Flat earth or globe
01 April 2016, 11:54 PM
#151
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like a good conspiracy theory , i don't automatically believe them , just as I don't automatically believe everything in the news or that governments tell us ,
It is ultimately impossible to prove any conspiracy to be fact it is easier to disprove some ,
Is there any big event in history that you don't believe happened as you've been told , or at least question if it actually happened as you've been told it did
It is ultimately impossible to prove any conspiracy to be fact it is easier to disprove some ,
Is there any big event in history that you don't believe happened as you've been told , or at least question if it actually happened as you've been told it did
Didn't we establish on another thread that you don't actually watch the news?
02 April 2016, 09:08 AM
#152
Scooby Regular
I like a good conspiracy theory , i don't automatically believe them , just as I don't automatically believe everything in the news or that governments tell us ,
It is ultimately impossible to prove any conspiracy to be fact it is easier to disprove some ,
Is there any big event in history that you don't believe happened as you've been told , or at least question if it actually happened as you've been told it did
It is ultimately impossible to prove any conspiracy to be fact it is easier to disprove some ,
Is there any big event in history that you don't believe happened as you've been told , or at least question if it actually happened as you've been told it did
Yes we all like a good conspiracy theory – it is probably a evolutionary trait , i.e. humans are, conspiratorial by nature.
The problem is that it is often difficult to disprove a conspiracy theory in its entirety
They are often so wide ranging and so full of rubbish, and the proponent of a conspiracy will often simply change the goalposts when confronted with counter evidence – it is like nailing jelly to a wall. So what you have to do is nail any specific claim when they are made, such as
Why are there no stars in the pictures the Astronauts took on the moon?
Why do you not see the astronauts holding cameras in the reflections of the helmets?
Who took the film of Neal Armstrong walking out of the lunar lander for the first time?
You cannot survive the Van Allen belt
Why do things not disappear over the horizon if the earth is round?
That person was not shot (in that news footage) because when someone is shot – blah blah blah ( i.e. in the movies ………)
The two towers (and WTC7) fell straight down – ergo controlled demolished (falling straight down is actually constant with what we know about how gravity works)
President Bush's brother was in charge of security of the two towers
Why was there no footage of the plane flying low over Washington when it hit the pentagon?
In the 70’s all the scientsist where talking about global cooling (Hands up - I actually fell for this myth)
CO2 is a “trace gas (always in quotes) hence cannot drive the earth’s climate
honest scientist never “adjust” (always in quotes) raw data - adjusting data is not how true science is done blah blah
Aircraft contrails do not persists (this belongs to a daft conspiracy theory about commercial aircraft spraying the world population and altering the weather) – just google “Chemtrails”
So conspiracy theorists love asking questions but never attempt to answer them
In all the above examples the actual answers are all pretty simple to answer and explain.
It is just that CT’ers prefer the “spookier” answer
And on the internet they find a ready supply of websites and YouTube videos willing to supply the “spooky” answer
All these nut cases rely on some basic principles – chief amongst them is simple “cherry-picking” – that means you accept the data that supports your theory (without attempting to understand the physics or simple explanation behind it) and reject ALL the rest.
And producers of these daft videos will always leave out the data that does not support their theory
So the Flat earth video – amongst a million other lines of evidence for a circular earth they wont explain how the tides work – because they can’t
the ABCD'ers (anything but carbon dioxide) brigade aka climate change deniers don't explain the mechanism by which the earth emerged from a snowball earth – because they can’t
The problem is that science counts the hits as well as the misses – cherry picking and cherry pickers will always get found out!
Sure governments keep secrets – that why, amazingly we have an “official secrets act” – duh
Sure those in power have a tendency to stick together – that’s why they seem to always be in power!!!!
Sure there have been conspiracies throughout history – Wartergate, Iran Contra, Suez Crisis, - maybe the run up to the Iraq war – let’s see what Chilcot comes up with
Remember – Keep an open mind but not so open your brains fall out.
If someone makes a claim – check it out - and does it fit ALL the data/evidence, remember the first rule of science - "though shalt not cherry-pick"
And always bear in mind the following when dealing with any weird scientific claim
Either the worlds scientist are
1. Incompetent (and some bloke in Ipswich with access to the internet has over thrown 200 of physics from his bedroom)
2. Knowingly conspiring to hide the facts from the rest of the world (aprt from the illuminati)
3. Or maybe just maybe – they know something you don’t
In 99.9% of the cases it will be 3
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 02 April 2016 at 09:16 AM.
02 April 2016, 11:17 AM
#156
Yes we all like a good conspiracy theory – it is probably a evolutionary trait , i.e. humans are, conspiratorial by nature.
The problem is that it is often difficult to disprove a conspiracy theory in its entirety
They are often so wide ranging and so full of rubbish, and the proponent of a conspiracy will often simply change the goalposts when confronted with counter evidence – it is like nailing jelly to a wall. So what you have to do is nail any specific claim when they are made, such as
Why are there no stars in the pictures the Astronauts took on the moon?
Why do you not see the astronauts holding cameras in the reflections of the helmets?
Who took the film of Neal Armstrong walking out of the lunar lander for the first time?
You cannot survive the Van Allen belt
Why do things not disappear over the horizon if the earth is round?
That person was not shot (in that news footage) because when someone is shot – blah blah blah ( i.e. in the movies ………)
The two towers (and WTC7) fell straight down – ergo controlled demolished (falling straight down is actually constant with what we know about how gravity works)
President Bush's brother was in charge of security of the two towers
Why was there no footage of the plane flying low over Washington when it hit the pentagon?
In the 70’s all the scientsist where talking about global cooling (Hands up - I actually fell for this myth)
CO2 is a “trace gas (always in quotes) hence cannot drive the earth’s climate
honest scientist never “adjust” (always in quotes) raw data - adjusting data is not how true science is done blah blah
Aircraft contrails do not persists (this belongs to a daft conspiracy theory about commercial aircraft spraying the world population and altering the weather) – just google “Chemtrails”
So conspiracy theorists love asking questions but never attempt to answer them
In all the above examples the actual answers are all pretty simple to answer and explain.
It is just that CT’ers prefer the “spookier” answer
And on the internet they find a ready supply of websites and YouTube videos willing to supply the “spooky” answer
All these nut cases rely on some basic principles – chief amongst them is simple “cherry-picking” – that means you accept the data that supports your theory (without attempting to understand the physics or simple explanation behind it) and reject ALL the rest.
And producers of these daft videos will always leave out the data that does not support their theory
So the Flat earth video – amongst a million other lines of evidence for a circular earth they wont explain how the tides work – because they can’t
the ABCD'ers (anything but carbon dioxide) brigade aka climate change deniers don't explain the mechanism by which the earth emerged from a snowball earth – because they can’t
The problem is that science counts the hits as well as the misses – cherry picking and cherry pickers will always get found out!
Sure governments keep secrets – that why, amazingly we have an “official secrets act” – duh
Sure those in power have a tendency to stick together – that’s why they seem to always be in power!!!!
Sure there have been conspiracies throughout history – Wartergate, Iran Contra, Suez Crisis, - maybe the run up to the Iraq war – let’s see what Chilcot comes up with
Remember – Keep an open mind but not so open your brains fall out.
If someone makes a claim – check it out - and does it fit ALL the data/evidence, remember the first rule of science - "though shalt not cherry-pick"
And always bear in mind the following when dealing with any weird scientific claim
Either the worlds scientist are
1. Incompetent (and some bloke in Ipswich with access to the internet has over thrown 200 of physics from his bedroom)
2. Knowingly conspiring to hide the facts from the rest of the world (aprt from the illuminati)
3. Or maybe just maybe – they know something you don’t
In 99.9% of the cases it will be 3
The problem is that it is often difficult to disprove a conspiracy theory in its entirety
They are often so wide ranging and so full of rubbish, and the proponent of a conspiracy will often simply change the goalposts when confronted with counter evidence – it is like nailing jelly to a wall. So what you have to do is nail any specific claim when they are made, such as
Why are there no stars in the pictures the Astronauts took on the moon?
Why do you not see the astronauts holding cameras in the reflections of the helmets?
Who took the film of Neal Armstrong walking out of the lunar lander for the first time?
You cannot survive the Van Allen belt
Why do things not disappear over the horizon if the earth is round?
That person was not shot (in that news footage) because when someone is shot – blah blah blah ( i.e. in the movies ………)
The two towers (and WTC7) fell straight down – ergo controlled demolished (falling straight down is actually constant with what we know about how gravity works)
President Bush's brother was in charge of security of the two towers
Why was there no footage of the plane flying low over Washington when it hit the pentagon?
In the 70’s all the scientsist where talking about global cooling (Hands up - I actually fell for this myth)
CO2 is a “trace gas (always in quotes) hence cannot drive the earth’s climate
honest scientist never “adjust” (always in quotes) raw data - adjusting data is not how true science is done blah blah
Aircraft contrails do not persists (this belongs to a daft conspiracy theory about commercial aircraft spraying the world population and altering the weather) – just google “Chemtrails”
So conspiracy theorists love asking questions but never attempt to answer them
In all the above examples the actual answers are all pretty simple to answer and explain.
It is just that CT’ers prefer the “spookier” answer
And on the internet they find a ready supply of websites and YouTube videos willing to supply the “spooky” answer
All these nut cases rely on some basic principles – chief amongst them is simple “cherry-picking” – that means you accept the data that supports your theory (without attempting to understand the physics or simple explanation behind it) and reject ALL the rest.
And producers of these daft videos will always leave out the data that does not support their theory
So the Flat earth video – amongst a million other lines of evidence for a circular earth they wont explain how the tides work – because they can’t
the ABCD'ers (anything but carbon dioxide) brigade aka climate change deniers don't explain the mechanism by which the earth emerged from a snowball earth – because they can’t
The problem is that science counts the hits as well as the misses – cherry picking and cherry pickers will always get found out!
Sure governments keep secrets – that why, amazingly we have an “official secrets act” – duh
Sure those in power have a tendency to stick together – that’s why they seem to always be in power!!!!
Sure there have been conspiracies throughout history – Wartergate, Iran Contra, Suez Crisis, - maybe the run up to the Iraq war – let’s see what Chilcot comes up with
Remember – Keep an open mind but not so open your brains fall out.
If someone makes a claim – check it out - and does it fit ALL the data/evidence, remember the first rule of science - "though shalt not cherry-pick"
And always bear in mind the following when dealing with any weird scientific claim
Either the worlds scientist are
1. Incompetent (and some bloke in Ipswich with access to the internet has over thrown 200 of physics from his bedroom)
2. Knowingly conspiring to hide the facts from the rest of the world (aprt from the illuminati)
3. Or maybe just maybe – they know something you don’t
In 99.9% of the cases it will be 3
We have gone over 911 before and I don't really want to get back into it ,
Last edited by gary77; 02 April 2016 at 11:19 AM.
02 April 2016, 11:57 AM
#158
He wins.Every other sucker who posted on this thread "fails" big time.....
Oh bugger
Oh bugger
02 April 2016, 01:09 PM
#160
Scooby Regular
I agree , but I'm not convinced on the official 911 theory , I don't have an alternative theory just questions that are hard to get answers to , if you are interested to know what the questions are take a look at architects and engineers for 911 ,
We have gone over 911 before and I don't really want to get back into it ,
We have gone over 911 before and I don't really want to get back into it ,
They just don't like them
Although if your referring to things like "some guys thinks he heard an explosion"
Or some guy says he heard a bloke say to another bloke wada wada wada
Then these don't really warrant an answer tbh
02 April 2016, 06:03 PM
#161
02 April 2016, 06:55 PM
#162
All the questions Richard Cage and his assorted fools at A&E for the truth have have been answered,
They just don't like them
Although if your referring to things like "some guys thinks he heard an explosion"
Or some guy says he heard a bloke say to another bloke wada wada wada
Then these don't really warrant an answer tbh
They just don't like them
Although if your referring to things like "some guys thinks he heard an explosion"
Or some guy says he heard a bloke say to another bloke wada wada wada
Then these don't really warrant an answer tbh
02 April 2016, 07:25 PM
#165
Scooby Regular
02 April 2016, 07:58 PM
#167
A and E don't so much have questions they feel they have good reason for a proper investigation into whether controlled demolition was used to bring down arc 1 2 and 7
You might wonder why I question what caused there destruction ,
Facts like , the BBC reporting wtc 7 collapse , before it did , the speed they fell , how the concrete turned to dust and gravel as it collapsed , and the fact it looked controlled , as in symmetrical and complete , what happened to the top portion above where the planes impacted
You might wonder why I question what caused there destruction ,
Facts like , the BBC reporting wtc 7 collapse , before it did , the speed they fell , how the concrete turned to dust and gravel as it collapsed , and the fact it looked controlled , as in symmetrical and complete , what happened to the top portion above where the planes impacted
Last edited by gary77; 02 April 2016 at 08:04 PM.
02 April 2016, 08:01 PM
#168
Scooby Regular
Because there was zero evidence for it
In the same way Dr Judy Woods theory that the twin towers we destroyed by space beams in a process called "dustification" (Google it) was not investigated
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dr+judy+wood+dustification
In the same way the Godzilla reeking havoc in uptown Manhatten (as a cause) was not investigate
There is not a shred of evidence for any of the above events
Hence they were not investigated
Anything else?
In the same way Dr Judy Woods theory that the twin towers we destroyed by space beams in a process called "dustification" (Google it) was not investigated
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dr+judy+wood+dustification
In the same way the Godzilla reeking havoc in uptown Manhatten (as a cause) was not investigate
There is not a shred of evidence for any of the above events
Hence they were not investigated
Anything else?
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 02 April 2016 at 08:10 PM.
02 April 2016, 08:10 PM
#169
Please try to control your frustration during these debates and stick to the point .
Your reply is simply , they didn't investigate it because there was zero evidence of it ,
The rest of your post I'll ignore
The evidance is the appearance of a controlled demolition , eye witness reports of explosions , there is apparently evidance .
Without an investigation how can you find evidence ?
Your reply is simply , they didn't investigate it because there was zero evidence of it ,
The rest of your post I'll ignore
The evidance is the appearance of a controlled demolition , eye witness reports of explosions , there is apparently evidance .
Without an investigation how can you find evidence ?
02 April 2016, 08:13 PM
#170
Scooby Regular
A and E don't so much have questions they feel they have good reason for a proper investigation into whether controlled demolition was used to bring down arc 1 2 and 7
You might wonder why I question what caused there destruction ,
Facts like , the BBC reporting wtc 7 collapse , before it did , the speed they fell , how the concrete turned to dust and gravel as it collapsed , and the fact it looked controlled , as in symmetrical and complete , what happened to the top portion above where the planes impacted
You might wonder why I question what caused there destruction ,
Facts like , the BBC reporting wtc 7 collapse , before it did , the speed they fell , how the concrete turned to dust and gravel as it collapsed , and the fact it looked controlled , as in symmetrical and complete , what happened to the top portion above where the planes impacted
02 April 2016, 08:17 PM
#171
Scooby Regular
Okay re the BBC and WT7
A simple miss reporting of one aspect of the biggest news story in a 100 years
Even Dylan Avery the producer of loose change says it is bollox
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor...acies_iii.html
"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."
I put this to the writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery. I asked whether he believed the BBC was part of the conspiracy. Given the question his film had posed about the BBC I was surprised by Dylan's response: "Of course not, that's ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it?"
A simple miss reporting of one aspect of the biggest news story in a 100 years
Even Dylan Avery the producer of loose change says it is bollox
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor...acies_iii.html
"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."
I put this to the writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery. I asked whether he believed the BBC was part of the conspiracy. Given the question his film had posed about the BBC I was surprised by Dylan's response: "Of course not, that's ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it?"
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 02 April 2016 at 08:22 PM.
02 April 2016, 08:35 PM
#174
Scooby Regular
Reuters (an international new agency) was the source of the story, based on confused reports from the ground
Do you accept that? Or are Reuters part of the conspiracy?
02 April 2016, 08:46 PM
#176
Scooby Regular
Driving around the M25 on Tuesday a week ago
Listening to radio 5
Reports came in of an "explosion" at the Brussels airport. The BBC. then reported just 3 causalities
It turned out more than that, and in fact there were 2 explosions and many more were killed
Were the BBC part of a conspiracy or simply reporting fast moving events
Listening to radio 5
Reports came in of an "explosion" at the Brussels airport. The BBC. then reported just 3 causalities
It turned out more than that, and in fact there were 2 explosions and many more were killed
Were the BBC part of a conspiracy or simply reporting fast moving events
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 02 April 2016 at 08:47 PM.
02 April 2016, 08:55 PM
#177
Yes mistakes are made , that doesn't mean they are all ways done so innocently
To clarify how the BBC report came about
From BBC website
turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:
"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."
Only 20mins to early
To clarify how the BBC report came about
From BBC website
turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:
"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."
Only 20mins to early
02 April 2016, 09:01 PM
#178
Scooby Regular
Yes in a fast moving story mistakes in reporting are made as the full picture becomes clear
Your claim is that it is evidence of a conspiracy and controlled demolition - what real evidence do you have
Your claim is that it is evidence of a conspiracy and controlled demolition - what real evidence do you have
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 02 April 2016 at 09:03 PM.
02 April 2016, 09:14 PM
#180
this is what I said
You might wonder why I question what caused there destruction ,
Facts like , the BBC reporting wtc 7 collapse , before it did , the speed they fell , how the concrete turned to dust and gravel as it collapsed , and the fact it looked controlled , as in symmetrical and complete , what happened to the top portion above where the planes impacted
I never claimed to have evidence, aalso I've never claimed to know what happened
You might wonder why I question what caused there destruction ,
Facts like , the BBC reporting wtc 7 collapse , before it did , the speed they fell , how the concrete turned to dust and gravel as it collapsed , and the fact it looked controlled , as in symmetrical and complete , what happened to the top portion above where the planes impacted
I never claimed to have evidence, aalso I've never claimed to know what happened
Last edited by gary77; 02 April 2016 at 09:16 PM.