around its central axis then there must be some very strange place both at the central points of the north and south poles that it must be like some crazy merrygoround! Spinning God only know how fast. Where nothing could survive. But I have never heard about such a place.
And if it is then it would be simple for the ball earthers to prove we live on a spinning ball rather than go to the moon and take rubbish pictures! They just go to the North Pole and find this spinning place and film it. Should make for great viewing!
Have I gone too far? Completely lost it? Just seems to me that it would to be the case. Anyway I stand to be corrected!

Have you linked him to the FAQ thread Eric made? That would certainly give him some food for thought.

Hi Think that would be a big step to take for him but I could do copy and paste and feed it to him over a week or so.
But the good thing is I have his attention in this subject and he is willing to debate me.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:32 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 07/05/2015

Jul 5, 2015 12:49:00 GMT rebecca said:
Jul 5, 2015 11:50:32 GMT thinkforyourself said:
Have you linked him to the FAQ thread Eric made? That would certainly give him some food for thought.

Hi Think Good suggestion but that would be a big step to take for him but I could do copy and paste and feed it to him over a week or so.
The good thing is I have his attention in this subject and he is willing to debate me. I told him to quit with the NASA and wiki stuff and use some common sense and think things through.

Hi Think that would be a big step to take for him but I could do copy and paste and feed it to him over a week or so.
But the good thing is I have his attention in this subject and he is willing to debate me.

You are going about it in a clever way; it is better to let him slowly adapt, rather than to hit him around the head with a huge amount of information all in one go, because that might overwhelm him.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:32 pm

Posted by rebecca on 07/06/2015
Ok seems that someone at the pole would only go around once every 24 hours. As on a ball at the circumference you have to go a greater distance.
I am just trying to get my head around the ball modelled I want to see how both works in theory.
At least that solves that problem.
But I still can't see how Polaris is in the same spot all the time.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:33 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 07/06/2015

Jul 6, 2015 6:24:17 GMT rebecca said:
Ok seems that someone at the pole would only go around once every 24 hours. As on a ball at the circumference you have to go a greater distance.
I am just trying to get my head around the ball modelled I want to see how both works in theory.
At least that solves that problem.
But I still can't see how Polaris is in the same spot all the time.

Maybe he would understand the problem with the Full-Moon seen during the day, alongside the Sun. That should not be possible on a Global Earth, because wherever it is nighttime would be missing it's Moon.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:33 pm

Posted by rebecca on 07/07/2015
Just going to have a rant here.....sorry guys and gals!
Saw my friend tonight and he now doesn't have a problem with the sun being in the same area as the moon is doing a total eclipse because you might just be standing on the edge where you can still see the sun. Now I have to find out if that is possible. As far as I know you have to be directly observing the shadow in front.
I don't mind debating him as it does make me ask other questions.
Anyway he cannot see why a pilot would have to dip their nose down of a plane to keep altitude at say 44,000' going at a sped of 620 mph. Which I was recently doing on a long haul and put my iPod level app on the ground to see if we were dipping. And we were not. We were completely level. Only when we were coming in to land do the level show the difference.
At first he said the pilot wouldn't have to dip that it could kinda stay straight and drop down. Then I told him a live near an airport and the planes do dip their noses to land. So on and on this went. Then he came to the conclusion that the earth would keep the plane at its altitude automatically with the pull of gravity. And the pilot wouldn't have to do a thing! All he would have to do is to keep it at the same power.
I told him about the Bedford level exponents and I have now sent him a link. I noticed in wiki they said these experiments have now been proven incorrect. Well of course they have because we have to have the globe model don't we!
From what I have seen in my long haul flights the earth is flat! Still meaning to post my pics.....but have been very busy since I have returned!

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:33 pm

Posted by Admin on 07/07/2015
Add "airplanes auto-correcting perfectly for the supposed curvature of the Earth" to Gravity's magical properties:

How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters? P6eDN8weZ7UorigE02Jf

How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters? P6eDN8weZ7UorigE02Jf

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:35 pm

Posted by dark on 07/08/2015

Jul 5, 2015 11:22:28 GMT rebecca said:
Been debating a friend via email about the flat earth all weekend. And it has gotten a bit nuts!
Anyway I think I have come up with something that might make the point as how nuts the ball earth is. That is if the earth is spinning at a thousand mph around its central axis then there must be some very strange place both at the central points of the north and south poles that it must be like some crazy merrygoround! Spinning God only know how fast. Where nothing could survive. But I have never heard about such a place.
And if it is then it would be simple for the ball earthers to prove we live on a spinning ball rather than go to the moon and take rubbish pictures! They just go to the North Pole and find this spinning place and film it. Should make for great viewing!
Have I gone too far? Completely lost it? Just seems to me that it would to be the case. Anyway I stand to be corrected!

It's the opposite of that actually. On a ball you'd be moving much faster at the equator than near the pole.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:35 pm

Posted by rebecca on 07/08/2015
Hi Dark
Yes reposted my error.
O thanks for you reply. It is not before the lunar eclipse but during it that I am speaking to him about. I am trying to show him inconsistencies such as the video that Eric posted with the moon eclipse with the sun still visible. Which from what I understand is not possible.
Anyway the debate will continue with him! He is very much Mr Science! Everything can be explained.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:35 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 07/08/2015

Jul 7, 2015 23:58:29 GMT rebecca said:
Hi Dark
Yes reposted my error.
O thanks for you reply. It is not before the lunar eclipse but during it that I am speaking to him about. I am trying to show him inconsistencies such as the video that Eric posted with the moon eclipse with the sun still visible. Which from what I understand is not possible.
Anyway the debate will continue with him! He is very much Mr Science! Everything can be explained.

I don't think that eclipses are the best way to convince someone of the truth regarding the Flat Earth. A better place to start would be the lighthouses, and lack of curvature in the water, as well as how far we can see through telescopes to boats/ships, that should be hidden by the curve. Water only curves in (false) theories, and never in reality.

He will have a hard time trying to get around that, because he won't be able to.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:36 pm

Posted by rebecca on 07/08/2015

Jul 8, 2015 1:03:55 GMT thinkforyourself said:
Jul 7, 2015 23:58:29 GMT rebecca said:

I don't think that eclipses are the best way to convince someone of the truth regarding the Flat Earth. A better place to start would be the lighthouses, and lack of curvature in the water, as well as how far we can see through telescopes to boats/ships, that should be hidden by the curve. Water only curves in (false) theories, and never in reality.

He will have a hard time trying to get around that, because he won't be able to.

Think, guess what I am doing copy and past of now? Lighthouses!
He will come up with something though....he is already talking light refraction!
I don't know why I bother because this guy can't even see the trianglar composition in the old masters work!

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:37 pm

Posted by csp on 07/08/2015

Jul 7, 2015 23:58:29 GMT rebecca said:
Hi Dark
Yes reposted my error.
O thanks for you reply. It is not before the lunar eclipse but during it that I am speaking to him about. I am trying to show him inconsistencies such as the video that Eric posted with the moon eclipse with the sun still visible. Which from what I understand is not possible.
Anyway the debate will continue with him! He is very much Mr Science! Everything can be explained.

Rebecca, show him the 381km photo I posted in the 'Image Proofs' thread and ask him to explain how such a picture can be taken on a globe. If he does provide an answer, please post it here so I can come back and read it when I need a good laugh

How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters? Smiley

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:37 pm

Posted by rebecca on 07/08/2015
Hi csp
Have just sent him your site........great pics! Thanks for suggesting I didn't think of that!
Cheers

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:38 pm

Posted by rebecca on 07/08/2015

Jul 8, 2015 5:19:31 GMT csp said:
Jul 7, 2015 23:58:29 GMT rebecca said:

Rebecca, show him the 381km photo I posted in the 'Image Proofs' thread and ask him to explain how such a picture can be taken on a globe. If he does provide an answer, please post it here so I can come back and read it when I need a good laugh

Ok he said that you pic of the distant mountains was a superior mirage.
Yep......it is either gravity that auto corrects planes or it is some other stupid thing
I even sent him a vid of jets doing the speed of sound and he had to admit that probably computers corrected them in that case as they had a lot of power.
I think I may have tripped him up on the last one because he is telling me that cannon balls have to take into account the curve. He gave speeds etc. I have asked for links. Also I asked how, when you consider this, do planes land!

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:38 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 07/08/2015

Jul 8, 2015 2:32:43 GMT rebecca said:
Jul 8, 2015 1:03:55 GMT thinkforyourself said:
I don't think that eclipses are the best way to convince someone of the truth regarding the Flat Earth. A better place to start would be the lighthouses, and lack of curvature in the water, as well as how far we can see through telescopes to boats/ships, that should be hidden by the curve. Water only curves in (false) theories, and never in reality.

He will have a hard time trying to get around that, because he won't be able to.

Think, guess what I am doing copy and past of now? Lighthouses!
He will come up with something though....he is already talking light refraction!
I don't know why I bother because this guy can't even see the trianglar composition in the old masters work!

He obviously can't see the wood for the trees. I wouldn't spend too much time trying to convince him; you have done your best, and if he wants to be comfortably deluded, let him.

by Sponsored content

How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

Re: How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?